Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 26

	Articles for deletion/Pen clicking
	Articles for deletion/Pen clicking (2nd nomination)

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 January	27 January >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 17:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samidh mukerjee[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable individual. References are all primary or of dubious reliability (i.e. IMDb-style webpages). Of lesser importance is the promotional tone used throughout the article (since that can easily be rectified). Primefac (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I'm not sure how Times of India qualifies as a primary or unreliable source.. There I see a fair number of sources that establish notability of subject per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1. Here are some from the existing article, -[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Most of the refs there are from TOI, but these are written by different authors, -is it a concern here? (if yes, I'll attempt to look for others). If not, what else? (contents can be discussed on respective talk page). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage in the Times of India is quite pervasive. I also found this in a quick search. There is sufficient coverage to establish that inclusion in Wikipedia is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage detailed above, which meets WP:N and WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 11:00, 2 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 List of sports rivalries. Sandstein 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crosstown rivalry[edit]

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

Same reason as the Local derby page - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local derby, which was redirected to List of sports rivalries. This article is even more incomplete though, and much more American-centric. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per consensus. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content and redirect, a logical decision after the redirect of local derby. Aspirex (talk) 06:14, 29 January 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 Draft. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hera Pheri 3[edit]

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

Based on the previous deletion nominations based on WP:NFF and a perpetual lack of references, let's have one final discussion and then, if the consensus is for deletion, protect the article for at least three months. We've just been through a cycle of one author blanking the article or allowing a PROD to expire and waiting for the article to be deleted, and only for that author or another one to recreate it almost immediately. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hera Pheri 4, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hera Pheri 4 (2nd nomination) (forming the basis of RHaworth's "Article deleted at AFD" deletion in this article's log; it redirected to Hera Pheri 4 at the time), Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015 January 23#Hera Pheri 4. So far as I can tell, this article hasn't had any previous discussions, though that's perhaps splitting hairs. —Cryptic 02:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The movie does not yet exist and there are no references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this article. I have updated the content and added some sources. The film will release in December, this year. I will add some more sources. Please do not delete.Taniya94 (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy -The film has got kind of coverage that help it to meet the WP:GNG standard but as principle photography has not yet started, at this time it fails WP:NFF. It is however said in reliable sources that principle photography is expected to begin next month -([12], [13]), so it would be kind of bureaucratic measure to delete it now and recreate it next month. Userfy it and move it back to mainspace when it satisfies WP:NFF guideline. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Neeraj Vora. IF/WHEN is sourced to have begun filming, we can have an article as allowed under WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Until then we can redirect (for now) to director Neeraj Vora where we do have enough sources where it can be spoken of and sourced as one of his "upcoming" projects. Undelete or reverse redirect AFTER filming has been verified. And yes... if anyone wants the main article userfied to them until then, fine. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
doesnt belong in main space as failure of WP:NFF and as one of the projects perpetually in the "HOMG!!!!! new rumors again state production will start shortly!111!!!". delete / userfy / draftspace / redirect all viable options, and protection to avoid premature resurrection with the next batch of rumors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Main actors have been confirmed and filming will begin next month, Develop in draft-space and move to mainspace when principal photography commences.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete Not enough information as of now, mostly rumours. Delete. Coderzombie (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at this moment to Neeraj Vora. Film will release one day, it is being planned since 2007. నిజానికి (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not confirmed, fails WP:NFF Himanshugarg06 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is already confirmed, for more than 7 years. నిజానికి (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. No question for deletion, the film is confirmed to release on 18 December 2015, at the film's official press conference held in January.Suman Sen 303 (talk) 06:41, 3 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. Sandstein 22:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Grunebaum[edit]

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

This article suffers from multiple issues, any one of which should lead to its deletion. First it is an unsourced biography (there are two sources used, neither appears to be a reliable source , and both of which are dead links). Second, it does not indicate any notability of this person. Third, it appears that it was mostly written as a vanity article by the subject himself - note the abundance of IP edits from 140.251.117.129 which geolocate to Weill Cornell Medical College where the subject works Brad Dyer (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking through online articles he seems to pass the Notability criteria -(he has appeared on news programs, television, been quoted in newspapers and magazines and has authored numerous academic articles and is co-author of Dr.Ruth's Pregnancy Guide for Couples).

The article needs to be cleaned up, extended and properly referenced.Cathar66 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Brad Dyer, and disagree with Cathar66: being quoted in the lay press and authoring academic articles and textbook chapters does not make one an exceptional academic. Moreover, he seems to be drumming up business with self promotion. He is not a full professor or anything similar, at least as far as I can tell, as required for notability at WP:PROF. BakerStMD T|C 16:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Aside from the Telegraph article, most of the bibliography are his papers. A 1984 paper has almost 400 citations, but they go down rapidly from there (e.g. h-index is 10) and, given that academic medicine is a high-citation field, this is probably about average. Agricola44 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Lightly cited, none of the papers or authorship rise to WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Appears to be a bit of self-promotion. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:53, 30 January 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. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CaseyGerry[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, in that the firm itself has not been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. A couple of the cases might be notable, but the firm itself isn't. It's also written like an advertisement. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made numerous updates to the page/article. Could you please take a look again to see if I've corrected these issues? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moore2com (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC) — Moore2com (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Moore2com: By removing what few third-party references the article had, your recent edits have made the problem worse. Notability needs non-trivial coverage by reliable media independent of the subject. I'll hold off voting keep or delete until I search for reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Moore2com:, I agree with @Gene93k:, your edits have made it worse. If the firm were notable for anything, it would be for the high-profile cases it has handled. Your recent changes have eliminated the mentions of the cases. However, it's not enough for the firm to have handled high profile cases; the firm itself has to be notable; it has to be "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." See WP:NCORP. Take a look at Cracker Barrel, or BAE Systems for examples of what an article about a business or corporation should look like. Also Ace Books, note how the article incorporates the history of the company, shows how the company was influential in the development of science fiction as a genre, and a list of the most influential books the company has published (akin to a list of important cases won by a firm). Note that it has 38 references to independent sources, most of which discuss the company and its influence in the publishing world. Now, obviously not all articles are going to be of featured article quality right from the start. I don't think we currently have any articles about law firms that are WP:FA or even Good Article quality. However, articles about law firms do have to establish that they are notable. See for example, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, they have 8 sources, and some of them are from the firm itself (which is fine), but the article also cites to articles about the firm in Wall Street Journal and Above the Law, among others. The U.S. News Best Law Firm ranking comes close, although much of the information for those rankings comes from firms themselves, and to some extent they are a popularity contest. Likewise, Super Lawyers inclusion has not been considered indicative of notability for lawyer/lawfirm articles on Wikipedia in the past. See for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scheiner Law Group. Hopefully that helps you understand what we're looking for. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason, I heavily revised this article, mostly to make it easier to see what references it is relying on. I also did some searching for additional sources. I still don't think it meets WP:NCORP. Here are the sources it currently has:

