Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 9 February	11 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollies: Their Twenty Greatest Hits[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable compilation album. Fails WP:NALBUM Vanjagenije (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is not even an assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Fighter Vodka[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find no evidence of notability. Posted by user with WP:COI user name. The prize was for ~~an ad~~labeling and packaging, not for the company per se, and the reference given in connection with the prize has no information about the company. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Not finding much in terms of coverage in reliable sources. Mostly just passing mentions in unreliable sources about the design of the container (e.g. www.scoop.it/t/inthedrinknyc/p/2202961245/2012/07/19/fire-fighter-vodka-creative-package-design). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that GNG is satisfied regardless of whether NMODEL is. ThaddeusB is correct as to why BLP1E doesn't apply here. postdlf (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Bolte[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E. Other then winning a state title her claim to fame is riding a horse at University. Legacypac (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: There is discussion related to a batch of AFDs, I think all about model articles created by one editor, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Somewhat related, new AFDs (but these are for model articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 22:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete winning state title is not good enough to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Different list of winners, different year. I only renommined the first 8 off the closed group AfD to start with. This and others have the same problem but are different. Sure would be easier to deal with these in batches, would save DGG from needing to posting the same incorrect message so many times. Legacypac (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10~~, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability~~, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT one of the articles created by one editor said to be a sock/SPA, who created the articles in 8 renominations. This article created by someone else. --do ncr am 05:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was me thinking you had something better to do .... Clearly not!. –Davey2010^Talk 05:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of "votes" above show any evidence of considering Audrey Bolte specifically, besides the nom itself which mentions her horse-riding. Google news search on Audrey Bolte linked above yields a number of hits. Her ditzy answer on some question about women prostitutes as role models was picked up in news coverage, including as far away as this New Zealand article "Top five beauty pageant fails". Infamy = fame, maybe this makes her notable. --do ncr am 05:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if this article is kept, that quote has to go in it. Awesome! Legacypac (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have just added a number of references from reliable third-party sources, only some of which reference her Pretty Woman gaffe. (Reading the articles, it seems there's a great explanation: the contestants had just seen the movie as a group. Without giving the incident WP:UNDUE weight, it should make for an informative short paragraph in the article.) The article still needs re-writing (and I'm working on that) but sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG are now present. - Dravecky (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that paragraph would be interesting, if the article is kept. I hope pageant organizers take note, and have the ditzes watch Erin Brockovich (film), say, instead. But, her praising a prostitute as a role model, or being put into a position where she makes such a comment, is not really anything to establish individual article topic notability (not saying you are arguing that). --do ncr am 21:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the sources establishing notability. Like editor Johnpacklambert argues in similar AFD for Ashleigh Lollie, it is not enough if there is coverage in several local news sources, if the person is just being recognized for one event. The person is not permanently in the news. And, wp:NMODEL is not met. --doncram 21:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NMODEL does not override WP:GNG and the WP:NTEMP guideline explicitly states that notability is not temporary and there is no need for ongoing coverage for a person to be notable. - Dravecky (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there is wp:GNG, within the general notability guidelines. But, the more specific guidelines on notability for persons has section wp:ONEEVENT, which applies directly: a person mentioned for just one event, should be covered in nn article about the event. I.E., an article about the pageant. It is a mechanical fact that if there is a beauty pageant whose ostensible purpose is to select a winner, there will be a winner. That does not make the winner, who is perhaps randomly chosen, herself notable. Which pageant are we talking about, anyhow? I am not totally opposed to there being a redirect to Miss Universe or to Miss Universe 2014 or whatever is the corresponding pageant. It's a different question, at the pageant article, whether it should bother to mention this person, but that can be left to editors there. --doncram 23:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any one-event concerns are easily overcome by the fact that she's covered for her participation in the Miss Ohio USA pageant and then, many months later, the Miss USA 2012 pageant. That's two notable events, plus coverage for other activities other than the pageants themselves. That a contest results in a winner is just as true of presidential elections, Super Bowls, and the Academy Awards. Notability is not itself a competition so crossing the threshold is sufficient to prove notability. - Dravecky (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not correct. The winner of a presidential election is always notable for many more things then winning. The winner of the Super Bowl is a team obviously notable long before they win the Super Bowl. An Academy Award requires a carrier far greater than winning a single event pageant. A state level pageant is more on par with the state fair rodeo or a tractor pull then winning the White House. Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has received significant RS coverage by a variety of publications and the article is in good shape. BLP1E does not apply - the guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news story, not to say we can't have a bio about people known primarily for one thing (which is the vast majority of all notable people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a good list of reliable sources in the article. Wincent77 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as G12 (copy vio). Diannaa (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seemi Zaidi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a unotable actress. The ref is also completely the same as this article. (Granted it is rather short though) Wgolf (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - entire article constitutes WP:COPYVIO or WP:PARAPHRASE. Additionally, Zaidi fails WP:NACTOR. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Yeah when I looked her up I was going "wow one film!" Wgolf (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - blatant first person advertising. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ieeca[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability from reliable sources. However, a fundamental rewrite may make this keepable material. smileguy91^talk 23:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia isn't the place for spam. Additionally, the article fails WP:ORGDEPTH. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Fleisher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person with no strong claim to passing Wikipedia's inclusion rules for businesspeople — starting your own business at age 17 is not in and of itself a notability freebie if the business isn't notable enough to get over WP:CORP. Of the article's four sources, #1 is his own website, a primary source that cannot confer notability; #2 is a video clip in which he's the interviewee rather than the subject of the piece, which accordingly does not count toward notability either; and #4 is a straight reprint of #3 in a news aggregator. Which leaves us with one appropriately reliable source (#3), but one source is not enough to get a person over WP:GNG. In addition, with the article having been created by User:Investor101, there's a high probability of conflict of interest here — especially with the creator also uploading a photo of the subject with the credit given as "own work". A very similar version created by User:Financefinance (also suggesting a COI), worded differently and entirely unreferenced but still based on the same weak notability claim, was speedied in October for lacking a serious claim of notability. Since this one at least has an actual reference in it, it's not quite eligible for the same treatment — but it's still a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (comment) @ 13:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be deleted. For the tv thing yes he was the interviewee but he was also the subject. He was also talked about in an article from Ozy recently http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/fun-futuristic-ways-to-invest/38138 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.48.47 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 99.226.48.47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I suppose that might count for something if Ozy.com counted as a reliable source at all. And an interview never counts toward notability at all — because of the self-promotional aspect, it's valid for additional confirmation of facts after you've adequately covered off the notability issue with enough sources to pass GNG, but it counts for exactly zero toward the meeting of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well then is USA Today a reliable source? http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/01/27/ozy-investment-education-geared-toward-millennials/22402783/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.48.47 (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - surely the Telepgraph source is reliable Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't — but it takes significantly more than one or two sources to claim a WP:GNG pass. If the person hasn't cleanly passed a subject-specific inclusion rule, then there have to be a lot more than just one or two RS to claim notability on "just because media coverage exists" grounds. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reason he's attracted minor press attention is for being a wunderkind doing something otherwise ordinary and non-notable: playing the stock market. Pax 01:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in an AfD discussion I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stinson Hunter, a Keep vote was made with the comment "Well-known enough to be the subject of a recent documentary on national television". Fleisher was the subject of a live prime time television interview so if it applies to that AfD it should apply here too. Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a full-fledged half-hour or longer documentary, in which other people are talking about you, and merely being an interview guest, in which you're speaking about yourself, in a segment on a news program. For instance, you don't have to be well-known to be an interview guest on the news — all you have to do is be involved in the topic under discussion in some way. And even in Hunter's case, my read on the situation is that regardless of whether you accept the documentary itself as sufficient notability, the resulting Wikipedia article still isn't reliably sourced enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More reliable sources have been added since it was originally put on AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.48.47 (talk)
Delete - There is not enough here to meet notability standards for Wikipedia. The mention in USA Today is just a mention. The "wunderkind" angle is more human interest than solid news. There are probably tens of thousands of individual investors who had, in the short term, doubled their initial investment. Let's check back on this fellow in ten years and see if he's done something significant. LaMona (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that he did this at the age of 17 is what makes it notable. There are many adults that double their money investing and aren't in the news, but Brandon is due to excelling at such a young age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Investor101 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling your money in the stock-market is not difficult; all that is required is insane luck and gigantic balls...or inside knowledge. Keeping your doubled money *is* difficult. (It took him a year? Pbsth. I doubled my money in ten minutes once going all-in on leveraged ETFs pre-open once. -Did I keep it? Noooo....) At any given moment, anyone can look like a genius playing roulette. Pax 01:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the habitually-unsigning IP address 99.226.48.47 (as well as others at the article itself) and the SPA "Investor101" are the same person, I advise fessing up and striking out some commentary and duplicate voting right now, before someone decides a checkuser analysis is warranted on the appropriate sockpuppet noticeboards. Pax 01:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about Fleisher rises to the level of being truly notable. He is a run of the mill investor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Running a business and investing at 17 sounds notable to me. I see he has been in The Telegraph (Biggest Newspaper in the UK), USA Today (3rd largest newspaper in the USA), and Metro (one of the biggest newspapers in Canada) and also being interviewed about himself on TV. 50.75.232.86 (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and should be on Wikipedia IMO but should be written better. I think its suitable for wiki if it gets a major edit or rewrite. 65.124.181.96 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Snaefell Mountain Course. Per WP:ATD, in the future please use normal channels of editing and discussion for proposing or executing mergers. postdlf (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Bends[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bends in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Snaefell Mountain Course. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: @Doncram: This appears to be part of the series mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man. Is it, or are there other issues here? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Snaefell Mountain Course. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There was no express support shown for the nominator's merging suggestion, which can still be considered through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Milestone[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable road sign. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--do ncr am 20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --do ncr am 20:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, per results of other related AFDs. Nakon 21:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birkin's Bend[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bend in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--do ncr am 20:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Snaefell Mountain Course. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cajole) @ 15:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The debate about keeping individual very well known places on the Isle of Man TT course and not moving them to the article about Snaefell Mountain Course can be found at deletion discussions for the Windy Corner, Isle of Man. agljones (talk)Agljones 15:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --do ncr am 20:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The debate about the contents of the article of Snaefell Mountain Course and the issue of deleting non-notable articles and moving non-trivial information to the same article can be found at deletion discussions for the Windy Corner, Isle of Man. The rewritten and restyled Snaefell Mountain Course has been more successful and removing the problems of inaccurate information and plagiarism and the article has been translated into other languages. Moving the non-trivial information would create an over-large and also unreadable article, repeating previous mistakes and some of the non-trivial but not all has already been paraphrased in the Snaefell Mountain Course article. Many of the articles that have been subject to an AFD process can be seen as 'stand-alone' articles and Wikipedia frowns against orphan articles and as another editor observed that these articles about the Snaefell Mountain Course/Isle of Man TT/Manx Grand Prix fit together like pieces in a jigsaw. Wikipedia is an interactive and proactive process and provides encyclopaedic value and as I have previously stated, I am not against either reduction in the number of articles or a rationalisation process. However, Wikipedia does suggest that there are other process to improve articles rather than repeatedly subjected articles to an AFD process when there is no issue of notability or no issue of original research. Other articles have been deleted retrospectively without being subjected to the AFD process. The problems of the same equivalent articles on Wikipedia Nederlands or Wikipedia Deutschland with issues of plagiarism have not been subjected to the same AFD process. (talk)Agljones 17:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is no policy/guideline-supported consensus that notability is satisfied here. The individual's pageant win does not satisfy subject-specific notability guidelines, and the only sources offered are contemporaneous reports of that win. postdlf (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Fletcher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [1] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation of the user's ban.[2] Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 22:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep because the nominator fails to give a reason for deletion. The nominator only brings up WP:DENY and if the article fails that, then he has no rationale....William 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, wp:DENY does apply, right? Or at least you have not disagreed with that. And, the nominator did link to previous nomination, where they argue that the subject does not meet wp:NMODEL. I kinda think the nmodel reasoning could have been explicitly stated here, too, but they did link, and it did save space, and it is valid reasoning, in addition to the wp:DENY reasoning. --do ncr am 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the Group AfD where there are a bunch of good reasons stated by a bunch of editors over a 10 day period. This article would have been deleted except that the closing admin wanted the names dealt with one by one. So, this article fails all WP inclusion criteria just like all the the sister articles of other contestants in the same Miss USA contest in the same year. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, ~~All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests,~~ No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets and passes WP:GNG WordSeventeen (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, what reliable source, if any, do you mean supports this article? For anything going over one event? I note your similar vote rationale at others in this batch, without substantial support provided. --do ncr am 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stand by my vote here and at any other AFD's. The article passes WP:GNG. There is more than one event, and more than one reference with verifiable reliable sources. I will not be bullied regarding my vote. I have provided substantial support regarding my vote. You are mistaken Doncram. WordSeventeen (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more WP:ROUTINE mentions of the same event does not solve the problem. You have not supported your vote to keep. Legacypac (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WordSeventeen - Stating Keep without providing a source doesn't hold much weight here so thus it may end up being disregarded altogether by the closing admin, No one's bullying you we're simply helping you out...... –Davey2010^Talk 15:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per John Pack Lambert's comment in the similar Ashleigh Lollie AFD (linked above), that this person is not in the news in any permanent way, there is just the one event. I agree, there's no indication this person is in the news for anything more than one event. I don't see substantial coverage in the article, or in the Google News search linked above. It would not suffice if her winning a state-wide crown was reported in several local papers. It won't change if there's local coverage of her appearing at local events, as part of the one-year "reign" as Miss whatever is her title. It's still one event; it's appropriate to draw the line that this level does NOT merit coverage in an encyclopedia. Also she does not meet wp:NMODEL, per the nomination. --do ncr am 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources already in the article are reliable and sufficient to establish notability, IMO. BLP1E does not apply as it is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news stories, not prevent bios of people know only for one thing (which is the vast majority of notable people). ROUTINE is a section of the event notability guidelines. There is no consensus is applies to people, nor would I consider the coverage here routine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person has a passing presence that will prevent us from keeping the article up to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per Wikipedia's main Notability guideline, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." - Dravecky (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient sourcing to pass WP:BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No opinion on a proper redirect target. postdlf (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzy Olsen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [3] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation if the user's ban.[4] Content may even be machine created. Legacypac (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 22:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep because the nominator fails to give a reason for deletion. The nominator only brings up WP:DENY and if the article fails that, then he has no rationale....William 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the linked previous AFD, the nom argued that the subject does not meet wp:NMODEL, and notes that NMODEL requires that a person a) Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, b) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, or c) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. --do ncr am 15:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, ~~All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests,~~ No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there's plenty of coverage about different person indie film and Godzilla (2014 film) actress Elizabeth Olsen, younger sister of twins Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen, who is also known as "Lizzie" or "Lizzy", I can find NO coverage of the AFD subject in Google news search. It is only according to the thepageantnetwork link included in the article that one could have any idea that the subject won Miss Washington DC USA in December 2014. That link shows her pic, clearly different person than the notable actress. Fails to meet wp:NMODEL; has not yet had the "substantial subsequent career" that DGG notes would be necessary. --do ncr am 15:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss District of Columbia USA with no bias against creating a proper article later if sources emerge. At current, however, there is not enough to support an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment, of redirecting to a state list-article. But here, redirecting this name to actress Elizabeth Olsen would be more justified. The actress appears to be the person more likely sought by a reader searching on "Lizzy Olsen". I stay with my "Delete" vote above. --do ncr am 22:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for me - use this title as a redirect to the actress. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on WP:BIO grounds and concur with Redirect to Elizabeth Olsen --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Defaults to keep. Nakon 02:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Guthrie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renominate for deletion per rational and consensus at [5] Doing individual nominations as per User:DGG. Legacypac (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups this way is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, ~~All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests,~~ No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone let me know when this complete and utter flood of AFDs for barely notable (if at all) bikini-wearing trivialities (Take this as a Delete 'em all vote) has gone away so it's safe to follow the Fashion AFD page again? Mabalu (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is the focus of in depth coverage by reliable third-party sources, including The Tuscaloosa News and AXS TV, and crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds of WP:GNG. - Dravecky (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "In depth coverage" from a local paper called Tuscaloosa News [6] that currently lists these routine stories as must reads? "Bibb County scores game's lone basket in 2-0 win over Brookwood-New park in Northport to provide a hidden urban oasis-Girl, 4, dies in house fire in Duncanville-Pulitzer Prize-winner Rick Bragg to speak Feb. 11 at University of Alabama" type and where today's top story is that Girl Scout Cookies just arrived in town [7] the paper does some good work but WP:ROUTINE coverage does not meet the rule that "topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of note or notice; remarkable" WP:BIO Legacypac (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most newspapers carry a wide variety of stories, such as "Shops Prepare for Tie-Ins to ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ Film" and "Texas Chili Makes a Welcome Guest" currently on the main page of the online edition of The New York Times. The Tuscaloosa News article is not the mundane coverage that's described by WP:ROUTINE. - Dravecky (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is coverage in a local paper does not establish notability for WP, and those articles don't support WP articles either. WP:ROUTINE specifically says "This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award)" which is exactly what a local person winning a award (crown/title/sash whatever) at a pageant is. Legacypac (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has numerous references to third party reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG as well, the subject has achieved notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable source coverage exists (and is included in the article) to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even her two points of note are not enough. In 50 years we will still have no more recent information than that she is a community college student. We need to limit articles to people who we can keep current information on, and she is not one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may quote WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." - Dravecky (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Routine coverage of a local person winning an award is not 'significant coverage'. An entertainer or WP:NMODEL would be the subject of ongoing coverage - which this subject is not. Legacypac (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're stating opinion. I'm quoting an actual guideline. - Dravecky (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I am Quoting WP:ROUTINE. A local person winning an award is the second example given. Your total and repeated misrepresentation of both the guidelines and other user's points is unsettling. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:ROUTINE is a subset of the Wikipedia:Notability (events) policy which is about events, not people. Madison Guthrie is not an event; she is a person. She is covered by Wikipedia:Notability (people), not the one about events. - Dravecky (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For an Admin your misrepresentation of policy is scary. If I spot you doing this again I will do something about it. The event is ROUTINE and limited notability. If you can't find more then routine coverage of the event including the winner it fails. I believe that all the delete votes on the previous AFD should be considered as that one was closed against concensus on a procedural opinion. There was even a debate about the closure but the Admin insisted on relisting. If the closer does not consider that concensus the people who participated should all be notified so they can participate here. Same goes for the related linked AFDs. 18 editors participated before but far fewer here, and with bad application of policy. Legacypac (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, asI understand it the policy applying the equivalent of ROUTINE to BLP is BLP1E. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened This AFD was closed by a non-administrator and then re-opened by that person, upon my request, as I felt it didn't meet criteria for wp:NAC(?) non-admin closure. I mention this because I am voting below, after that. --do ncr am 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, probably to Miss Alabama USA. The two points of note mentioned seem to be her winning Miss Alabama USA and looking "hot" in an ESPN commercial. I tend to think just winning a state contest and being given some automatic coverage should not suffice; it is predictable and not news that someone wins, and it does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia to foolishly provide promotion for a manufactured, temporary persona. The ESPN commercial appearance is insignificant, IMO, but can be mentioned along with other brief details about her in the table of Miss Alabama USA winners, within Miss Alabama USA. A redirect could go to a wp:anchor in her row in the table. --do ncr am 18:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Defaults to keep. Nakon 02:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Wiser[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [8] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: There is discussion related to a batch of AFDs, I think all about model articles created by one editor, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Somewhat related, new AFDs (but these are for model articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 22:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2010 by User:MissAmericaGirl who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does a couple short and WP:ROUTINE articles in the Billings Gazette establish notability? That site's current "hot topics" are Shooting at hospital-Boy Scout theft-Closed restaurants-Mountain lion video-Heights stabbing-Rape charge [9] none of which sound notable enough outside Billings for a Wikipeia article. I did learn she beat 12 other girls to get her crown in Montana. Is that lasting notability? ttacking my credibility with copy paste crap posts is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the integrity of the encyclopedia with a volume of copy-paste nominations hinged on an untruth about the creators of the articles in question is "not cool". Snide comments about the news in Billings are distractions, not arguments based on facts or policy. - Dravecky (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions, not based on facts or policy, were soundly rejected in the Group AfD. You wanted to deal with these one by one, now you call that attacking the integrity of the encyclopedia? That kind of attack is dangerous. The sourcing to a local news site in Billings is truly underwhelming and clearly WP:ROUTINE. Legacypac (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is a subset of the Wikipedia:Notability (events) policy. Which is about events, not people. Brittany Wiser is not an event; she is a person. She is covered by Wikipedia:Notability (people), not the one about events. - Dravecky (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to present you an argument based on facts then, Dravecky. I just looked back over your cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. You made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. You cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith. Would you care to reconsider? Ravenswing 03:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups this way is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep on an invalid deletion rationale. The subject here has won the Miss Montana contest in 2009 and the Miss Montana USA in 2011, and made appearances on national television in both the Miss America 2010 and Miss USA 2011 national contests, so how anyone could think that BLP1E could possibly apply here defies belief. In the United States, most beauty pageant contestants are not professional models, nor will they ever become professional models, so the WP:NMODEL guideline really isn't applicable at all here. WP:ROUTINE, cited above, applies only to events, not to people. Finally, as noted by Dravecky, above, the accusation that this article was created by a sock is flat-out untrue, and is in total violation of both WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update Thanks to the excellent research work done by Dravecky, this article now clearly passes WP:GNG. And, once again, I note that BLP1E does not apply, especially in this case, as there are 4 different, significant events that the subject of this article has been involved in. BLP1E, as it's name suggests, only requires that there be more than one (i.e., two). Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've only nominated 10 8 from the batch of 50 so far. Two others were deleted already based on other's actions. There are thousands on these article created by socks or SPAs. If at a time is too many, how many can we go through at a time again? Ejgreen77 - you can't have it both ways. If they are models they fail model. If they are just high school or university students like you argued elsewhere, they are notable for a single event or at best a couple events. Interestingly they are often referred to by their title, not their name, decreasing their notability. I've also discovered that many state level, and for most countries, county level "winners" are simply appointed by a modeling agency to be Miss Whatever at the pageant. These are private businesses and we could create a Miss Wikipedia World Contest, appoint editors to it to represent places, and select a winner on some arbitrary basis. Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, ~~All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests,~~ No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of the three sources in the article, the first is a broken link, the second is a fleeting mention the sum total of which is "Brittany Wiser of Bozeman is the new Miss Montana. Wiser claimed the 60th annual crown Saturday night," and the third not only comes from the same source, but is the only legit source extant, and runs afoul of WP:GEOSCOPE. A Highbeam search for "Brittany Wiser" turns up only a press release, which is explicitly debarred from proving notability. This is an obvious GNG failure. Ravenswing 03:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has several references to verifiable reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG in my view. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You do understand that the GNG requires multiple verifiable, reliable sources, and not just multiple citations? There are only three references in the article. The first is a broken link which cannot be verified. The second two are the same source. Unless there are other sources you would care to post, this is a demonstrable GNG failure. Ravenswing 05:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC

Comment Ravenswing, your comment above is a rather condescending statement. Passes WP:GNG is my vote as above. WordSeventeen (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You need to prove it passes GNG by finding and adding sources here... Your comment pretty much equates to Keep because it's notable and thus is pretty much going to be ignored. –Davey2010^Talk 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been explained over and over in this pages discussion that there are numerous references (15 now) that are reliable and verifiable sources. They include several newspapers, a magazine and various other websites that follow pageants and the like. I stand by my vote and statement that this article subject passes WP:GNG and achieves notability easily. I am not worried about your opinion Davey2010 that my vote won't count. My vote is based on guidelines and policies at WP and it will count. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small point: the 5th one of the current 15 sources doesn't mention Brittany Wiser at all, but rather is used to support another point (the Cole, Erin (July 6, 2010). "An Uphill Climb for Miss Montana" source). I haven't checked them all. --do ncr am 18:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have added a number of reliable sources to the article and used them to expand and improve this biography. While some sources are brief mentions included for purposes of verifiability, a sufficient number of them provide the in-depth coverage of the subject required by WP:GNG. I respectfully request that any editor who may have previously !voted to review the article as it now stands and reconsider their evaluation. - Dravecky (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject has received RS coverage by a variety of publications and the article is in good shape. BLP1E does not apply - the guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news story, not to say we can't have a bio about people known primarily for one thing (which is the vast majority of all notable people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E applies. This should be included in the article about the event. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained why it doesn't apply - a pageant is not a new event that people accidentally get caught up in. The participants are either notable or not on the basis of coverage (i.e. not automatically notable, not automatically non-notable). The guideline is intended to cover things like a natural disaster where someone is in the news as a hero, or a scandal where someone is in the news as a victim, not competitions. Even if it did apply, that would be an argument to merge, not delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening: Doncram has asked me to re-open this discussion. Accept my apologies if my closure was inappropriate. -- Sam ^Sing! 00:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am on the fence about whether this should be kept or deleted/merged/redirected. I tend to think just winning a state contest and being given some automatic coverage should not suffice; it is predictable and not news that someone wins, and it does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia to foolishly provide promotion for a manufactured, temporary persona. Being covered in multiple state/local news stories for what is essentially one event, does not suffice, in my opinion. A winner of just one state tournament should be covered in the article about the state tournament, and their info merged/redirected to there. This subject won 2 separate Montana state tournaments though, and it is not as clean to say the article should be redirected to just one of the Miss Montana and Miss Montana USA articles. I'd be interested to hear specific suggestions about merging/redirecting and where she should be covered, if not in an individual article. --do ncr am 18:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope any closing decision can discuss the quality of delete vs. keep vs. merge/redirect arguments, not just plunge for one. I did ask editor Sam Sailor, who did a non-admin close on this AFD, to re-open it, because I think it is not an obvious decision to make, IMO. --do ncr am 18:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since she's won 2 titles, I think it establishes notability & makes me feel WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Channing Pierce[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [10] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. If she appeared in a movie she was not credited, or even listed as having any role I could find. She got to meet Donald Trump with 50 other girls at once in NY though. Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2010 by User:Masanook who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups this way is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As far as Dravecky's heated Keep arguments go, I just looked back at his cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. He made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. He cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that.
Examining the article on the actual merits, the sources presented are garbage. Two are blog sites, the third is IMDB and the fourth is the subject's Twitter feed. The second two purportedly support the subject's appearance in a movie, but looking over the IMDB cast list, I agree with the nom that the subject isn't listed, even in the uncredited section, and I'm removing those two sources. A Highbeam search turns up only a single hit in The Arab-American News, the sum total of which is "The Michigan representative for this year's pageant is 24year-old Channing Pierce of Royal Oak." As I'm sure we all know, a one-sentence reference is explicitly debarred by the GNG as supportive of notability. And that's it. I would be very interested where these sources are that Dravecky claims support notability, because even the most casual of glances would alert all but the most inexperienced of users to their flaws. I'm comfortable with calling his Keep vote having been made in bad faith. Ravenswing 03:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miss Michigan USA with no prejudice against building it into a proper article later. Subject might be notable, but the current referencing does not prove it. That doesn't mean we can't have a paragraph about Pierce at a broader article, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've no objection to a merge to a list on that main article. Ravenswing 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: None of the new sources added strike me as making Pierce "obviously notable". I think merge is probably still the best option, but wouldn't object to a keep. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Dravecky "subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG" WordSeventeen (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I have thoroughly rewritten this article, incorporating multiple reliable third-party sources (and removing some of the questionable blog sources), pushing it across the WP:GNG thresholds for verifiability and notability. - Dravecky (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lissette Garcia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [11] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2010 by User:MissAmericaGirl who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has evently not checked the article. The creators username is a strong clue that they are part of the corporate article building effort, even if this acct was not caught and banned. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, the Miss America and Miss USA organizations are not related. Second, an editor's username doesn't always speak to their origins or motivations. (Or does "Legacypac" represent a conservative political action committee, as the name suggests, not a person?) Third, an article created 4.5 years ago by an uninvolved editor is by definition not part of a "mass creation of articles" by a "sock farm". - Dravecky (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I insist that you withdraw your insinuation that I am related to a PAC formed years AFTER I choose my username. As an Admin you should know better then to throw up such suggestions. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such insinuation as my whole point is that it's ridiculous to attempt to divine motive or identity from a username as you chose to with regards to User:MissAmericaGirl. For the record, I don't think you're a political organization nor is MissAmericaGirl part of "the corporate article building effort" that wasn't "caught and banned" as you accused the user. It's likely an apology is in order but it's to MissAmericaGirl. - Dravecky (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As far as Dravecky's heated Keep arguments go, I just looked back at his cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. He made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. He cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith.
Examining the article on the actual merits, the sources presented are primary and promotional pageant websites, other than this "firstcoastnews.com" link, which is broken. A Highbeam search for "Lissette Garcia" + Florida turns up nothing, and I'm really interested in hearing from Dravecky what significant coverage in reliable sources he claims to have found. Obvious GNG failure. Ravenswing 04:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Dravecky "subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG." There are a total of seven references in the article across numerous sources. Notability has been achieved. In addition, I have researched numerous of the beauty pageant AFD subjects that this nominator put up in 2-3 minutes apart. I have easily found numerous verifiable reliable sources quite easily for every one I have researched by simply typing the names in google. It really strains my AGF to believe that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE before nominating all these articles for AFD. WordSeventeen (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even with various appearances in barely notable events, she still has had no significant role or coverage. Mentions in the press are not enough to establish GNG, and she fails the objective criteria for entertainers (not just models) etc at WP:NMODEL. You can't prove otherwise, and your opinion is just not enough when all you can find is WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event(s) that just mention her name. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The first source is pretty good - it's reliable and biographical. The rest are either questionable (for length or reliability) or not-independent, but collectively land me on the side of keep, just barely. An equally acceptable alternative would be to merge the material to Miss Florida USA. Either way, the content should be [[WP:|PRESERVE]]d. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Subject is found to meet the requirements at WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Allen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [12] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. (Clarify that the sockmaster has been found to encourage subjects to create articles about themselves or have connected people do it. This appears to be created by the article subject herself. ) Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in November 2011 by User:Halen6 who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident this user did not even look at the article and is copy pasting the same attack against me. The group nomination was consensus delete but User:DGG decided to keep based on an opinion about how bundling should be done. Please look at this article on its merits, or complete lack thereof. "Fremont County’s Community News Stream" talking about her speaking at a Rotary meeting does not establish notability, and neither does the home page of corporate promoter sites do much for us. Legacypac (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for pointing out the creator of Holly Allen is Hallen6 who only edited this article and the related one for the title, including introducing copyvio twice. I can't see any possible self-promotion or corporate promotion going on here, and no possible connection between Holly Allan and Hallen6.