Preparation Pays, an article in the Los Angeles Daily Journal. The Daily Journal is a publication specializing in legal news. They publish legal notices and profiles of lawyers and law firms. The article is heavily promotional and reads like a press release. I believe it fails WP:ORGIND because it appears to be, "advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization."
U.S. News & World Report Law Firm Rankings. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as it is merely inclusion in a list of similar organizations. Also, if you read their profile on the firm, it uses words like "our" indicating it was generated from within.
State Bar of California List of Past Presidents. This is not significant coverage of the firm, merely support for the ascertation that the firm's founder was a president of that organization.
Martindale profile. This also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is merely inclusion in a list of similar organizations.
Super Lawyers. Again, WP:CORPDEPTH. See footnote
Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide. Inclusion in a notable list counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject.
All remaining sources (with one exception) again, are merely lists or directories of law firms or lawyers who meet certain characteristics.
Bankers Hill firm to serve on litigation committee against NFL. This is the only source that I consider beginning to provide a foundation for notability. It's an article in the local paper about the firm's work on the NFL litigation.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. I could not find any significant coverage about this law firm from independent reliable sources. There are plenty of mentions - such as when they were one of several law firms in a high-profile case, or when one of their partners was appointed to a civic board - but WP:CORP requires significant coverage and I'm not seeing any. (If kept, the name should be changed to Casey Gerry.) --MelanieN (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your help. I'm trying to figure this all out as I go. I can't even remember how I replied to you in the first place...ack. Will keep working on page. Please don't delete. There's hope right?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moore2com (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Moore2com, this discussion will stay open for a week before any action is taken. But I'm sorry to say, at this point there probably is not hope. The problem is not with the way you have written the article. The problem is that the law firm doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, as spelled out at WP:CORP. That requires that the company or firm must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. That means significant coverage (not passing mentions) about the firm itself (not its members) from independent reliable sources (not press releases, company pages, etc.). If that coverage does not exist - and from a search I don't think it does - then no amount of editing or revising is going to save the article. Sorry to be so blunt, I know this is frustrating after you have worked so hard on the article. But Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and it has to have standards for inclusion. It is really hard for any law firm to meet those standards, since it's very rare for newspapers or magazines or other Reliable Sources to write about the law firm. In a way that's inherent in the nature of a law practice; the attorneys usually keep a low profile, while it's the case or the client that gets the coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really do appreciate all the help you've give me MelanieN and helping explain everything (and rewriting if that was you!). Does coverage on verdicts count as coverage of the law firm? I find this entire process fascinating. It's my first foray in to the wiki world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moore2com (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 January 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. Mr.Z-man 04:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vector Artist[edit]

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

appears to be non-notable Deunanknute (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find WP:RS coverage; only reference is a red herring. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability unclear The Banner talk 15:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is about a very popular, if not the first, vector graphics app on Android.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.246.183 (talk • contribs) 12:55, February 1, 2015

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Only independent ref in article does not mention Vector Artist. A search turned up incidental mentions in list articles, but no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 19:59, 2 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. Mr.Z-man 04:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of upcoming Pakistani films[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Many of the films on the list are unsourced. Similar articles have been deleted in the past, e.g. List of upcoming films. For those entries which are actually in production, close to release, and notable, a category would work better than this list. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion at the moment anyway. It is an unsourced mess. If MichaelQSchmidt can recommend a way to fix or redirect it (of course this is dependent on MQS's work load and/or any desire to deal with this at all) then I would be willing to rethink my vote. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment page says in start that these films are just announced, in production or of which release date is not announced. Can this page be KEEP if every title is given a reliable reference? UBS talk 02:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is doubtful. Please read WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL MarnetteD|Talk 03:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Remove anything unsourced. Check the blue-links for references in that article. Individual articles that fail WP:NFF can be deleted if needed. Future films should be easy to verify. Something that is being released in the middle of Feb should have plenty of coverage, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This topic will be constantly "rolling", though. What about emulating the current year-specific approach? For example, we have up to 2019 in film. This generally means that a 2016-in-film list for Pakistani films could grow and usually stay, where additional year-in-film lists can be created and sustained as newer films come out. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see now that there are no release dates attached to these, so a year-specific approach won't always work. Do we even list upcoming films anywhere if there's no release year attached? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I guess we could move any concrete info into List of Pakistani films of 2015 or List of Pakistani films of 2016 instead. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best, a crystal ball exercise. An inevitable magnet for rumor and poorly sourced speculation. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, frankly, I don't see the usefulness of such list, and I see a lot of issues, starting from the continuous updating and monitoring it would require. Cavarrone 10:49, 1 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 Bridesmaid. Of note is that the keep !voter stated in a later comment that would also be okay with a merge. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridesmaids' luncheon[edit]

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

Onel5969 (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article seems to have been written off the top of someone's head without sources, the topic itself is notable. I'm sure plenty of sources could be found in wedding guidebooks, etc. Borock (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be fine with a merge.Borock (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bridesmaid (which what I was attempting to do when I accidently nominated it). I don't think there's enough here for an article by itself, but I do think the information should be included on the other page. Onel5969 (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. We already have Rehearsal dinner and Wedding breakfast and without proper sourcing, this would seem to be another variation-on-a-theme. I have no problem mentioning it (though we would still need sources to establish this is a actual thing; can't say it strikes me as something common here in Australia) somewhere else. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:28, 27 January 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. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini Sharma[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. As a not-yet elected candidate, this person has not generated enough significant coverage to yet be considered notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject fails to meet WP:GNG-KDS4444^Talk 18:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an elected candidate and all coverage what they have got are passing/short mentions for being them a candidate in the upcoming state assembly election (anyway at this time it appears to be a BLP1E case). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Candidature in an election is not the eligibility criteria to have a wikipedia page. Looks like a promotional article. Athachil (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . In addition to a politician she is a renowned homoeopathy practitioner too. Has received lifetime achievement award in the field.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those facts would need verification: i.e. a significant source that felt that award significant enough to write about. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 30 January 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joost vandebrug[edit]

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

Article contains only references to web pages that are mentioned in the article, not to published reliable sources. Lack of other evidence of notability suggests non-notability & failure to meet WP:GNG. KDS4444^Talk 18:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er what's that you're saying? I don't understand the nomination. This reference, for example, seems pretty good. The article links to it, but doesn't mention it. (Even if the article did mention it, so what?) -- Hoary (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be plenty of coverage about this person and his work/projects in a number of reliable third-party sources. I too don't quite understand the nom. Article needs moving to Joost Vandebrug per capitalisation. Mabalu (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -Subject meets GNG and CREATIVE #3 criteria (the person has created a well known work that has been subject of multiple independent reviews) -Sources, -[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. I guess, nominator in their first sentence of afd rationale wanted to point out quite a few unnecessary web links that lead to no where but home page and in turn doesn't help to verify anything or establish notability. In second and last sentence of their rationale, they have raised a concern over notability that I think, should have been addressed by now. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps KDS4444 would return here to gloss the nomination, and thereby end the guesswork. -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 2 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. Mr.Z-man 04:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism and Democracy[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place for essays. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – It reads like an essay, but the topic is actually "Democracy and nationalism in post-Soviet Central Asia". It could probably be rewritten in a more encyclopedic style to be that kind of article. But the topic seems too specialized. I think it might be better to just start over and use this material to improve existing articles, say Post-Soviet states. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. This is an original essay attempting to synthesize various works that may or may not relate to the article subject. -Markeer 02:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and others commenting. This is an essay based on original research, not an encyclopedia article.--4scoreN7 (talk) 16:10, 2 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inovia[edit]