Legacypac (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I am quite comfortable with calling this a COI. The three personal shots in the article were all submitted by Hallen6, and one of them -- [[File:Holly_Allen,_2011.jpg]] -- has under Source "My camera," and under Author, "Holly Allen." Ravenswing 04:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As far as Dravecky's heated Keep arguments go, I just looked back at his cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. He made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. He cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith.
Examining the article on the actual merits, I agree with the nom that there are none. There are only two sources listed, the second one being a broken link, and the first one being (a) an obvious press release, which (b) is the sort of ephemeral coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE, and (c) is to county10.com, "Fremont County’s Community News Stream," with no indication as to how it might qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS. In any event, a single source, even if it were a 5,000 word article in the New York Times, does not qualify under the GNG, and I could find no others: "Holly Allen" + Wyoming turned up a goose egg on Highbeam, which is unusual ... you'd think that a name as common as "Holly Allen" would turn up something in a state even as small as Wyoming. I would be happy to hear from Dravecky as to what sources he was referring when he claimed that the subject "meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG." Ravenswing 04:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have researched and added two more verifiable reliable sources to this article. There are now a total of four references including a newspaper, two radio station news sites as well as a news stream site. With references across numerous verifiable and reliable sources this article passes WP:GNG. Also, I have researched numerous of the beauty pageant AFD subjects that this nominator put up in 2-3 minutes apart. I have easily found numerous verifiable reliable sources quite easily for every one I have researched by simply typing the names in google. It really strains my WP:AGF to believe that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE before nominating all these articles for AFD. WordSeventeen (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For my part, I'd like to know where these verifiable, reliable sources which supposedly pass the GNG are. One of the citations you added was a broken link, and I questioned whether you looked at it at all before just cutting-and-pasting it in. The other is (a) a blatant press release of (b) only two paragraphs which (c) doesn't discuss the subject in any detail, let alone the "significant detail" the GNG requires: the only two sentences which mention the subject at all are "Holly Allen of Lander was crowned Miss Wyoming USA®" (yes, closing admin, the trademark symbol was in the press release) and "Holly and Sydney will each receive thousands of dollars in prizes and awards." When added to the broken link already of the four sources in the article?
I've no objection to trying to source the article; I've big objections to adding junk sources and declaring that the one who didn't do his job here was the nominator. Ravenswing 05:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not add a broken link. It was working when I checked it. In bad faith you Ravenswing said, "I questioned whether you looked at it at all before just cutting-and-pasting it in." That is pure bad faith. I changed the link in the reference - the source website looks to have changed indexing of the stories. The story was there all along. The internet and websites are like that at times. AGF is always better than bad faith. WordSeventeen (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG with multiple citations in reliable, third-party sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject meets WP:GNG per reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - sourcing is probably sufficient to meet the GNG, but given the minimal content a merge to Miss Wyoming USA would be equally viable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gentry Miller[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, poorly sourced and part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [13] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in June 2007 by User:Pageantqueen87 who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I have found numerous references from reliable third-party sources published around the world for this subject and have used them to improve sourcing for this article. - Dravecky (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good you provided some ROUTINE human interest stories and/or press release efforts. How is she notable again? Legacypac (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She won the Miss Kansas Teen USA pageant then six years later won the Miss Kansas USA pageant, both of which garnered national and international recognition. These events are far from what's described in WP:ROUTINE. - Dravecky (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Dravecky "subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG." The references for the subject include three local and state newspapers, a television station, plus two international newspapers. As Dravecky has done here, I have researched numerous of the beauty pageant AFD subjects that this nominator put up in 2-3 minutes apart. I have easily found numerous verifiable reliable sources quite easily for every one I have researched by simply typing the names in google. It really strains my AGF to believe that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE before nominating all these batched articles for AFD. WordSeventeen (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Mountenay[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biography fails to establish notability. I looked for better sourcing but found nothing. The existing references are WP:PRIMARY sources in which Mountenay is speaking, so they cannot be used to establish notability. What are needed are secondary sources describing Mountenay's life and career in depth. The closest source to that goal is the Twitch Film review. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not seem to meet any notability guideline at this time . -- BenTels (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has been profiled by The National on CBC - that is a very good indicator of notability in Canada. Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Comments :Binksternet was very hasty in nominating this article for deletion. I had barely gotten the article posted when he nominated it. It makes me wonder what his motives are for nominating the page since Denise Mountenay most certainly is a noteworthy figure (even half an hour of searching on the Internet demonstrates that). If someone who has been allowed to speak before the United Nations is not a noteworthy person, then I suppose a great many present day people listed in Wikipedia would not be considered noteworthy. I find his knee jerk nomination concerning and discouraging to those desiring to help Wikipedia be a quality resource with information on diverse segments of modern life and society. Is there no process by which people abusing their accounts, to list pages for deletion before they are even fully completed, could be given warnings or something? This is a ridiculous behavior, that calls into question the whole review process of Wikipedia.

As an aside, I have been making several more modifications to the page dedicated to Denise Mountenay adding material and references and refining content. I am relatively new to Wikipedia's authoring process. I had tried authoring on Wikipedia before but was discouraged from trying, due to seeing this kind of slaphappy conduct from reviewers. I have been more persistent, this time around, but once again, feel very discouraged. Please, be aware that I am sincerely trying to do a good job for the sake of all parties. Guidance and assistance is good, ideas on how to improve a page is good, but these punitive tactics are not good. Bushost (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember it's not about you, and it's not about me. The only thing that matters here is that you demonstrate that Mountenay has been profiled in depth in WP:SECONDARY sources, not sources in which she is interviewed or in which she is the author. Check out WP:BIO to see what are your options. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If someone who has been allowed to speak before the United Nations is not a noteworthy person, then I suppose a great many present day people listed in Wikipedia would not be considered noteworthy." Agreed; a great many people listed in Wikipedia should not be because they are not noteworthy. This tu quoque is irrelevant to the present discussion. As Binkster says, this is not about Binkser's biases; I am myself pro-life, but I think he has a point in flagging this article. What are needed are independent secondary sources to establish notability. --Yaush (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have added numerous citations to the article, of which the vast majority are to activist Web pages. These won't do as reliable secondary sources to establish notability. The Edmonton Examiner link is better, but you'll need more that the one. --Yaush (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious COI spam. The few reliable sources are exceedingly trivial mentions. I can't verify the claim that "The National" covered her, but in checking, I found that the article appears to be copied at least partly from promotional material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: desperate reference bombardment of trivial mentions, self-published stuff, and other improprieties. It cries out for speedy deletion for blatant promotion. Vrac (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: Nominally I could have closed this after seven days as delete given the arguments for deletion are far stronger policy-wise, but I felt that given the adversarial nature of the discussion and the quick timeframe that this was nominated, some extra time may be beneficial. If a consensus forms before another seven days is up, I wouldn't hesitate in closing it earlier than 9 Feb. Daniel (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra time[edit]

I have been away from Wikipedia for a bit. I have returned to see that this discussion continues. Denise has been interviewed on Christian TV shows, and is has been quoted and referenced by different pro-life sites around the world, (as is demonstrated by the citings throughout her Wikipedia page) which means that the International pro-life and Christian communities recognize her as a credible speaker and personality. She has been an international speaker at the United Nations and was one of the three speakers in the film Jessica Yu's "Misconception" cited in the wikipedia article, Jessica Yu is a recognized director and writer. The United Nations itself is surely a credible source for indicating who is an international speaker. Also, she has been recognized as an International speaker by the CHP Canada. CHP Canada is a Canadian National Political Party. Along with that, we have ordered a copy of the CBC documentary and it is in the mail, but I am not sure how to cite that information since they don't have it listed on their website. If someone could help me there, I would gladly post the information as soon as I can get it. Also, there are notices of her being a guest speaker at different events including an event at the University of Ottawa. It is clear that you all have disregarded Life Site News as a source, yet they are a go to news source for those who care about the fate of the unborn. I am not sure what other credible sources you want. If you have any suggestions I would appreciate hearing them.Bushost (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.82.18 (talk) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst Ealdwrítere 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selecta (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NBAND. Can't find any coverage. ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete: no indication of importance. ubiquity (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Crocker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A biographical article about a living person who is only notable for a single event - trying to teach intelligent design in a science class. While that event was well covered at the time (see Expelled), it gave at best passing notability. Consequently, the bio should be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appears to be no change in her WP:BLP1E status since last AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tabula Rasa1 (talk · contribs) removed the AfD notice. I restored it and warned the user not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with what has already been said. The reports of circumstances from 2005 had attracted attention and then were covered in the film Expelled, released in 2008. I can see that this is therefore covered in the Expelled article. Setting this aside, I cannot see that this educator has met WP:BIO requirements. I can't see that there is justification for a separate biographical article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed per WP:BIO1E. I don't see evidence of independent notability but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails guidelines about one event notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polaroid Kiss[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While participating in a discussion involving Polaroid Kiss at BLPN I have formed the opinion that the article should be deleted. My reasons are as follows:

There is no coverage of the band in Reliable Sources, The references in the article are to 2 blogs [14] [15], the bands Facebook page, their label's discography, and a passing mention in Side-Line Online. The only mention of this band I could find in a maybe Reliable Source is an alblum release article in Side-Line Online. The alblum Weakness of the Beautiful Souls referred to in the article has never been released though the article was published in May 2012. So I do not know how useful that source, even if RS, is to WP:VERIFY their WP:NOTABILITY.I am unsure if Side-Line can be a RS, I am unfamiliar with it or if that even matters considering..
Polaroid Kiss fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND, Their claim appears to rest on WP:BAND point 6 two or members who are independently notable and they claim several notable members. The problem is there are no sources to back up these claims. The Side-Line Online article, which is the only and closest thing to a RS I could find says there are only two members Brandun Reed and Ian Pickering neither of whom seem particularly notable. All of the notable people are listed at 'guest musician' and 'guest vocalist'. I am not sure if that really matters since the alblum these people are said to be guest artists on has not been released. JBH (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JBH (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JBH (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted for the reasons listed by User;Jbhunley. Also, Ian Pickering (of Sneaker Pimps) is not a member of Polaroid Kiss, and therefore point 6 of WP:BAND is not a met, and claims of other notable members and guest artists are sourced via Polaroid Kiss' Facebook posts and Twitter. Demeritus (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Checked the new sources and recent changes made to Polaroid Kiss page. They still consist of passing mentions, Facebook pages and links to purchase music. Nothing supports WP:BAND or WP:GNG/WP:ENT for any of the members. There is not significant (or in fact any) coverage in independant reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. JBH (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Seinfeld. postdlf (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seinfeld DVD releases[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List reads more like an advertisement or directory is does not hold any encyclopedic value. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main Seinfeld article, but collapse into a more "proper" home media release summary. The details of which episode is on which disc and the extra content tied to each is unnecessary (one can mention in general these episodes sometimes included these extra features), and the list of easter eggs appears as original research. Strip that all out, and you have a nice, concise table to work from. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the vital information already exists at Seinfeld#DVD releases. At the very least, merge some additional details. But this standalone article fails GNG. DVD information does not merit its own article. What about VHS releases? -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Seinfeld. We don't need a whole separate article for this. Just a collapsible section like Masem detailed. A lot of other TV shows use that method in their respective articles. That's all that's needed. Not all this other trivia and unnecessary detail. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Barns of Ayr. Missvain (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Crawford (Scottish knight)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, it is not clear that this person is even a historical figure, the article is based on very dated or problematic sources, the Barns of Ayr incident is known to be unhistorical. PatGallacher (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The subject appears in numerous sources. Whether he is historical, mythical, apocryphal or whatever seems quite irrelevant to the question of notability. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these numerous sources? I'm not strongly opposed to reducing this to a redirect to Barns of Ayr, but as an encyclopedia we have some responsibility to distinguish between historical, legendary and fictional characters. PatGallacher (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's Encyclopædia Britannica, for example. Now, we must ask PatGallacher for his sources. PatGallacher nominated the related article of Barns of Ayr for deletion too and the result of that recent discussion was Keep. PatGallacher then edited that article to push their POV and when this material was challenged, they just edit-warred it back without providing any source. PatGallacher's behaviour is contrary to core policy so they should please see WP:SAUCE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I take the point, although it's difficult to prove a negative. "Freedom's Sword", Peter Traquair's serious account, makes no mention of Ronald Crawford or the Barns of Ayr incident, although it does mention his son briefly. I will consult the Britannica and other works about Wallace and his time. PatGallacher (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Ronald/Reginald, but Pat's on target about about the 'Barns of Ayr' and dated sources in general. I wouldn't consider a century-old article in Encyclopædia Britannica an acceptable source for medieval history, especially considering the amount of good books on Scottish history out there. Felicity Riddy's chapter Unmapping the Territory: Blind Hary's Wallace, in Edward Cowan's The Wallace Book (2007, ISBN 978-0-85976-652-4), is a scholarly discussion on Blind Hary's account of Wallace. She notes the 'Barns of Ayr' a couple times saying "In general, Wallace’s activities were greatly elaborated by Hary, who also inserted additional battles (such as that at Biggar) for his hero to win, or English atrocities (such as the Barns of Ayr episode) for Wallace to revenge." and "Unfortunately – as is commonly pointed out but insufficiently appreciated – none of Hary’s information can be believed without independent corroboration. His technique was to pack his story with authentic-seeming episodes and names that mostly turn out to be anachronistic plagiarisms from Barbour’s, Wyntoun’s and Bower’s narratives of post-Wallace Anglo-Scottish warfare; the purpose was to give the strongest impression of verisimilitude and reliability – but only in the way that including real events and people in modern thrillers does. Hary’s account of Wallace’s kin cannot, therefore, be accepted uncritically, as has happened so often, especially regarding Elderslie; yet nor can it be automatically dismissed. Consider, for instance, Sir Reginald Crawford. He is not mentioned by Gesta Annalia II, Wyntoun or Bower, but occurs in Barbour’s Bruce as being hanged in a barn at Ayr – which gave Hary a famous but fictitious story. Barbour, however, did not call Crawford sheriff of Ayr, so Hary obtained that, correct, detail elsewhere – probably from Crawford’s heirs, the Campbells of Loudon. But does that mean Hary was correct about Crawford’s relationship with Wallace? Perhaps – but equally possibly he invented the relationship to flatter the Campbells." The People of Medieval Scotland: 1093–1314 website lists a couple Crawford sheriffs who appear in contemporary sources. Maybe one of these men could be the historical Ronald in the article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information. I now suggest we merge this article with Barns of Ayr, and attempt to deal with the historicity or otherwise of these matters in that article. Just checked Barbour, he does briefly mention a Crawford hanged in a barn in Ayr, but the context suggests this occurred in 1306. PatGallacher (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quote in a modern translation is "Sir Ranald of Crauford also, and Sir Bryce the Blair, were hanged in a barn at Ayr". Rather a lot has been erected on this slender foundation. This occurs in book 4 in between mentions of the fate of Christopher Seton and the queen and Bruce's daughter Marjorie, implying a 1306 context. PatGallacher (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barns of Ayr Notability of Crawford seems to be only that he was a purported player in this legendary history. Simonm223 (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, I have come across a recently published book about Robert the Bruce which mentions his supposed son Reginald (a minor but clearly historical figure) being made Sheriff of Ayr in 1296, unlikely if his father was still alive. PatGallacher (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barns of Ayr Although it would not matter whether he is historical or mythical, it does matter that he is an unknown probable apochcryphal, without adequate sources for almost all of the present content. On the broader matter of deleting the Barns, IMO this would be an infelicitous overstep. If someone has time, some handling of the Felicity Riddy information above would nicely upgrade the Barns article. I ported the reference over to there, and placed it inline at a reasonable spot, but didn't port the quote or a rewording. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Woodbury[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a run-of-the-mill college basketball player. He's in the news for a recent eye-poking incident, but I don't believe this sufficiently adds to his notability. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the incident that put him in the news is no where mentions in this article suggests that he is not notable yet. He may be some day, but not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Affective_piety[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Affective piety