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

Non-notable web Eng: company. Self promotional sources, self publications. No reliable sources found to identify notability. Fails WP:ORG A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 17:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Looks like a successful company, but I couldn't find any third-party sources. Part of the problem is other companies also named Inovia, including the patent lawyers and iNovia Capital, which funds startups.– Margin1522 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a purely promotional article. {{Huddsblue (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG with WP:RS and this piece is clearly WP:PROMO. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:52, 31 January 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) Ethically^Yours! 17:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Private Higher Education Institutions of Thailand[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:ORG: lacking significant coverage from independent, third-party sources. depth of coverage is not substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sry85 (talk • contribs) 23:36, January 25, 2015‎ (UTC)

Keep Appears to satisfy organization notability guidelines. Safiel (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Seems like it should be a notable organization. Material in English may be a little sparse (just the two books), but there appears to be more in Thai. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 26 January 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudreach[edit]

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

Inadequately-sourced article about a non-notable company. The only available sources are affiliate listings, trivial listings, press releases and one mere mention found in Information Age. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 13:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom; fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Article started by WP:SPA. Likely WP:SELFPROMOTION. NickCT (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any 3rd party information that would make this company notable. Only press releases and marketing. Chosenone Pie (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -There are few independent coverage but they mostly are short/passing mentions and do not help subject to reach the WP:CORPDEPTH standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:49, 2 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 I went ahead and BOLDly deleted this under G7 to save time. ThaddeusB (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Palmer[edit]

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

In Adam Palmer we have this situation: the BLP was created two years ago by Adamppalmer14 (t c), presumably the subject. A new user, Adamppalmer (t c) now turns up and blanks the page with the edit summary "Unnecessary Bio, deleted entry". Bentogoa tagged the article with G7, but then reverted himself as the blanking editor is not identical to the creating editor. Adamppalmer has blanked again with the edit summary "This is my own bio. I dont think this contributes to Wikipedia and better to remove it. I am not famous or noteworthy. I have tried to delete the page." What's sensible to do here? I brought this question up at the help desk, but it got only one response. Should we believe that Adamppalmer is the subject and the article creator and speedy delete it under G7? Or treat it as a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE? I am open for both possibilities, but I fail to find info on how to handle such a case. -- Sam ^Sing! 13:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

provisional delete there is nothing in the article that indicates WP:GNG is met. an initial search finds that he is quoted as a talking head quite frequently, but I did not find substantive coverage about him, but i am willing to acknowledge that deeper digging may uncover such. ping me if such is provided and i do not respond.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better evidence of notability is found. References are all press releases, some are no longer available, and the first (which is available) does not mention the subject. Maproom (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I posted this on the Help Desk page (where this was first discussed), copying here just as an FYI: I did indeed reach Mr. Palmer on LinkedIn and exchanged correspondance. He is the owner of both accounts mentioned above. I suggested to him that he let the Articles for Deletion process run its course. —Noah 16:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second thought: I just read WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE... would it be useful for Mr. Palmer to establish the authenticity of his account(s) so he could formally add his request for deletion? —Noah 16:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some editors who, in cases of marginal notability, take the desire of the subject to not be the topic of a Wikipedia article into account and !vote delete based upon the request. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 27 January 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 general consensus and Dream Focus's comment. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 17:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retractable pen[edit]

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

A derailed past AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pen clicking (2nd nomination)), where the same article on pen clicking was salvaged by renaming it to a notable topic, but without changing its content.

The article title here is notable. However the article content, such as it is, is still about the trival and non-notable act of pen clicking. There's nothing substantial here about pens that have retractable nibs.

Such pens are, incidentally, pre-war - in an attempt to make non-leaking fountain pens (as are still available). The Frawley Pen Company claim - just about the only factoid in this article that's actually about retractable pens - might be correct for Frawley pens, it might even have primacy for post-war ballpoints, but it's not true for pens in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since, as said, the article title is notable, and the main problem is the lack of reliable, in depth information about it, I'm not sure if a deletion discussion is the appropriate debate, as much as decision to Merge or redirect to Ballpoint Pen. That said, I do agree that, once all the copious amounts of Original Research/Synthesis and inappropriate sources were removed, there really isn't enough in the way of actual sourced information to sustain its own article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ballpoint pen. Everybody knows there are two types of ballpoint pens, retractable and non-retractable. One article can cover both very well. I think "Pen clicking" would be better if merged with "Annoying habits" or some such. Borock (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what about retractable pens that aren't ballpoints? There's a topic here, the problem is that there isn't an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that it is about a type of ballpoint pen.Borock (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the title is "retractable pen" – which I suppose excludes mechanical pencils, but it does cover any ink-based writing implement with a retractable nib, thus the fountain pens too. The content is such crap that it means nothing beyond that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article we are talking about starts out: "A retractable pen is a type of ballpoint pen..." Maybe the title should be "Retractable ballpoint pen." Borock (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of stubs all over Wikipedia, it does not appear to be a reason for deleting an article. It is an engineered object, and it could have a much better article on its own. MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Specifically to Ballpoint pen#Types of ballpoint pens, where there is half a sentence on that. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 23:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have Adventures in Stationery now and, checking it, find that it has more material about the topic. And there's plenty more out there such as this interesting article in Quill and Pad about stylish retractable fountain pens. The Vanishing Point is a wonderful name for this technology and, being made of carbon fibre, seems to be the 21st century state-of-the-art in writing — it must be mine! The nomination doesn't seem to provide any reason to delete (see speedy keep) and so the topic should be kept for more work per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine if you actually have some genuine sources to add some legit info to the article. But the majority of that content that you just "restored" was either completely unsourced OR, based off of unnotable or unreliable sources, or statements that actually are not reflected in the supposed sources that they are claiming to be drawn from. There is an actual reason why most of it was removed in the first place, so you may have actually wanted to look into some of that info before you restored it haphazardly.75.82.28.71 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have that too, but it gives me more enthusiasm that publishers are still buying than it ever enlightened me on stationery history. There are much better books.

It's not in doubt that the topic works – however there's nothing at this article, other than an implication that the only retractable pens are ballpoints and a claim by the Frawley company long after the Biro brothers did it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, these pens have been part of our lives for many years. Yes we have Pen, but this certainly deserves it's own article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom admits the topic is notable, saying "The article title here is notable." Replace "article title" with "article topic" and then read WP:NOTE which says Notability is about topic not content. Content issues are worked out by way of other editing mechanisms. AfD is not cleanup etc.. I think the article is OK, while a little unbalanced towards pen clicking there is nothing inherently wrong which can't be fixed. -- GreenC 17:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why so much valid referenced information was ever removed to begin with. [20] This article was fine when it was just about the well covered pen clicking habit. Now the article has been renamed to be about something else, and most of the well sourced content has been removed. Dream Focus 23:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note from the creator of the article[edit]

The article was in trouble, so as the creator I had to make a decision at the last AFD to morph the article focus in order to give it a stronger argument for existing. I haven't checked in for a while so have no opinion on the content others have deleted. If this becomes a theoterical discussion where nobody actually searches for sources and dumps them in, while just saying "AFD is not for cleanup" to discredit the nomination, then that is not cool. I would consider that a form of slactivist victory that does nothing for noone. Either this article actually gets improved by the many Keepers, or perhaps it really should be nuked...alas...for I have put much work into it.

Also, it could be the sister article to Mechanical pencil.--Coin945 (talk) 06:31, 2 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kam[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Being an upper-mid level business executive (managing director of the Hong Kong Disneyland) isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but major revision, or delete per WP:TNT. Despite the name, Kam is the equivalent of CEO to HKDL. But instead of discussing his work of pulling HKDL out of a deficit [21][22], the current article is an WP:UNDUE-fest focusing on the more mundane facts say his daughter liking which Disney character. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 11:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kam has gotten some significant media coverage. From the sources I've read, it seems that he is in charge of the Disney World, and not just a rank and file member of leadership. Also, I do not think this article is nearly bad enough to justify a nuke and pave. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While being an upper-mid level business executive isn't enough for WP:ANYBIO, being covered in multiple reliable independent sources ([23][24][25]) in detail is enough for WP:BASIC.--218.81.14.78 (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep couldn't find much coverage, but the ones I did find could pass as notable. Also I will suggest adding on to the article and references. Many strong references not included. Chosenone Pie (talk) 05:45, 1 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 snow close delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ba-Con[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Rikuskellington (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I believe that this is notable in the fact that it is a free convention, and it deserves a place on Wiki. As do many other smaller conventions that exist in the country. If we start allowing small conventions to have a place on Wikipedia, it will help the communities and conventions grow, and allow people more options when looking for conventions, especially local ones. - Rikuskellington (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes or to tell the world about your good causes. Events must be shown to be notable with many sources. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 26 January 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 January 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I currently see no strong evidence of notability. One press release published by a local paper doesn't really cut it. See WP:V. --Dweller (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some problems here. The page was proposed for deletion but the above user has created an AFD discussion as a means to resolve that prod. I'm not sure what the procedure is under these circumstances. However this is an non notable convention. As this article was made by a single purpose account (no edits unrelated to this article) it's hard to imagine this being anything less than blatant promotion, either by the organisers or a person who is simply interested in the con. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not for promoting local events.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A local event covered in a local newspaper does not meet notability guidelines, as I state in the PROD. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – All in favor of promoting local events, but WP is not supposed to be for promotion. There are better venues for that. We also need more in-depth sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines, a local non notable small event. I also went ahead and declined the PROD that had been left on the page since the article is at AfD. Safiel (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability in the form of reliable sources = No article here on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be noted that the "weak keep" vote above is from the creator of the page. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and feel it would qualify as a WP:SNOW delete at this point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article speaks for itself and the response is consistent.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional announcement of a minor local convention. Carrite (talk) 19:33, 28 January 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who lived more than 90 years[edit]

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

Given that we have such extensive lists of people who lived >100 that we have had to break them into many constituent parts, this completely arbitrary designation seems quite unnecessary, and the selection of a cut-off of 90 is arbitrary and therefore POV. Dweller (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100 years/Centenarian is notable enough that there is a recognized specific name for the concept. 90 years is not. The premise of the list (The World Factbook shows no average over 90 → notable) is very WP:OR. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete 90 year cut off is so subjective as nom says. What next 95 years? LibStar (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete a pointless list Unibond (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining trivia. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. It would by definition include all centenarians already in lists unless even more arbitrarily narrowed to people living between 90 and 99 years (which I am not advocating). A list for the purpose of creating a list (why not 80 years?); trivial and of little practical use. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as 90 is a random cutoff. -- Calidum 06:47, 27 January 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 Rachel Stamp. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She Made Me Do It[edit]

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

New, unremarkable band. Fails WP:BAND. Was turned down for PROD even though there is not a single reliable source (just blogs and promo stuff). Harry the Dog WOOF 10:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rachel Stamp. Not enough coverage or encyclopedic content for a separate article (Music Week and Louder Than War are perfectly good sources however), but since both members were in Rachel Stamp merging there seems sensible. --Michig (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Michig, couldn't find any good references in my own googling. Earflaps (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete solo search return very little results. Merge will be the better outcome for the moment. Chosenone Pie (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2015

Just to explain i created this page as I did not feel it appropriate to be part of the Rachel Stamp page as it is a subset of that groups members (I do not know the either of bands personally - so do not know how they feel about each other) but know sometimes such situations can can be accrimoneous. I did consider inlcluding it in the Will Crewdson page as his musical involvement in some pretty big bands is what makes this band more notable than other new bands - but again wondered if it might get lost given the number of bands he has been involved with, and then there is the link to Shaheena and Rachel Stamp. Many people now use Wikipaedia as the first place to find out information about bands and if you did not know about their connections you might not find them on - was just trying to be helpful Markrune (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC) (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sachchidanand Rai[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to be notable. The references listed barely discuss him as a person but rather are interviews with him. A Google search only turns up the regular social media fare. Discant X 08:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Almost all sources are only having passing/short mentions of subject. It fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:37, 31 January 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. Google brings up a hell of a lot of sources so clear keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Bounds[edit]

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

Not notable Journotracker (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is clearly established, with citations to reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - lots of news sources, WP:JNN (implying a lack of WP:BEFORE) is not a valid reason for deletion. The top hit is for calling Birmingham "not shit", but notable is notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Published in Birmingham Post and The Guardian isn't chicken feed. Adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is sourced to The Guardian and Birmingham Post. That seems sufficient to me. -- Calidum 06:50, 27 January 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. Sandstein 22:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Past S.A.L. National Commanders[edit]

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

Disputed prod, with no reason given. I believe this is a case of WP:LISTCRUFT. While the Sons of the American Legion may be notable, a list of their past commanders isn't IMO. None of the people listed are notable on WP. Too much like WP:NOTMEMORIAL Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for the redirect. Feel free to paste the list into the main article. None of these people are notable. See WP:COATRACK. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 10:16, 29 January 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. Sandstein 22:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kumar (illusionist)[edit]