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original Research: Hi! I wrote this article all by myself as an experiment, and it has not had any content edited by others. I did not know that it was about to be published, or I would have deleted it before that...because I really (for professional, job search reasons) need to publish it in a peer-review journal. It does contain sections of original opinions and at least one reference to my own scholarly work. Please consider letting me have it back!MAE (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Speedy was declined despite no other significant contributions. I believe those editors erred in disallowing the PROD and speedy. We should let him withdraw this if he wants to. Gigs (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7. I see no compelling reason not to accede to this request, nor anything about the article history that invalidates a G7 speedy. Or, if for some reason G7 is deemed inadequate, an IAR speedy on the principle of "do no harm" given the nature of the request. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any amelioratory benefit of deletion earlier in this article's process has been foreclosed on by the passage of time. And on it's merits, I'll agree with the other editors that retention is the only realistic stance remaining. Striking my initial suggestion; it's time (if there ever was one), has passed and we have what we have. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - G7 is a convenience to avoid unnecessary deletion discussions, not a right to withdraw the "irrevocable" CC-BY-SA license. Even if the page is deleted, absolutely anyone can use the text for any purpose if they find it on a mirror site (for example). It is also well within the administrator's right to decline a G7 on a notable topic. I haven't really investigated the article at this time, so I'm not expressing any opinion other than that this should be evaluated on merits not simply the author's request. Pinging the users who were involved at AfC: Tikuko,Hasteur and those who declined deletion: MusikAnimal Andrew Davidson for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
fixing ping: @Tikuko, Hasteur, MusikAnimal, and Andrew Davidson: --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the G7 as there were IPs adding a considerable amount of content. This could easily be the author logged out, but I had no right to assume that. That aside, there's a lot of well-sourced content here. I haven't read into it too much but my gut instinct is that it may be worth keeping. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with MusikAnimal When I reviewewed the submission I saw plenty in it to make it a reasonable promote out of draft space. Page was in draft mode for nearly 6 months (and thereby potentially subject to CSD:G13) but a helpful editor Tikuko noticed it and saw potential so they put it forward for AFC review. Because the template had the original 8-13-2013 "submission date" it shot straight to the top of the Category:AfC_submissions_by_age/Very_old list because it was more than 4 weeks "pending". I reviewed it and there was no reason to not keep it from mainspace. It's been my understanding that CSD:G7 applies if there are no other editors besides the creator who have contributed (even if it's fixing problems), As such CSD:G7 is invalid. Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all reasonable actions when each is considered in isolation. Thank you providing rationale. Gigs (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The work does not seem especially original as it summarises the work of other scholars who are cited and quoted. The publication of this version here has happened now and cannot be undone. The nominator is free to have this work republished elsewhere but should not attempt to claim back exclusive first publication rights as this would be a serious breach of professional ethics — see Why You Should not Submit Your Work to More than One Journal at a Time — "Editors take this so seriously that they may ban authors from submitting to their journal if they have broken the rules." For further details, see our article about the issue — duplicate publication. Note that, even if this version were to be deleted, this would not necessarily affect all the many services which routinely take copies of Wikipedia articles and store them in their caches and databases. This might include services which specifically look for work being plagiarised from Wikipedia and so you really don't want to go there. This discussion is now a matter of public record and, the more fuss that is made, the more likely that the Streisand effect will grow. It would be more prudent to accept that publication has happened and make a virtue of it. Perhaps it might be put forward as a featured article, for example — a rare distinction which is a significant accolade here. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It would have been one thing if this was a page that only recently got started, but this page is nearly a few years old and even showed up on the stale AFC work (CSD:G13) page so at this time entertaining a "I was working on a draft" is not really valid. I don't really see any other reasons to delete this as the author released the contributions under the CC licence irrevocably the subject is very well cited and referenced, and is probably well on it's way to being a "Good Article" or "Featured Article". Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I didn't actually do a bolded vote before. Yes, the CC license is not automatically revocable. Yes, the author erred by starting a draft here if he intended to submit it to journals. But we need to consider the facts here:
- He didn't submit this for AfC evaluation, someone else did that on his behalf.
- He may not have realized that prior publication would be an obstacle to journal submission.
- He may not have realized that drafts here are considered contributions that we can just take upon ourselves to publish, even without him submitting it for AfC evaluation.
- I believe it's safe to assume the IP editor was just the main contributor, not signed in.
- The topic is one of very niche interest, as can be seen by its orphan status. The phrase "affective piety" only occurs in one other article on the whole encyclopedia, piety.
- Notability is only well established because of the author's careful research and work. It is ironic that his own careful work would be used against him.
- Had he not forgotten to log in a few times, it would clearly qualify for speedy deletion.
- We don't need to "punish" this guy to make a point about open content licenses. It's not going to set a precedent or anything, it's an unusual situation. There is no general right to withdraw content, and this won't create one.
- Maybe the biggest thing by far: This editor is clearly capable of writing high quality content on Wikipedia. Driving him off by being inflexible on this request would be a huge mistake. Gigs (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunately, in terms of journal submission, it's too late. StAnselm (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, hard to put the cat back into the bag. If the author can accept that this deletion won't really help him because of mirrors, then maybe we can end this on more amicable terms than a "forced keep". Gigs (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC) BTW if mm2cat is female forgive my pronouns of convenience Gigs (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mm2cat: As others have pointed out, the work is already "out there" and deleting the page isn't going to change that. Most of the mirror sites do not delete pages just because Wikipedia does, and indeed there are several that ONLY host material deleted by Wikipedia. If you submit this to a journal, and they do a web search, they are going to know it was previously published on Wikipedia regardless of what happens in this discussion. In light of that, would you like to withdraw this request or proceed anyway? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By our usual standards, this is a well written and remarkably clear summary of an important topic, with approbate references to excellent sources, and no indication of being impermissible SYNTHESIS -- rather, suitably encyclopedic summary. The author intend to submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, and though this is not one of my special fields where i would be qualified to act a a reviewer, I see no reason why it would not be published. Having been published in Wikipedia is not incompatible with that. I suppose the authors problems is that given our free licensing, fewer journals are likely to accept it. But our licensing is irrevocable, and the author cannot have been unaware of it. Since it has already been released as free content, it will remain free content whether it is removed here or not. As Gigs and StAnselm correctly point out, there is nothing that can be done to change this. In my experience, the best way around this is to either find a journals whig will accept it despite the licensing, or to write an alternative but similar article and refer to this as a preliminary working version. Most publishers will accept this, as long as they can asset t copyright on the new version (even though all they might early have is copyright over the changes). DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all of you for this careful and illuminating discussion. But special thanks to the person who pointed out that I might not be a man--which I am not--tant pis! ;) I can see that I need to withdraw the request for deletion. Giving the article "Special" status would be great! And I can start spending some time making links from relevant pages back to this article--which I can keep improving! MAE (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If someone posted this to WP without the author's consent that is a breach of copyright. If the author has himself posted it on WP, he has no one but himself to blame for shooting himself in the foot, hindering his wish to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, for few journals will accept work that has already been published elsewhere. I suspect that even a rewrite would be accepted, since the ideas would already have eben published. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ewhurst Cricket Club[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable, local sports team Deunanknute (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket#CRIN, "Clubs, teams and venues": the club plays in the Surrey County League, and doesn't compete at a sufficiently high level. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons mentioned above. I live just a couple of miles away from Ewhurst, and their cricket club is just a typical village club. JH (talk page) 18:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. At the very least this club would have to be in the premier league of the Surrey Championship to be notable. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pongthep Pumsiri[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing is verifiable in the article. Kingjeff (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thirawat Lertpitchapatch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, Unsourced BLP JMHamo (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm seeing a consensus that this should not exist as a stand-alone article. Since several redirect targets have been suggested, a discussion of whether "Divided soveregnty" should be re-created as a redirect (and, if so, what the target should be) can be conducted elsewhere. Deor (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Divided Sovereignty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hopelessly WP:OR ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an opinion piece. As User: BD2412 notes the subject is already covered under Federalism in the United States. Red Harvest (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While the article is a little essay-like and unbalanced right now, it's not original research. I think we could have a distinct article on this concept, which is a political theory concept that is somewhat distinct from the actual chronicles of the history of federalism in the United States. Not opposed to chopping large parts of the existing article back to a stub if that's what it takes though. Gigs (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This would best be served re-pointing to Federalism i the United States, where perhaps a stub of this material could be incorporated. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV pushing, violates an alphabet soup of policies and guidelines. Brimba (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. unnecessary OR. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Federalism. Article is unusable, but term seems to be used in other sources as a type of Federalism. Empire3131 (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Federalism, which is the target implied by the title. The content in fact only relates to one country (USA), so that if there is anything worth merging (which I doubt), the target woudl be the USA article. However, the article has the feel of an undergraduate essay. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles on Federalism and States Rights fail to gather into one place the Constitution's Framers reasons for wording the Preamble with provide versus promote, 9th and 10th Amendments. In 1982 the Federal providing welfare via a communications monopoly was declared unconstitutional. Federal violation of divided sovereignty (see President Madison's Mar 3, 1817 veto) by taxing to provide welfare via energy and transportation infrastructure monopolies resulted in the current problems of pollution tilting the balance of nature with Climate Change, resource depletion with US Peak Oil in 1970, 50% dependence of the US economy of foreign oil, oil-wars since 1990, and funding of terrorists with oil-dollars. The lack of use of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution to defend individual liberty indicates the lack of importance placed on divided sovereignty. The use of the Tenth Amendment to suppress individual liberty via "States Right's" indicates the perversion of divided sovereignty. Nullification by the states was a failed attempt to enforce divided sovereignty. BillJamesMN (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Determining framers' intent is the judiciary's job, not wikipedias. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And BillJamesMN is also inserting his original research into other articles. The sooner this is deleted, the better. Red Harvest (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redir to Federalism Phrase does not appear in the constitution, but this article is premised on Lead Sentence 1's false assertion that it is defined in that document. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dual federalism. Closing administrator, I think that this article thematically more closely corresponds to the existing article on "dual federalism", rather than "federalism". "Dual federalism" is far from perfect, but it has a workable outline, prose rather than marching quotes, and some reasonable citations. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redirect probably to Federalism, but that can be discussed subsequently. The present article is a string of long quotations assembled to make an essay, and neither overall nor in detail adds anything to Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disposable energy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hopelessly WP:OR. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contains original research and no evidence of concept ever being applied. Snabbkaffe (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – OR, primary sources, no evidence of "disposable energy" in this sense being used anywhere except in other articles by the same author. On the plus side, easy to understand, great graphics. But Wikipedia is not the place for this. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- OR, quotes his own article for definition. Uses primary sources to create a narrative. Red Harvest (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting hypothesis, but WP is not the place to publish it. Gigs (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Complete bollocks.—S Marshall T/C 19:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Brimba (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, piling on the WP:SNOW --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The metric of GDP failed to warn of the Sept 2008 economic crash. This metric is used currently to justify building solar-powered mobility networks by JPods, ET3 and others. By deleting this you deprive users access via this wiki to a prime metric used for retooling to sustainable infrastructure and solving the pollution driving climate change. BillJamesMN (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I line up behind Bill in the delete column, even if that input wasn't his intention. Cool graphics. Dubious data. Unsourced. Actually everyone already knows this, Bill, so don't worry. Seriously, it's OK, we know every time we gas up. We do the ratio in our head. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kızlar Sahada[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable amateur sports club Deunanknute (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Biomedical Semantics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been tagged as maybe not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guideline since January 2013. Nothing has been done since then to establish notaibility. Two years seems long enough to allow it to happen if it's possible. Ankababel (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page wasn't properly templated or listed on a daily log. Now listed for the first time at today's log page. I have no comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 15:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per first AfD (indexed in Scopus, meets WP:NJournals). No idea why the notability tag was not removed after that (was clear keep). --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the previous AFD, the journal is now also indexed by the Science Citation Index Expanded (and, less importantly, BIOSIS Previews). --Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It seems to have an impact factor so i guess we have to keep it under WP:NJournals. BakerStMD T|C 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this point it does not yet have an IF. However, it is included in the Science Citation Index Expanded and will get a 2014 IF (to be published this summer). --Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per criteria #1 of WP:JOURNALCRIT. Indexed in Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Outdoor Inc.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable new company, fails WP:CORP, all references are press releases / standard coverage of separation from Alliant Techsystems, no notable coverage found about this company itself, article creator has COI with company Deunanknute (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think news coverage of the company has already been quite significant.Singaporebobby (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage meets the notability criteria? Deunanknute (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vista is a massive company that owns dozens of the largest gun and sporting goods brands that ATK spun off. This is like starting an AfD for Microsoft or IBM. The spin-off just happened, so it's natural that most of the coverage right now is related to that. If there are COI problems, they need to be edited out, because this is clearly a notable company. Gigs (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These two sources have a depth of coverage greater than many company articles I've seen: [16][17] I doubted a good article could be written on this new company,[18] but I'm surprised at how well it's turned out. Rezin (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The article is sourced, and is about a company that is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Definitely meets general notability criteria for an article. N2e (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by proposer. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 13:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ale Resnik[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

delete or redirect to Beepi, notable only in relation to said company which the article is half about already, see also Omer Savir - previously redirected for similar reasons Deunanknute (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC) withdraw due to new articles Deunanknute (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - (obviously I feel this way, since I accepted the article to the mainspace). While WP:INHERITORG does state that a person doesn't gain notability simply through their relationship to a company, in this instance, since the company is notable, and this individual is one of two folks who are responsible for that company's existence, is cause for the notability of the person. All but one of the several independent sources which talks about Beepi, does not contain coverage of Resnik. One might also argue that the Legatum Society is a "major scholarly society" (being equated with the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship), of which Resnik is a fellow, would qualify him under WP:NACADEMICS. Onel5969 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep I did a major edit on this article at the request of a friend who wrote the first draft and was not familiar with neutral Wikipedia style. I discovered that Resnik had come up with a very major innovation in the used car market while he was at MIT. It may radically change the way used cars are sold around the world. The innovation is being mentioned in the tech press as similarly major innovation to "Uber" - and indeed is being backed by the same investor who backed Uber. ^[1] Resnik is an important innovator, not just someone associated with a company. Leading publications in the tech space are talking about Resnik as an innovator. I deleted a couple of the quotations from articles describing the importance of the innovation because they were so glowing that they sounded promotional and peacocky. But I can add them back to provide context. MIT Tech Review specifically gave him a prize for innovation and profiled him in their magazine. I just added their description of Resnik as an innovator. There were so many sources (I found more than 60) about Resnik that I chose just to cite just some of them to support the facts underlying the article. I can add more. e.g. I just added a Huffington Post interview. ^[2]

Even before Beepi, Resnik had created and sold two companies. He also ran an angel investing "accelerator" for Latin American companies (I just added this.) He received an major award from the state of Israel for his philanthropic work prior to even starting Beepi (I added more details.) He received a major fellowship from MIT (Legatum) to further his work supporting entrepreneurs. He was named a top innovator under the age of 35 by MIT Technology Review (Spanish.) All of these are referenced in the Awards section. I moved a couple references up to the top to emphasize their importance.

A sample of articles that are centered on Resnik, not Beepi, have appeared in the Huffington Post ^[3], MIT Technology Review (Spanish) ^[4], MIT Sloan School of Management website ^[5], Pulso Social ^[6]

I would like to add that I followed the directions left by Onel5969 for improving the article, spending many hours on the task. Notability was not mentioned as a potential issue by Onel5969 , who has done tens of thousands of edits and written dozens and dozens of articles. I have been a journalist in the business and tech space for two decades (which is why my friend asked me to look at this article) and there isn't a business or tech publication in the world that wouldn't run a story about Resnik at this point. He's very hot, potentially moving the entire used car industry online. BC1278 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

^ http://www.wsj.com/articles/beepi-raises-60-million-to-sell-used-cars-to-smartphone-generation-1412738102
^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/finally-someone-is-sendin_b_5382730.html
^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/finally-someone-is-sendin_b_5382730.html
^ http://www.technologyreview.es/tr35argentinayuruguay/profile.aspx?trid=1524
^ http://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/2014-beepi-used-cars-alejandro-resnik.php
^ http://pulsosocial.com/2014/10/15/beepi-o-como-conseguir-usd-60-m-en-seis-meses-para-transformar-la-compra-venta-de-autos/

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - author agrees he is not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven John Glass[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable person, no indication of notability Deunanknute (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, doesn't meet WP:GNG as the only refs are the website for the pharma company he runs and a press release from that company. BakerStMD T|C 17:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live 2 serve[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

local non-profit, small scale, minimal independent coverage, fails WP:NONPROFIT Deunanknute (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This orphan sounds like a NN local ministry. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No suggestion of notability, no evidence that it even exists. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Ficano[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Politician of only local note, no significant articles about the subject to build an article. Prod removed because of longevity in local politics and local coverage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Honestly, I am a bit baffled by this nomination. This man was chief executive for a dozen years (and sheriff for 20 more) of a major county which has more people (about 1.8 million) than any of a dozen U.S. states. Over the last 30-plus years, there must be hundreds of articles about him in the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press. Kestenbaum (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage.. —Noah 15:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kestenbaum's points. For example, HighBeam Research yields more than 600 news hits about him. [19] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them fit into the local exemption from WP:NPOL as claimed by User:Noah Salzman, because I'm not immediately seeing them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge the Detroit Free Press is a respected news source and considered reliable. There seems to be wealth of coverage in that publication alone and more by the NY Times and Washington Post. Although, maybe I am missing your point? —Noah 22:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's local coverage is the point. The exception you link to discusses feature-length pieces about the subject, for example. In that "wealth of coverage," is that what you're getting? I'm not seeing anything obvious coming up. We expect anyone running for even a regional office to get a "wealth of coverage," but we put some reasonable limitations in place so we're not stuck with a bunch of articles about local politicians who get in the local news twice a week. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You correct to worry that we could end up with thousands of articles on non-notable local politicians if we only went by WP:NPOL's "significant press coverage". However, when we add to that "major lcoal politician" then it shrinks the pool of candidates considerably. I believe that Ficano is a major local politician. And, to your other point, I did not find a long-form feature-length piece on Ficano but I do not believe we need that to establish his notability; there is sufficient coverage outside of that. —Noah 00:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you link to recommends exactly that, a feature piece. If we're looking to carve an exemption for him, I think we need a better argument is all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... but in a footnote! We can ignore it! <wink> I think our two positions are fairly set. Let's see how the consensus forms. Cheers, —Noah 01:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And why should we ignore it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Same rationale as Kestenbaum and Noah. And there is abundant coverage him in major metropolitan newspapers, not like coverage is limited to local, small-town newspapers. Cbl62 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Even if the coverage of the local politician is local, that is permitted under the "local politicians must have extensive news coverage" rule. The population is not a factor regarding "local politicians": it's not in the rules. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Population may not be in the rules, but the lack of large population in a political jurisdiction is often cited in favor of deleting a politician. Kestenbaum (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ficano is not a "politician of local note" he was one of the top 4 political figures in Metro-Detroit at any given time, a metro area with several million people. He was not quite as big a figure as Kilpatrick or Patterson, but he can not be rejected as a major figure either. The Wayne County Executive is a major figure with significant power and influence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the scope and breadth of coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep – Withdrawn by nominator. Discant X 10:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary McDaid[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. High school teacher with some mention from local papers, but no indication of widespread signifcance. Most sources only have passing mention of him. Discant X 13:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator