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

Non-notable magician. Only one link in the ref section links to a news-ish site (news4city.com) but amusinlgy doesn't mention Mr. Kumar; the other links seem to be very poor for establishing any notability whatsoever. —Noah 05:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not established either by the embedded links or the externals. Fylbecatulous talk 19:06, 2 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"). This is essentially a repost of the material that was deleted at the last discussion and I've cautioned the editor about reposting material without going through deletion review. If anyone wants this to go through another week I'll reopen this, but this will pretty much be the same discussion since the series has only run for one year (2014). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Undisputed World Bboy Series[edit]

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

This article appears to be an offshoot of Undisputed World Bboy Series, which was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undisputed World Bboy Series. There is no indication of notability, no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, and this article is wholly dependent on the deleted main article. The subject may be notable one day, but not just yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Snow talk 05:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Snow talk 05:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning and consensus found in the last discussion; despite efforts, no appropriate independent or secondary reliable sources found to establish notability for this competition under WP:GNG and WP:EVENT and what (unsourceable) content is there is not encyclopedic material but rather a collection of entirely uncontextualized names and tournament trees. The only prose that is to be found is in the "lead", which reads more like a promotional flyer. Pretty open and shut on this one too -- arguably more so. Snow talk 05:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is essentially a repost of the first article, just with it specifying 2014. It's the only competition they've held thus far, so the chance that this will end any differently than the one for the main page is almost non-existent. The content is pretty much identical and unless anyone opposes I'm going to close this early. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 26 January 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. Sandstein 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Jougla[edit]

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

Non-notable French attorney and/or professor. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC nor WP:BIO. Tgeairn (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are insufficient to establish notability, nothing else seems to pop up on Google or GScholar. --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find significant coverage and the references in the article doesn't qualify as WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrac (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 27 January 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. Sandstein 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd analysis of evacuated solar still[edit]

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

This article appears to be about a topic different from the article title, although both topics, the title and the content appear to have limited sources all tied to a single author or no sources or sources not related to what this article appears to be primarily about (either guess). The article was deleted before for being original research, but I cannot understand the article well enough to discern if there is any real research. I can't see how to help it.MicroPaLeo (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MicroPaLeo (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. -- 120.23.177.150 (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics for an expert opinion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, posted there, categorized in CFD, and added FD expert needed category. MicroPaLeo (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Came here from the FD task force request. This looks like a student essay or perhaps a summary of a term project, both original research. The device discussed is an evacuated tube collector. The one equation is a simple one for thermal flux; there is no CFD in it. The first paper referenced is a real one [26] and seems to be the basis for the essay. While it is valid research, a numerical simulation of detailed variations of a type of evacuated tube collector is not a notable subject--it is too specific to have merited any in-depth secondary literature as far as I can tell. Thus even if this whole article was rewritten to be encyclopedic, the topic fails WP:GNG. Deletion seems the best course. --Mark viking (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Another of tide articles also contained non-CFD equations. I will try to find and tag all of them. MicroPaLeo (talk) 11:31, 29 January 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. Note: I did not evaluate the claim of paid editing in my consideration of this close. However, following the close, I did archive the relevant Elance request Doc James referred to at the Internet Archive, and I see their point. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dehan Chen[edit]

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

While the doctor appears to be quite accomplished, there is no indication of particular notability by third parties. The references are either directory listings or similar profile pages that nearly all doctors have. No independent indications of unique notability worthy of an encyclopedia article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article was written as someone paid to have it written. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF. Nothing to indicate he's more than an average doctor. BakerStMD T|C 16:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is not just a average doctor. He was Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Clinical Instructor at the New York University School of Medicine. proof in the NYU Med Bulletin. He has seven publications about his research in top international medical journals. He has received several awards including Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Society Award and Healthgrades Honor Roll. He has thirdparty sources besides derectory links [27], [28], [29] . He has also notable educational background. Don't they all pass wp: notability? Happiest persoN (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the concern is that they paid you to write this article. I do not see anywhere were you disclosed this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything here that rises to the level of notability. Doc James, what is the evidence for your paid editing accusation? If true, that would also be a good reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a job posted on Elance for the writing of this article. Per WP:OUTING it is not clear if one is allowed to link to it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 2 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) 04:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Louis de Saffon[edit]

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

The only reference provided is a broken link. I get 39 Google hits for this name, many of which are drawn from the Wikipedia article. Notability is certainly not asserted in the current article. (He supposedly killed his brother, then became relatively wealthy and gave money to some orphans... This does not make him notable in my eyes.) Bueller 007 (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think references like this and this are enough to verify the content of the article and substantiate notability. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Feel free to improve the articles with these references then. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do it yourself, You're more than capable.... –Davey2010^Talk 01:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's no requirement for me to fix articles and this AFD is not the first time you've suggested that articles should be deleted for lack of effort. In reality, the only related policy that applies is WP:BEFORE. Given how many sources can be easily found, I question whether you followed those instructions. I'm thinking this can probably just be closed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I didn't say you were "required" to do it. In addition to manners, you might want to work on that reading comprehension, yeah. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Replace "required" with any synonym consistent with your intent; you're still wrong. Multiple, disruptive, non-policy AFDs and you want to lecture people on comprehension and manners. You're a riot. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found above as well as here [30][31][32][33]. –Davey2010^Talk 01:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:47, 19 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, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stalwart and Davey2010; though not all of the sources linked are high-quality, most seem to be. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guyana still has a "Saffon" law on the books based the trust left by his will (mentioned in the article, I added a ref to the law). Seems notable enough. —Noah 05:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented in this discussion. -- Calidum 06:52, 27 January 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 BOLD redirect to Big Sounds of the Drags. Given the lack of participation I suspect a merge tag would just languish on the article for months. Anyone who cares enough to do so can merge from under the redirect. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Action Radius[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Big Sounds of the Drags. It's an interesting factoid about a song that was removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:20, 12 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 02:14, 19 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 01:26, 26 January 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 consensus and Rhododendrites's statement. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 17:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda DoHarris[edit]

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

Deletion has been proposed before through PROD, but never through AFD. No indication that this individual meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Early political activity may be notable, but is unreferenced. In fact, the only reference provided at all is a single book review. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this source considers her among "200 of the most important women writers of English" in the Caribbean and there are a number of substantial reviews of her work like this and less detailed reviews in publications like the Monthly Review (like this). That's without consideration of her earlier political activities for which there is little online coverage. It's probably not the strongest case for notability but I think she gets over the line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:13, 19 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 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list that considers her "amongst the top 200" of any demonstrated significance/importance? Anyone can assert such a thing. Also, even "Top 200 in the world" is a rather low bar in a list of unsubstantiated importance, let alone "Top 200" in a region with such a comparatively low population. (About the same as Greater Tokyo.) Also, merely having a book reviewed in minor publications does not meet notability criteria. See WP:AUTHOR; she very clearly doesn't meet it. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not suggested she meets WP:AUTHOR - I think she meets WP:ANYBIO#2, especially since reliable sources have suggested she has made a significant and recognised contribution to her field. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 23 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 01:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough to satisfy WP:BIO, I think. It helped to also search for "Brenda Chester DoHarris". Here are some sources about her and reviews of her books (only one or two behind a paywall): Afro-Hispanic Review 20(2), Guyana Journal, Guyana Journal again, Kaieteur News Online, Kaieteur News again, and again (an interview this time), book announcement, review at Guyana Caribbean Politics, Guyanese Girls Rock (not a great source, no), Signifyin' Woman (again, not great), Guyana Graphic — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources establish WP:BIO #2. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:48, 2 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. Sandstein 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Thomson[edit]

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

Page was prod'ed and restored through WP:REFUND. This person does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE - Alts:

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

Keep Known under different names over the length of her CAREER it appears that her roles do bring her in under WP:ENT. IE: Ciné Live, October 1998, Iss. 17, pg. 22, "Femme au bord de la brise de mer", and Celebrity Skin, May 2003, Vol. 25, Iss. 116, pg. 20, by: staff, "Now Showing: Anna Thomsen" Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and New York Post and France TV Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST deletion - my reasons are as follows below.

I have already posted this on the page of the editor who is determined to ensure that the entry for Anna Thomson stays deleted, and on the Anna Thomson talk page.

I am posting the same again here in order to set out my initial concerns about the way that the entry for Anna Thomson was deleted in the first place. According to the information on the Wikipedia deletion page for 'Anna Thomson' (which I have copied and pasted here for everyone's convenience) the entry was deleted on the grounds that Anna Thomson is a 'Non-notable minor performer; fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR'.

The deletion process was 'Proposed deletion (PROD)'. According to the Wikipedia entry for PROD, Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion. It is a shortcut to the normal deletion review process (AfD), and a fallback for deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion.

Critically, according to the Wikipedia page, 'PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected'.

With all due respect, PROD should not have been used in this instance because opposition was to be expected here. This is for the reasons that I outline below:

1. The first and most important reason why opposition should have been expected is that, as I write, there are six foreign-language Wikipedia pages for Anna Thomson (born Anna Kluger Levine on 18 September 1953 in New York City) aka Anna Levine, aka Anna Levine Thomson, aka Anna Thomson, aka Anna Thompson, aka Anna Levine Thompson.

In alphabetical order, the six foreign-language Wikipedia pages for Anna Thomson are in: Czech; Italian; Dutch; French; German, Spanish.

2. The second reason why opposition should have been expected is that there is an ' Interview biographie d'Anna Thomson' ('Interview biography of Anna Thomson') on INA at http://www.ina.fr/video/I08260832 Here, on 27 April 2002, Thomson was interviewed by Thierry Ardisson about her role in Bridget (2001).

3. The third reason why opposition should have been expected is that there is a Facebook fan page for Anna Thomson at https://www.facebook.com/anna.thomson.fanpage

4. The fourth reason why opposition should have been expected is that there is an IMDB page for Anna Thomson under her name of Anna Levine at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0505764/

5. The fifth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson, who is 61 years old and still working as an actress, has fifty nine (59) credits to her name on her IMDB page (see above) dating from 1969 to 2012.

6. The sixth reason why opposition should have been expected is that, according to her IMDB entry, Anna Thomson 'Gained cult status among French movie experts due to her performance in Sue (1997)'. Sue (1997), was the first film in a 'Trilogy of Loneliness', all set in New York, starring Anna Thomson, directed by Amos Kollek. The second in the trilogy was 'Fiona' (1999). The third in the trilogy was Bridget (2002) (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_(Film). Also see http://www.planet-interview.de/interviews/amos-kollek/34007/

7. The seventh reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson had a substantial role as 'Alexandra "Alex" Arnold' in Jaded (1996). Notable about the English Wikipedia page for Jaded is that out of the eleven actors listed in the Principal Cast, only Anna Levine (Anna Thomson) does not have a current entry.

8. The eighth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson starred in 'Fast Food Fast Women' (2000) directed by Amos Kollek, and entered into the 2001 Festival de Cannes (Cannes Film Festival). See:

a) http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/201743/Fast-Food-Fast-Women/overview

b) http://www.nytimes.com/movies/person/97053/Amos-Kollek

c) http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/5168/year/2000.html

9. The ninth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson starred as herself in 'A Bitter Glory' (2001), a documentary directed by Amos Kollek, produced by Arte France. The film is also known as 'Bitterer Ruhm'. It was filmed in New York and released on 11 December 2001 in France and in Germany.

10. The tenth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson had roles in two Clint Eastwood films, the character of 'Audrey' in 'Bird' (1988), and that of 'Delilah Fitzgerald' in 'Unforgiven' (1992). Thomson's role as 'Delilah Fitzgerald' was substantial, and played a key part in the development of the film's remarkable, haunting and unforgettable pathos.

I have taken some time to put together the ten reasons above in order to make clear to you my concern that this entry should not have been deleted using PROD. In my view, too many Wikipedia administrators are overzealous in their enthusiasm to delete Wikipedia pages on the grounds that the page fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. This is yet one more example of this.121.222.177.134 (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Against deletion" is more properly shared as "Keep" article. Most of your reasons for keep are valid enough, but the main reason it was deleted through prod is that it lacked use of the many reliable sources, and was the correct step for a biography of a living person. Adding the sources showing WP:ENT and WP:GNG as met and we have a decent keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:45, 19 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 01:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thomson easily meets WP:NACTOR per many significant roles, including leading roles in Fast Food Fast Women, Sue Lost in Manhattan, Angela and Water Drops on Burning Rocks among others. She also meets WP:GNG per (online and offline) sources listed above by Schmidt. Cavarrone 11:05, 1 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. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans League of Joint Council of Municipalities[edit]

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

Non notable soccer (football) league. The article states that the league is "amateur competitive". Has been tagged with the notability tag since 2011. Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joint Council of Municipalities. No standalone notability, really, but could work as a section in the main article. GregorB (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. --Ivan OS 15:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Joint Council of Municipalities – Special activities. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable amateur football tournament. I don't see what the target article would gain by merging this content there, except maybe adding a single sentence saying the competition exists. It does. So what? It would be like listing sports clubs of Microsoft employees in the article on Microsoft corporation. Timbouctou (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no content worth merging. Giant Snowman 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very low level amateur league, no real content worth merging into the geographic article. Fenix down (talk) 17:48, 29 January 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. Clear consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taya Kyle[edit]