Speedy keep - I don't know what was intended to be AfD'd but this page is about a Gaelic football manager, not a high school teacher. The actual subject is clearly notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see now there was some old vandalism that changed his occupation to "P.E. teacher" in the infobox, so that is probably the source of the confusion. Anyway, he isn't a teacher and there are several in depth sources in the article already. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB, I see my mistake in thinking he was a high school teacher. It was probably partially a result of regional dialect differences (P.E. teacher is usually meant to mean high school physical education teacher in my parts). That said, I'm still not convinced that most of the sources serve more than passing mentions of him, and the ones that do are mostly from a local newspaper from the town he is from. Small town newspapers, though often reliable, tend to report on subjects that are only notable within their tiny domain. That said, I'm no expert on college sports so if this is the kind of material that is commonly used for reference on Wikipedia on the subject, I'm open to argument. Discant X 10:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As well, not so sure "PE Teacher" was strictly vandalism, as one source names him specifically as that. Discant X 11:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still miss the point. Working at the school (a HS in American terms, but a college in British terms) is incidental to his claim of notability - coaching Glenswilly GAA, a top-level sports club (to two championships even). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I see your point. I'm going to withdraw my nomination then. Discant X 10:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ofer Bavly[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable minor diplomat Gbawden (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete ambassadors are not inherently notable let alone consul generals. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mid-level diplomatic functionary. Even if ambassadors were notble, Ofer is not an ambassador.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western District Chinese Christian Church[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. only primary sources provided, nothing in australian search engine trove, or one of Sydney's largest newspapers www.smh.com.au also nominating for the same reason:

West Sydney Chinese Christian Church

LibStar (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom- Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- The article reads like the website of a rather typical NN church, though one that happens to have an ethnic focus. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book trade in the United Kingdom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an assignment for school, WP:NOTESSAY in my opinion Gbawden (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Question of style notwithstanding (I think it's fine, but YMMV), this seems to clearly be a topic which is the subject of multiple, substantial, independently published pieces of coverage. Passes GNG. Search for "Bookselling" for more Google hits, such as Stuart Jeffries, "How Waterstone's killed bookselling," Guardian, Nov. 9, 2009. Carrite (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I don't like" the article but the topic is certainly notable. Borock (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as approver of the article. The topic is well-known. The article uses secondary sources as it should. We don't get rid of articles purely on style. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its absolutely OK policy-wise and I think it reads nicely too. Poor AfD nomination however – could do better.Thincat (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with History of books. Some of the content here applies to a worldwide view of the topic, and even the British specific bits would generally belong there. If merging makes that article too big or lop sided, then keeping it as a spin off article on the main topic would be okay. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trout Gbawden. AfD is not for cleanup. (I believe the article should be titled Publishing in the United Kingdom or Publishing industry in the United Kingdom though since book trade redirects to publishing.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The British use the term "book trade" to refer both to publishing books and operating bookstores. So does the article in question. The book trade redirect probably needs fixing. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have turned book trade into a disambiguation page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Lonergan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL Joeykai (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 11:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:NCOLLATH. Really, intramural water polo is important for notability? 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin International School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any not ability. Appears to be a private language school and therefore not entitled to the general assumption of notability afforded to state secondary schools and their equivalents. No independent references at all. Reeks of an advertisement. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin International School is a private k-12 school. Not a private language school. If you read the page carefully you can find independent references. This is a page created with information about the school, same thing as many other school do. BFIS-IT 15:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC) BFIS-IT 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. Not a language school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google searches turn up indicia of prominence for this 29-year-old, 500+ student, all-grades private school. A 2011 article in Economía Digital lists it as the top international school in Barcelona. [20] An ocean ecology class project showed up in The Wall Street Journal [21]. A New York Times real estate article cites proximity to this school as one of the positives of the featured "villa" [22]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding tradition for secondary schools as documented in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Jacona (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donna "Keegen" Avery[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxing promoter (active from last year) - SPA article full of self promotional hype (I call autobiographical). Some attempt to clean up but please see article Talk page. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the article is a blatant messy attempt to promote a nascent boxing-related career, supported by trying to pump up minor and failed Internet ventures. If there's notability here, it's for the stunt work, and the Diamond in the Raw Action Icon award is the tempting stamp of legitimacy there. But while the award has continued to be presented, I'm not finding the sort of mainstream coverage that would say to us that this award is notable and thus reflects notability. I'm convincable otherwise. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Definitely not notable as a boxing promoter. I also don't see notability as a stuntperson or anything else. Coverage is insufficient to meet GNG and article appears to have a COI. I put it as a weak delete in case someone comes along to show film industry notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that she meets any notability criteria. The article fails to show any significant independent coverage and appears to be a lightly edited version of her biography at her company's website[23]. Papaursa (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As briefly summarized by Peter Rehse. C.dunkin (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Now 2002: Volume two[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and move to The Peel Sessions (The Cure EP). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Peel Sessions (The Cure album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searched and this does not appear to be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found (and added) two sources to pass notability within seconds with a Google search. What has changed since you nominated the article before last year? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added two more book sources. Appears notable. A music journalist in one of the cite books has called the session "just the seal of credibility the band needed." Again, a search for sources should be done before nomination, cf. BEFORE litra D, it is not optional. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A legitimate release by a major band, and there's substantial coverage in reliable sources. Was notable last time and it still is. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are fast becoming WP:POINTY nominations from a user who doesn't have a clue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, and on other nominations you also favour keeping albums with only one verifiable source, which hardly satisfies the criteria, so if anything you equally "don't have a clue". Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable album by notable band. Sources clearly exist (and there will definitely be print sources offline). --Michig (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. It should be moved to The Peel Sessions (The Cure EP) as it's an EP, not an album. I've left it at its current title for now to avoid confusion during the AfD. --Michig (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the additions to the article and move per Michig. Gongshow talk 20:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captain's Pick in Australian Politics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a bit of a mess of an article for what's essentially a catchphrase. I'm not convinced it's unsalvageable, but it shouldn't be on Wikipedia in its current form and at its current title. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete it's been used maybe 5 times in australian politics and only once by Julia Gillard. The Australian national university even acknowledge it's originally a sporting term, mean basically the leader can choose unilaterally. and that is no different to using it in a political context. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is just wp:recentism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollth (talk • contribs) 03:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A term that has only really been widely used for a week (and is a dictionary definition at that) does not need an article. -- Chuq (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per User:LibStar. There is no special context to this phrase in politics, and it seems pretty obviously to be a way to list out Tony Abbott gaffes. As we don't have server room for a complete list of those, and if we removed it this becomes a dicdef, I don't see any value in keeping this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, I don't think the term passes WP:GNG. It has been mentioned in the media, but I haven't seen "'Significant coverage' [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail". I do however think that some of the article could be salvaged and merged into Tony Abbott's article, as it has been a personal controversy for him. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lda city[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It doesn't even exist yet, "Coming Soon". Too soon imo. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Projects this big take years to plan and are notable long before construction starts. Here is an article from Business Recorder. And here are two more, about vehement protests from the farmers being displaced: [24] [25]. All RS, probably enough to expand the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Short articles include [31], [32]. Note that I have performed a page move to Lda City, to correct capitalization in the article's title. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Basha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tony Basha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sportsman/businessman, no credible sources, primarily edited by a single use account that appears to be whom the subject of the article is, with a perhaps inadvertent attempt to advertise a non-notable company. Issues with the article since creation that include NPOV, conflict of interest & original research. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article claims he has played in the S.League, a fully professional league, though he seems to be the source. Hack (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I searched for any independent articles or statistical sites that would confirm that he played for them and found nothing concrete. There are a handful of articles that say "former S-League player", and I do not personally doubt he was at the club at some point, and likely played matches but I can't find anything independent that definitely states that in a manner that would qualify him as notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as there is no credible evidence he has played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. Even if he has played in the S-League, it seems highly likely that he made only a handful of appearances and so NFOOTY would not really be relevant here. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. As the academy he is head of does not have its own articleI presume it is not really that notable and so he being head of it does not confer notability? Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Nfitz (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Basalaj[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted in this AFD because the subject failed to meet the criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL. As far as I can tell this still applies. The article was recreated based on statistics from a video game. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Per nom.Simione001 (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before using such arguments, please see WP:PERNOM. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Football rivalries in Peru[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod with the article expanded. However, this is an Inherently unencyclopedic list. Looks to be a lot of WP:OR as almost all the rivalries bar the two big ones that have their own articles already are fully unreferenced. Per WP:NRIVALRY there is no indication that WP:GNG in any instance bar potentially the first two. The fact that two teams play each other regularly does not automatically create a de facto rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rivalries in sports are not inherently notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I can see only two have separate articles, therefore no need for this 'parent' article. Giant Snowman 12:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Consulate General, Cahul[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

yes the Romanian president has visited this but fails WP:ORG., consulates are lower on the rung than embassies which aren't inherently notable.

Romanian Consulate General, Bălți
Romanian Consulate General, Zaječar LibStar (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have to agree with the decision to delete this article. It is insufficiently covered. The coverage it receives in cited sources are mostly about the establishment of the consulate. Meşteşugarul - U 22:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small consulates are not notable, per past outcomes. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closing this as a keep for now, if ya'll want to propose a merger, please do so on the appropriate article pages. Thanks for your participation! :) Missvain (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee bean storage[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed without explanation. I believe this is a case of WP:NOTHOWTO Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see where this expands on Coffee#Production (especially since most of the article involves how the beans are made) and I'd tag it as WP:A10 except that it was created a few years ago and wouldn't really qualify for this type of speedy. In any case, I don't particularly see where this merits its own article at this point in time. At the very most some of this could be merged into the main article under a section for "storage" in the production section, if anyone's keen to do that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination makes a vague wave to WP:NOTHOWTO without explaining how that is relevant or a reason to delete. That policy states "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." and so we see that this is a matter of writing style; how one approaches a topic. This actual topic is notable and so we have plenty of scope to improve the way this topic is written about per our editing policy. Here is a selection of sources:

Industrial storage of green Robusta coffee under tropical conditions and its impact on raw material quality and ochratoxin A content
Storage research on Kenya arabica coffee
Green coffee storage
An intermediate category of seed storage behaviour? I. Coffee
Storage-related changes of low-boiling volatiles in whole coffee beans
An intermediate category of seed storage behaviour? II. Effects of provenance, immaturity, and imbibition on desiccation-tolerance in coffee
Storage of green coffee in hermetic packaging injected with CO2
Studies on acrylamide levels in roasting, storage and brewing of coffee
Returns to storage in coffee and cocoa futures markets
Methods of preserving the viability of coffee seed in storage
Arabica coffee storage Part II. Review of the problem in Tanganyika
The storage of green coffee (Coffea arabica): decrease of viability and changes of potential aroma precursors

Now these are all research papers but there are plenty of books which draw on such material; books such as Food Packaging and Shelf Life; The World Coffee Economy; Handbook of Flavor Characterization; Handbook of Food and Beverage Stability; &c. So, wake up and smell the coffee, please. Andrew D. (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is mostly whether or not it'd really merit a page outside of the pre-existing section in the coffee article about production. There's already a section about storage in there and I don't know how this really expands on that all that much. Most of this article is about how coffee is made, which is already covered quite well. If you do want to create an article about the specific topic of coffee storage then that's fine, but you'd pretty much have to start from scratch. I'm open to you userfying the article and working on it from there, if you want, but this will be a fairly big undertaking and right now the article isn't up to snuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it's a legitimate editorial concern whether fork subjects like this warrant a standalone article (see WP:PAGEDECIDE), the decision to delete should reflect consensus, and I don't see it. As for your concern about the article not staying in scope and talking about production, it's not an issue of notability and deletion, but of article improvement and cleanup (see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP). Given a no consensus or keep decision is reached, I suggest you bring up the issue of scope on the article's talk page. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Coffee bean, a piece which is short enough to be able to absorb this as a new section, I think. Carrite (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Coffee bean is written from a biological point of view. Coffee production would be much more related to this subject. It would also be reasonable to Keep this as its own article, due to the fact that coffee bean storage is not related only to the coffee bean industry. WP:PAGEDECIDE is rather vague on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceosad (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Coffee bean p b p 15:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The proper place to merge to would be Coffee. However, that section already exists. It is WP:SPLIT out of there. More content and better references would be great, but that's no reason to delete a perfectly reasonable article. Relentlessly (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The style of the article is entirely descriptive and not imperative. I don't understand Tokyogirl79's comment "most of the article involves how the beans are made". If this is so (it isn't, is it?) is that a problem? Merging to Coffee Bean would be inappropriate as Ceosad says. Coffee or Coffee production would be better but these are now linking to this article as the main one on the topic and this seems rather suitable to me. Yes, some wise editorialising would be good on these articles but AFD is not a good venue for achieving that. The topic is notable and so the article should be kept. Thincat (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic passes WP:N. A secondary choice would be to merge to Coffee bean. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Shetty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't believe that this person has lasting notability. Has created his own company and then closed it 6 months later. Then he released software that is in private beta, not on sale to the public. Probably WP:TOOSOON Gbawden (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Why is Siddharth Shetty being considered for deletion?