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

This person is only notable due to her connection with Chris Kyle, her husband, who was the subject of the recent movie American Sniper. Notability is not inherited, and I don't think she has any independent notability. This article should either be deleted, or redirected to Chris Kyle. Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this person has earned status on her own merit, she is an author, a speaker, involved with a very popular and successful movie, has created a foundation, and has appeared widely in the media. Her husband is deceased, she as his wife is not, and will continue to do things in his honor of him that are of note, therefor she needs her own page. HesioneHushabye (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think she meets the notability guidelines in her own right based on her activities as an author/activist/spokeswoman. Kelly ^hi! 10:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Notability is asserted in her own right with reputable sources. Keep. § DDima 19:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the person will clearly remain in the public attention and her career as an activist has just started. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable activist. –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the wife of an American hero....nuf said. there is a lot of garbage out there . As her husband served this great country so did she. Leave it be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.192.1 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 27 January 2015‎

I've moved the IPs comment from the talkpage to here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because her notariety is only in connection with her husband Chris Kyle. Association with a celebrity does not grant the same status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioartmaven (talk • contribs) 02:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the things Taya has done since her husband's death are what make her notable and as someone said above she is just beginning her time in the spotlight. HesioneHushabye (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provided there is the coverage (per GNG) I'll support the first bit of your statement but "she is just beginning her time in the spotlight" is speculative and should not be a basis for establishing notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:10, 31 January 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. The delete opinions don't convincingly rebut the notability-based argument put forth by Doncram, so we have no consensus. Note that neutrality issues can also be remedied by editing. Sandstein 22:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sageworks[edit]

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

Self-promotional article by a non-notable company--Slowestonian (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:24, 19 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 15:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article might be supported by COI editing (i have not investigated), the topic is notable. The firm produces aggregate analysis that is widely reported in the Wall Street Journal, in Forbes (for example in Forbes on January 15). Its financial sector software is reported upon in ABA Banking journal, is one of earlier hits in the Google Scholar link above. So many news and scholar hits that I see show this is an important source and has important products that are in fact covered. Article is tagged for COI, which may be appropriate, but that is addressed by the tag and future editing. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --do ncr am 01:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, there is this academic working paper about Sagework's data (Added note: in fact that is titled "What do Private Firms Look Like?" and is presented all as being an appendix, presumably as a supplement to paper(s) using the data to investigate research questions. --do ncr am 18:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)), and a number more papers by the same authors (NYU professor John Asker and Joan Farre-Menser, who finished her NYU PhD dissertation in 2012) using the data. Working papers at SSRN.COM, publications various or in pipeline still. These works are themselves cited by other academics, and also in financial press, e.g. Financial Times (FT.com) reporting on "Short-termism" (Jul 14, 2013), with article starting: "Investors depend on long-term returns from stocks to fund their retirements. What a nasty irony, therefore, that public ownership gives company managers reason to favour short-term profits over long-term growth. / In a recent paper, John Asker, Joan Farre-Mensa and Alexander Ljungqvist - researchers at New York University and Harvard - find new evidence of this. They compare investment levels at a large sample of private and publicly traded companies over a decade... ". This "short-termism" is covered in other publications too, i see from a non-free literature database search. The Sageworks database gives means for research on how private firms differ from public firms -- and they do differ greatly -- and it is highly appropriate for Wikipedia to provide a reference article about it as a major financial database, like Compustat. --do ncr am 02:23, 24 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 00:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tidy up- per doncram the company is a significant one and one we should have have an article on, whatever the problems with current article. Artw (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per do ncr am. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company engages in highly questionable practice of offering software as a service, and then repackaging and reselling the customer data that it was entrusted with. Private companies typically safeguard their financial and operational information and its disclosure is considered highly detrimental. Sageworks is not audited to ensure that its data collection practices do not violate its duty to protect its customer data. Data quality and resultant reports Sageworks offers for sale may be misleading because such private data collection is not subject to the disclosure and transparency laws governing the reporting of data for publicly traded companies. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All the more reason to document that behavior in our article here, if it can be reliably sourced. —Cryptic 05:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This behavior is openly stated by Sageworks itself in its Privacy policy. The policy is already referenced in the article. Comparison to Compustat is bogus as Compustat aggregates data for public companies. Such data is subject to the disclosure and transparency requirements of the US Securities Act of 1933. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You appear to be making a POV argument (i.e., I don't like what they do). Please see WP:NPOV. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I state the facts, based on the company's own Privacy Policy. You, on the other hand, are making the WP:NPOV judgment calls without any fact based evidence being offered. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please consult Sageworks Privacy Policy, with links offered in the article. There is definitely a question of ethics involved in reselling and profiting from the customer provided information that the company is supposed to safeguard. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh, you miss the point. Ethics, right, wrong, bad, good, criminal, saint, etc. have no bearing on whether an article is kept or deleted. All that matters is if the article meets Wikipedia guidelines. So far, nothing you have said has any meaning in this discussion. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        It is clear upon reading that the article has been created for self-promotional purposes by those affiliated with Sageworks, in violation of WK:COI. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The academic working paper is not about Sagework's data but contains references and overview in an Appendix. Moreover, this other such publications are written by the same group of authors, who do not state what their affiliation with Sageworks is. The overall article in Wikipedia offers no information beyond obvious self-promotion by a private company seeking to exploit Wikipedia as a soapbox platform. --Slowestonian (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but:

The "appendix" is an academic paper itself. I added to my comment above, that in fact what I termed a working paper (correctly) is titled "What do Private Firms Look Like?" and is presented all as being an appendix, presumably as a supplement to paper(s) using the data to investigate research questions. It's all about the Sageworks data on private firms and how it compares to Compustat data on public companies. The working paper/"appendix" is 34 pages, 6 of them text pages, the rest mostly tables. Here's its abstract:
Private firms in the U.S. are not subject to public reporting requirements, so relatively little is known about their characteristics and behavior – until now. This Data Appendix describes a new database on private U.S. firms, created by Sageworks Inc. in cooperation with hundreds of accounting firms. The contents of the Sageworks database mirror Compustat, the standard database for public U.S. firms. It contains balance sheet and income statement data for 95,297 private firms covering 250,507 firms-years over the period 2002 to 2007. We compare this database to the joint Compustat-CRSP database of public firms and to the Federal Reserve’s 2003 National Survey of Small Business Finances.
The authors do disclose their relationship:
We are grateful to Sageworks Inc. for access to their database on private companies, and to Drew White and Tim Keogh of Sageworks for their help and advice regarding their data. The authors gratefully acknowledge generous financial support from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation under the Berkley-Kauffman Grant Program
That is how academic papers in finance and similar areas are done. Researchers request access to private datasets, and they get to publish academic papers (and advance knowledge and all that), and they acknowledge their sources. When a database is new, the first academics to use it probably have to describe it and establish that its okay/good; this supports their use of it in the main research work they proceed with. Yes, the same group of authors, or at least 2 out of 3 of them, have continued in their successful collaboration and have gotten many papers using this extraordinary dataset. Good for them!