Comment - This was my first Wikipedia Article Contribution, and I interacted with fellow members of the community all of whom approved and even improved upon it. However, there is one Wikipedia user who has a hidden agenda and keeps adding it for deletion - this is not right.

I am going to undo the deletion, till such time a proper explanation is provided. If you are considering an article for deletion which has already been reviewed by the community, you need to provide a thorough explanation, not me. The points provided by Gbawden are completely false.BBen489 (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— BBen489 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of RohansoodH22 (talk · contribs).

Keep - The nomination is clearly good-faith, but I'd say in error; while about half of the article's sources are non-independent of the subject and primary in nature or otherwise non-suitable for verification or notability assessment, at least six of them are acceptable reliable sources which treat the subject in detail. WP:CRYSTAL (which is the principle I assume nom was referencing via WP:TOOSOON essay) does not seem to apply here as notability appears to be established via WP:GNG. Snow talk 03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my concern is still lasting notability. Starting his own company at 17/18 gained him some press coverage - but this could be a flash in the pan and perhaps BPL1E - the one event being founding a company at a young age. Gbawden (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability is not temporary. BLP1E (and BIO1E) are generally invoked in cases where GNG has been satisfied but there remains some question of whether or not an independent article is warranted or whether the content should be merged into another location. In this case, I don't see an obvious candidate for merger (though there's a strong chance I'd support such a move if there were). Snow talk 10:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gbawden, the points you raised in your initial reason for deletion seem to have been addressed in the article, and Siddharth Shetty should be kept. Fundlined is no more in Private Beta. According to their website, over 700,000 USD has already been raised using Fundlined. Before Siddharth Shetty closed Fundlined, it was one of India's most successful crowdfunding platform - it was not a flash in the pan event. User:Snow Rise and Gbawden how do we proceed with the closure of this deletion process? Gbawden If you have any further hesitations, feel free to let me know. RohansoodH22 (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Yes, the nomination is made in good-faith. However I do not understand the word "lasting notability" in terms of biographies, I think it only applies into event cases. Notability is not temporary. In present case, subject appears to be meeting WP:GNG standard. Sources, -[33], [34], [35], etc. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Bergner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE which states for college athletes to be considered notable they must have met one of the following:

1.Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.

2.Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).

3.Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.

The article notes that he was 2013 US Army all-American, however, this is an award he received in H.S. not in College, and should not be confused with the American Football Coaches Association All-America team, which would be considered notable. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary note. WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusive standard. College players may also qualify under WP:GNG if they have been the subject of significant coverage in mainstream media sources. I haven't had a chance to assess yet, and some of the coverage appears routine, but there are some articles on him that turn up in a simple google search. They include: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Cbl62 (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH and all of the coverage is from the local paper which I believe is not enough to meet GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe that the Denver Post and USA Today should be considered a local paper on the subject of a football player from Missouri who goes to college in South Dakota. There is a LOT of coverage here, more than just "stats listings". Granted most of it is local and perhaps regional, but there's some national exposure. Worthy of a stub.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Denver Post article and it appears he had a scholarship offer from Northern Colorado. That is why a football player from Missouri who goes to college in South Dakota is addressed in a Colorado newspaper. Potential football recruit news is just WP:ROUTINE. Therefore, I don't give the Denver Post 3 sentence article any weight. RonSigPi (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FCS special teams player is going to have a rough road to WP:GNG. Not seeing GNG being met here. Almost everything is local, and even the most generous view of the non-local coverage just focuses on the U.S. Army All American Bowl. At best, this still falls under WP:BIO1E. RonSigPi (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2NYO[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC, they may be an up and coming music group, but this is WP:TOOSOON. The sources are either WP:SPS or mere mention's in articles such as "artists to watch for in 2015," nothing to establish notability. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Dai Pritchard (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree; notability not established. Fylbecatulous talk 16:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as WP:A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tee Smoov[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability established; no reliable sources. Previously at CSD. seicer | talk | contribs 04:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No indication of significance. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Martyn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non notable. Quis separabit? 04:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – According to #C1 in WP:SOLDIER: "awarded their nation's highest award for valour". The Knight's Cross of the Military Order of Maria Theresa qualifies under that. Of course this doesn't mean there is more coverage out there, since he died in 1827. But there are the two references. It seems too early to delete before we know what the references say. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears that all recipients of the Military Order of Maria Theresa were ennobled with the title of Ritter. That clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Receiving your state's highest military honor is justification for an article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was '. (Discussion mooted by deletion as CV during discussion) j⚛e decker ^talk 04:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive Sports and Young Kids[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an encyclopedic article. It is an essay with original research. Good effort but doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Aaekia (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC) I agree. If you don't think it meats guidlines then it doesn't. I would like it on here but if you don't think it should be then that's okay. Thank You! - Brett Raio (7:55am, 10 February 2015) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettraio (talk • contribs) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - tagged for copyvio Deunanknute (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Charles_Manson#LaBianca_murders. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leno and Rosemary LaBianca[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a similar case to the one discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Folger: victims of Manson Family who are notable only for being victims, thus failing WP:CRIME ("A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."). What little content is present in this un-footnoted article should be merged to Charles_Manson#LaBianca_murders, through I don't think, frankly, there is anything to merge, as the article has no notable content not covered in the parent article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed. I agree there is nothing in this article worth merging; it has no Reliable Sources, and some of the information in the article is frankly wrong. I have recommended that there be a separate article for "Tate murders" because there is so much information about them, but I don't think a separate "LaBianca murders" article is justified. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed, per MelanieN and the nominator. Zero evidence of notability apart from having been murdered by an (in)famous person.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Wharf[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, and does not have supported claim of notability of subject. smileguy91^talk 03:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now has external links to English and Vietnamese information on the museum. The corresponding Vietnamese article shows it is a major attraction and a historically important site. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does seem to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The corresponding article on Vietnamese wikipedia is sourced, and it has a claim to WP:GEOFEAT.--Antigng (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge and Redirect - if this is about the museum (as it says it is) we already have that article at Ho Chi Minh Museum. Am I missing something? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhododendrites: There are several Ho Chi Minh Museums. Maybe Ho Chi Minh Museum should be moved to Ho Chi Minh Museum (Hanoi).--Antigng (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah! Yes. It would appear I am a fool. :) Thanks for pointing this out. !Vote struck above accordingly. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AVS Video Editor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Four years since the four nomination, the article has not improved. Which wouldn't be a problem if for the fact that it clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). Two refs to its own website, one to a download farm, unreferenced criticism section... we are not Softpedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. software.informer and Cnet are download sites providing a download link for this software and thus not independent coverage. A search shows other download sites with brief reviews, did not turn up any significant, independent RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero Cometas USA[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this article as a "basketball team with no assertion of notability," and it was declined by User:TonyTheTiger with the rationale "It needs serious evaluation at WP:AFD if it is to be deleted. Expertise is needed to determine the caliber of this league and its teams. I view as semipro that should be deleted, but am not sure." So I'm taking it here to get that "expertise." I believe it fails WP:ORG because there isn't significant coverage in secondary sources. Pretty much what I found was wiki mirrors and WP:ROUTINE coverage, which isn't enough for WP:ORGDEPTH. Tavix | Talk 03:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 03:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 03:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 03:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, this is one of many abandoned articles on ABA 2000 teams. The Cometas apparently folded in November 2007 [44]. (I can't find anything about their demise beyond that message board thread, but finding information on most teams in this league - even current ones - is a headache.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some content has since been added to the page, but I still don't think the team is notable enough. The sources available aren't the sort of things that would normally satisfy the notability guidelines. I've never seen any ABA teams in Chicago get substantial attention from the mainstream media. (As far as I can tell, there was only one article ever written about the Cometas by either the Chicago Tribune or Chicago Sun-Times.) You could find more newspaper content about high school bass fishing.

If there is a good quality source that even briefly mentions how/when the team folded, then maybe the team would be worth a brief mention in the Cicero, Illinois article. But right now, we just don't have enough good sources to tell enough of the story.Zagalejo^^^ 19:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet General Notability Guidelines. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I-OOA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSOFT and has done so since we imported it from FOLDOC. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as above Deunanknute (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Certainly fails this requirement for inclusion: "The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." Pretty obscure tool. —Noah 03:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. J. Britt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BLP, this article has been tagged since September 2014, and no references have been provided for all of the info on this person. Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this putative actor under WP:BASIC. There are a few interviews out there, but I didn't see independent coverage. No objection to a redirect if other editors feel there is a good strong target for the redirect. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nerone (rapper)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to not meet notability for musicians. He's an Italian rapper who apparently (from the article) has only released one album, and does not appear to have an article in the Italian Wikipedia [45]. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability would seem to hinge on whether MTV Spit is a sufficiently major contest that winning makes the subject notable. --Michig (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to a line in the disambiguation page pointing to MTV Spit#Winners. My sense is that the answer to Michig's question is no. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dann Glenn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be autobiographical and conflict-of-interest. Also may not meet notability requirements for musicians. The biographical info is not verifiable. No references provided for biographical info. FunkyMexican (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His releases appear to be self-published. Furthermore, the Amazon reviews for his book are all 5-star and have the impression of having been written by himself. FunkyMexican (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umcb[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICT, WP:NOTNEO, no evidence that this abbreviation even exists in the wild. Prod removed by article creator without explanation. Kolbasz (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NAD and WP:NEO. At best this a WP:TNT scenario, with only a WP:DICDEF and a FaceBook citation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... not reliably verifiable, to start. And then... --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Weitz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a biographical article about an ISP business owner. There are a number of press releases related to Compucast, her company, but nothing which stands out to substantiate a biography that I could find. As with all of my deletion nominations, please leave me a message on my talk page if sourcing is located which would affect the outcome of this article. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She may be notable, but the article is written in a fawning fashion with repeated use of the first name, which trivializes her accomplishments. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional, few reliable sources, lots of biased language. The whole tone of the article is unencyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CEO of a small ISP, not the same as Comcast. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhymes (song)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very new song, not in NPOV and written like advertisement. No doubt producers are notable, but the new released song do not credibly indicates any good coverage. Fails WP:NSONG A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 16:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a bona fide hit. Currently #13 in the UK 86.129.119.11 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "hit" still requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Being on a list of popular songs isn't "significant coverage". At best, per WP:NSONGS, a redirect is in order. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is basically a remixed version of Touch It, Although this is getting airplay it's no different from any other remixed version!, Not even worth Merging as it's not a cover either. –Davey2010^Talk 03:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I Did It Again: The Best of Britney Spears[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Severely lacking in reliable sources. The only proper coverage appears in a Yahoo! article and a brief AllMusic review; I do not consider Mstarz ~~or Idolator~~ to be reliable. The Yahoo! article also cites a tweet from Sony Music indicating that they are unaware of this album's existence, which raises concerns about whether or not this is a bootleg release. (NALBUM states that "Unreleased material (including ... bootlegs ...) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.")

Several "keep" !voters at the last AfD claimed that all of Spears' other albums have articles and this should be kept for completeness. However, several of Spears' compilations do not have articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting Status, Arre 9, Ritchie333, Tomica, and Dralwik back from the previous discussion. (Others appear to be inactive.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Not sure about MStarz but Idolator, published by Gawker Media, is most certainly a reliable source. Also not to avoid are AllMusic and Yahoo! MaRAno ^FAN 09:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Idolator is listed as a reliable source under WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, the content from that source doesn't add much to the article, and my other comments still apply. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 16:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centre contre les manipulations mentales[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GROUP. Only possible merge target would be Roger Ikor, but that is already a very weakly notable subject as well. Tgeairn (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: oodles of coverage in WP:RS, passes WP:GNG. . Vrac (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That search is pulling far too many unrelated articles to quantify. Try "Centre contre les manipulations mentales". Note that the returns are quoting others, and are in many cases multiple news agencies repeating the same quotes or wire-service articles. These do not meet WP:GROUP, and are specifically excluded in WP:ORGDEPTH. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BEFORE. For sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH criteria, you need look no farther than the article itself: [46] [47]. As for additional coverage, it's there all you have to do is look for it. Vrac (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggesting WP:BEFORE. Having participated in hundreds of XfDs, I have certainly read it.

The two sources you provide are not significant coverage of the subject. Said another way, CCMM is not the subject of the coverage in those examples. CCMM is certainly mentioned, and even figures into the timeline of the LePoint piece, but CCMM is not the subject in these. WP:ORGDEPTH is (among other things) about having significant coverage of the subject, not passing or incidental coverage. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources discuss what the organization does, its history, who runs/ran it, the org.'s influence, etc... this constitutes significant coverage in my opinion. And there's plenty of other stuff out there, [48], [49], etc... and the backlash press from sects: [50] , (I tried to post a link to a sect's anti-CCMM article in this space but I guess wikipedia blocks sect sites), the backlash articles obviously aren't WP:RS but they do speak to CCMM having influence and not being some fly-by-night org, etc... I see no problem with it passing WP:GNG and I'll stop there. Vrac (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two main anti-cult organizations in France – CCMM and UNADFI. Both have been nominated (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union nationale des associations de défense des familles et de l'individu) but I think both pass GNG rather easily. There is also academic coverage, as in this book. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Oh sorry, the book was already in the article. Anyway, I think that's enough. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Union nationale des associations de défense des familles et de l'individu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable French not-for-profit. Available sources are either WP:SPS or largely editorial. Nothing found to meet WP:ORGDEPTH Tgeairn (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aside from the references in the article, the Google Books link above returns quite a number of discussions of this organisation, both in English and in French books. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the listings found in the Google Books link appear to be the same list of websites/other reading copied from one book to another. This is a very small, fringe field and the writers tend to heavily borrow from one another. Most "books" are re-compilations with some editorial commentary at best. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree about the fringe field, and have not yet come fully to a view on the notability of this organisation, but the discussion on pages 12-17 of "The New Heretics of France" [51] seems substantial; to a lesser extent so too is the discussion on pages 195-197 of "Les Sectes" [52]. AllyD (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New Heretics... piece is pretty interesting. I'm not going to say that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH, but if the article does stay then it might be a good place to start from. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is ample coverage in WP:RS: l'Express, le Monde, etc... Vrac (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Many mentions in the press. While I didn't see an in-depth profile, the mentions weren't trivial. Plus the discussion in the New Heretics book. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Also the book cited in the article on Catherine Picard. And the materials published by the organization's targets, like the Scientologists. Of course those are not RS, but they could lead to RS sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete/snow close. Article has several issues, from copyright violations and promotion to notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball Z:Universe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a game guide. smileguy91^talk 02:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - appears to be copyvio'd, looks like a non-notable video game that might not even be official? Deunanknute (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:GAMEGUIDE per the article itself.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete pursuant to CSD A7 (web content). Safiel (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by page author transferred from AfD talk page I Created this Wiki as a Help, Guide, for a Fan based Game which I heavily coded, edited with the help of other coders All names, images etc. within this game gives Credit to all Owners and we do not make profit and I don't believe we are infringing any rights. I am appealing this deletion because why can big game company's have Wiki pages and I cant? if any Copyrights have been infringed ill do everything In my power to rectify this. Game is Based on the Byond Platform which is found at www.byond.com I stated this in the wiki and on my game. In regards to Funimation all names and credits are credited to them via my in game splash screens to other authors are listed in Game messages and on the Byond website via a hub page. Lets be fair.. its a small time facts page where is the genuine harm? Chris Curwen aka Snakey "coder" chrisrules44210"Byond" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj curwen (talk • contribs) 21:21, February 9, 2015‎ (UTC) — Cj curwen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Fyshe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~appears to be non-notable, possible COI by creator Deunanknute (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

withdraw - notability shown Deunanknute (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Deunanknute. I look forward to the debate on the possible deletion, but hope to have an opportunity to hear/read any concerns and or suggestions for edits as necessary (Though, I think I have conformed to Wikipedia policies). Further, there is still a list of additional original source material (mostly press coverage not available to link to online) not yet included in the current Wikipedia article on Mike Fyshe from 1998 and 2001 (Globe and Mail Newspaper, Marketing Magazine, Strategy Magazine, Financial Post Newspaper, National Post Business Magazine, Financial Post Magazine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckuilman (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the online references impart any notability, and I was unable to find copies of those offline. He is still active and working in the same/similar field, yet there are no online sources of notability? Do you have any online sources that will help? Deunanknute (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the referenced articles, both online and offline, are from major Canadian news magazines and respected industry journals (and after carefully reviewing, do conform to the Wikipedia guidelines). For pre-web publications, what proof is required? (I can provide scans from the original hardcopies). It concerns me that pre-web publication/documentation is somehow 'less' valid. FYR, of the offline articles, versions (text) for The National Post Business magazine (Nov 1999), Canada's corporate elite 1999, is available in Canadian Business & Current Affairs Reference on proquest.com (but only via subscription - mine was Toronto Library). Financial Post Magazine (Nov 1998), Top 200 CEOs, is listed in Canadian Business & Current Affairs Reference but not accessible (possibly via subscription). Ckuilman (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the references themselves. The problem is that they do not indicate any notability of Mike Fyshe. They indicate notability of BBDO. Scans aren't required, but would be helpful, if the subject is Mike Fyshe. Offline sources are perfectly valid, just sometimes trickier to verify. To clarify from before, zero online references of somebody still alive and active is not an article killer in and of itself, but it seems uncommon. Deunanknute (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 1998 and 1999 articles are of the CEOs themselves, plus the Lara Mills articles (Marketing Magazine) spotlight the man, who happens to be from BBDO. In this light, the other references included for the article all support notability (eg..."Canada's big-agency leader still contributing"). References are all verifiable and independent sources of sufficient depth. Of the more current references, I've added two this AM. Some others do not meet the Wikipedia guidelines and were not included. Fermanmain (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Eady[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY; single source does not adequately confirm notability. smileguy91^talk 01:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pretty clearly the subject of multiple pieces of independently-published coverage, as the cited Country Music Television piece indicates. I've put the piece into basic WP form, added a few categories, etc. and brought the article to the attention of one of WP's country music people for his judgment. Seems to be a pretty obvious GNG pass, judging from a quick flip around the internets. Carrite (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Also passes WP:BAND with a charting album on Billboard: http://www.billboard.com/artist/304248/jason-eady/chart?mobile_redirection=false I would add to the article myself but Wikipedia is a bitch to edit on my phone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now has multiple sources, including an NPR piece on the singer. Pretty clearly noteworthy (which is why I started the article in the first place.)NoahB (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Findlay[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

minor actor, no notable roles Deunanknute (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Imdb is not a credible source in my opinion. Lightspeed2012 16:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDb is fine for credits, but his begin in 2014, so at best WP:TOOSOON. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Clarityfiend: Understood Lightspeed2012 13:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Findlay has such minor roles, that in the film he was in that we have an article on, he is not one of the 22 listed cast members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garey Hayden[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable possibly per WP:BLP1E. Article has zero content with only a single non-third-party source. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is laughable. Deleting Hayden from contract bridge would be like deleting Gary Player from golf. Articles need some time to develop. Abuse of nominations for deletion is why some people leave Wikipedia editing. Please give me a friggin' break! What a waste of time to have to respond to such crap! Additional material and references have been added since the delete tag was placed. Article deletion is not warranted. Newwhist (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A winner of multiple major championships at the highest level. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Of note is that a discussion regarding these articles has began at Talk:Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 2002–2006 NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 2002–2006[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Due to the way the Tasmanian Legislative Council works - elections are held annually, only two or three divisions per year, and each candidate sits for six years - the articles about its members are divided into groups, typically six years at at time. The 2002-06, 2006-10 and 2010-14 list pages do not follow this pattern and the contents are duplicates of the 1999-2005, 2005-11 and 2011-17 pages which fit the naming convention of the rest of the articles. Admittedly the six year grouping is arbitrary and it could be done any number of other ways, but the rest of the articles are done in this format. See Category:Members of Tasmanian parliaments by term Chuq (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This does not seem to be a new fork, both the nominated piece and its ostensible fork, Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 1999-2005 date from 2008. The problem is, as nearly as I can tell, the piece being deleted is superior to the piece which is proposed to be saved (footnotes, navigational footer). Clearly a content fork, but I think we have it backwards here and the 1999-2005 piece (etc.) is the one that should go. Carrite (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I applaud Chuq for taking on this anomaly, which has been sitting around for years. But, as per Carrite above, I actually think the four-year terms are better - as the nomination says the six-year ones are arbitrary, and since it's a tricky one all-round they may as well match up to the lower house. Of course this would involve a hideous amount of work to standardise them all this way, which is why I, for one, have always shied away from doing anything about it. Maybe with a team effort it could be made easier. Frickeg (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As with others, I agree that the four-year terms are superior. They're a lot easier for navigation, and the six-year ones are completely arbitrary. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments all. The basis for the six year groupings is that the elections are every six years and therefore the article covers one complete cycle of the LC. I agree the format as a whole could be revisited - it isn't clear from the table that not all the members listed sat at the same time. Where is a better central point to discuss this? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics? -- Chuq (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting everyone on the Australian politics list and seeing if anyone is interested might be a good starting point. It's good that you're addressing a longstanding fork anomaly openly and with an open mind... I don't think there is necessarily a right or a wrong here so long as information isn't lost in the switch. Carrite (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the four year articles (time span wise) makes more sense than the six year terms, as the terms line up with those of the Tasmanian House of Assembly, so it shows the Council as it is for each term of government. However, I think the info is displayed in a rather clumsy and hard to comprehend manner. I have constructed a different layout which I think is easier to understand, and posted it on Talk:Members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, 2002–2006#Proposed new table layout. Even if this group of articles is deleted, I still propose this change, and welcome feedback on the talk page. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks ColonialGrid! As you can see it is hard to find a good layout! I'll reply on that page. -- Chuq (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Gold bug. There is a clear consensus that the article should not exist as a standalone, the majority is in favor of a redirect, and the policies are also explicit that redirect is preferable to deletion if possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Wars[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable obscure fringe conspiracy theory of one or more gold bugs, unsourced by anything resembling a reliable source, and basically unnoticed even as a fringe theory by the rest of the planet. Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gold bug. Generally concur with the nom's statement although I think the term "gold war" is used by some fringe conspiracy theorists. For that reason alone, I suggest a redirect vice outright deletion. I further note a possible COI as the article's author claims to hold the copyright to the image recently uploaded. See also this discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gold bug. A Google search didn't produce mainstream commentary. Geogene (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False - Google lists a Bloomberg article on Dmitri Speck's book, for example. Also, is it actually wp policy to only validate mainstream sources and US sources? If a preponderance of alternative sources cite the theory, then it comprises a valid entry into WP based on public interest. Please google Gold Price Manipulation. Several mainstream sources have now been added. I have permission to post the graphic of Gold Wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterkel (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FRINGE. The fact that a fringe theory exists or even that it has been mentioned in mainstream sources is not a guarantee of notability or a stand alone article. Also you may not present fringe theories as fact, which you have been doing citing other fringe sources. See WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Wikipedia has codified a mainstream bias, and any number of policy pages can be linked to to demonstrate it. On the Bloomberg piece, one source isn't usually enough to establish notability, and that one looks a lot like an op/ed anyway. Further, this article looks to me like it's really about the book "Gold Wars", which wasn't written by Speck. Geogene (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Is there an article about theories that the US gov't controls other various commodity prices such as other metals, oil, food stuffs, etc? Deunanknute (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am aware of. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does seem like the term is most heavily used by fringe theorists, but I have found some evidence that this term has been used in the past, namely through this Senate hearing. The only problem is that we only see snapshots so we can't really verify how in-depth it went into the topic. I wouldn't use that to show notability but mostly I just wanted to show that it's been in use for a while. On the same topic I did find this book which appears to discuss the topic but never refers to it by that name. I'll see what else I can find, but so far I'm leaning towards redirecting as well. The only usable thing I've found so far is a recent book published through an academic publisher. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I can't find anything most of what I'm finding is pretty general and already covered at the article for gold fixing. Even then most of the time the term is used its used in reference to gold rushes, so the best alternative here is to just redirect to gold bug. I'd say that maybe there could be a hatnote directing people towards gold fixing, but I don't think that there is enough here to really mention this in terms of the United States specifically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect the article seems to be a Trojan horse for the book, which simply isn't notable, as far as I can tell - maybe I'm not finding the reviews. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an article is created on the actual conspiracy theory (which is almost certainly notable), in which case redirect to that. Right now, the article is a description of three non-notable books, not a description of the conspiracy theory itself. Redirecting to gold bug makes little sense as the term is not a synonym for "gold bug", nor is the term "Gold Wars" mentioned on that page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, The Gold Cartel does appear to be notable (its been reviewed by multiple mainstream publications). That portion of the article could be repurposed as a stub on the book. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy theories about gold manipulation are addressed in Gold bug. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ad Orientem; there is no need for a fork to cover this obscure term for an already-discussed topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider two sentences that say conspiracies exist "discussed", then yes they are discussed. However, that is not what an actual article would look like - there is plenty of mainstream discussion of the idea (mostly very dismissive, of course). The gold bug page isn't really an article at all. It is some weird pseudo-disambiguation page.

Again, there is no reason to redirect - the phrase "gold war" apparently has many unrelated uses and isn't mentioned at the proposed target. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gold bug - purely fringe sources for this, nothing that I could find in more mainstream sources. Ravensfire (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to be a thinly veiled promotional page for a non-notable book. Alternatively redirect to Gold Bug. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. It was a poorly-sourced conspiracy-theory-cum-book-advert a year ago; I redirected it; the article creator diligently restored it; and here we are. bobrayner *Delete 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow. What bobrayner said works for me. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 23:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth a redirect because the term is purely promotional. jps (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] ttp://www.wsj.com/articles/beepi-raises-60-million-to-sell-used-cars-to-smartphone-generation-1412738102

[2] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/finally-someone-is-sendin_b_5382730.html

[3] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/finally-someone-is-sendin_b_5382730.html

[4] ttp://www.technologyreview.es/tr35argentinayuruguay/profile.aspx?trid=1524

[5] ttp://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/2014-beepi-used-cars-alejandro-resnik.php

[6] ttp://pulsosocial.com/2014/10/15/beepi-o-como-conseguir-usd-60-m-en-seis-meses-para-transformar-la-compra-venta-de-autos/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]