--do ncr am 18:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about company performance data collection by Sageworks. Reliable sources of such information, as an example, are Dunn & Bradstreet and Hoover's. Nothing notable or unique to be found in the articles referred to. This is a clear case of company staff trying to infiltrate Wikipedia for marketing purposes.--Physitsky (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about those two as potential sources of databases for academic researchers to work with. There is Category:Financial data vendors with other database sources, such as Institutional Brokers' Estimate System. That's missing databases that are used. When someone goes through the expense and trouble to create a new database -- on stock prices, on financial statement data, on bankruptcies, on pensions, on salaries and bonuses paid to executives, or whatever -- where previously there was no such information generally available, then it is important and it is sold by them and academic researchers are eager to use it and do. This one is an obviously important one in the field, as previously there has been a horrendous over-focus, in the U.S. and in fact world-wide, on the 4,000 or so U.S. public companies, although other nation's datasets have gradually become available too.
Complaints about anything too promotional in the article are to be addressed by editing. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP.

--do ncr am 18:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are wrong in suggesting that there are no private company databases available. Data services like BizComps, Pratt's Stats and Done Deals have existed for years.

Moreover, private data collection is fraught with inaccuracies as there is no requirement for full and transparent disclosure. That's why professionals use the public company data and make adjustments for size and lack of marketability to apply data to private companies. Sageworks data collection methods are highly questionable and not subject to scrutiny, unlike the public company data that is subject to the rules under the Securities Act of 1933.

The result is that Sageworks data is of doubtful quality and may be misleading due to the highly suspicious data collection practices and lack of independent oversight. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 21:18, 3 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 01:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mats Nilsson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 20:36, 18 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 15:26, 19 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 15:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would think his wrestling record would count toward notabililty.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A 3 time FILA world champion [34] is notable. Papaursa (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Papaursa--multiple time world champion must be notable.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 23 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 00:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not notable for his MMA, but he is notable for his wrestling. Meets WP:ATHLETE. Mdtemp (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:ATHLETE.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:48, 27 January 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; good analysis, with consensus leaning to keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warren S. Brown[edit]

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

Article is constructed exclusively out of primary sources and broken links. Contains no specific claim to notability. Previously Prodded by user:BlinkingBlimey. Perhaps someone more familiar with our notability requirements for academics can take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 19:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC. He is a professor of psychology, but not at a major university. Publications: His name is on four or five highly-cited articles from when he was at UCLA, but in each case there are half-a-dozen other authors; I don't feel this meets the citation criteria which would show him to be a "thought leader in his field". --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's 2nd Author of a Nature Paper that's cited over 300x and also of a couple of books/articles with Nancey Murphy. Since he's working interdisciplinarily between Neuroscience and Theology that's a pretty high citation record. NBeale (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC) {PS also co-authored "an excellent book" according to the review [35] in the British Journal of Psychiatry NBeale (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NACADEMICS. Previous listing in American Men and Women of Science (= reference on leading scientists). APA honorary fellow in two divisions (= shown evidence of unusual and outstanding contributions/performance in the field of psychology). From what I can tell, the main impact of Brown's work is interdisciplinary (psychology+religion) in nature, both via publications and public appearances (e.g. he was in almost as many episodes (4) of Closer to Truth as Neil deGrasse Tyson (5); uncredited on IMDb, IMDb is outdated). Note that WP:ACADEMIC is independent from WP:BIO and lists quite different criteria. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is also on the editorial board of the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and he received a Research Scientist Development Award from the National Institute of Mental Health. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added and fixed several references, and I've added material (including the new § Awards and honors section). Of course there's still room for improvement. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:15, 22 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 00:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1. A h-index of 39, by my count, including some papers with very high citation counts. -- 120.23.61.162 (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC) — 120.23.61.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment I don't see why this was re-listed. Maybe because I'm an IP editor or because I added a "weak keep". He only needs to pass one of the conditions of WP:NACADEMICS. He passes several. He passes 8. because (for decades) he was on the editorial board of the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. He passes 3. because he is an honorary fellow^[a] of Division 40^[2] and Division 6 of the American Psychological Association. He passes 2. because he received a Research Scientist Development Award (Type I) from the NIMH,^[3] plus several other awards including two Phillip M. Rennick Awards. And, last but not least, he passes 1. for his interdisciplinary (psychology+religion) work (mentioned in American Men and Women of Science, a reference on leading scientists; he's one the main players in his discipline).

^ "Fellow status is an honor bestowed upon APA members who have shown evidence of unusual and outstanding contributions or performance in the field of psychology."^[1]

References

^ "APA Membership Types: Fellows". American Psychological Association. 2015. Retrieved 26 January 2015.
^ "Division 40 of the American Psychological Association". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 26 January 2015.
^ "Warren Brown | Closer to Truth". PBS. Retrieved 26 January 2015.

--82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with your interpretation of WP:ACADEMIC. He does not meet #8, which says "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area"; he was not the head or chief editor, merely on the editorial board, and it is debatable whether Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith is a major academic journal. He does not meet #3, because "Honorary Fellow" of the APA is an early-career distinction that people can apply for, as "one of the first steps to enhancement of their professional credentials".[36] He does not meet #2, because those are not major awards (this refers to a very few high-status awards - Nobel level or close). His only viable claim to WP:ACADEMIC is that his name is on some publications which are highly cited, and while I respect the analysis of those who feel he qualifies per his publication citations, I do not feel it is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With a h-index of 39, he easily meets WP:PROF#C1, which means it doesn't really matter whether or not he meets #2, #3, or #8. -- 120.23.18.210 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC) — 120.23.18.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. The article has been cleaned up and he appears to pass WP:PROF#C1 — 120.23.61.162 already noted his high h-index and he has 11 publications that were cited 100 or more times according to Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient academic career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 21:28, 2 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brock (Pokémon)[edit]

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

Yet another biography of fictional character that Is 90% unreferenced. Yes, it has a critical reception section that has some refs, but it's very short, and thus failing Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The reception is valuable and could be merged to List of Pokemon characters, or another relevant article, but the remaining 90% of content does not belong here (it is already much better covered at a relevant wikia article. ) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Yet another reason Wikipedia isn't taken seriously as an encyclopedia. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you WP:DONTLIKE the subject matter is not a valid reason for deletion. 206.41.25.114 (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selectivemerge to List of Pokémon characters per nom. Somewhat on the fence with this one. I was leaning towards a weak keep, but then I realized that he hasn't really made much of an impact. There is some reception, but I don't think it's really enough for a separate article. He could instead warrant a longer section in the aforementioned link. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm on the fence here as well. On one hand, it could definitely use some cleanup. On the other hand, its looks like two separately published books discuss him in regards to his real-world relationship to Japanese culture. That could be argued to prove notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 23 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 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Pokémon characters, I don't see enough notability for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The List of Pokémon anime characters is already nearing WP:TOOLONG. The Misty (Pokémon) article shows that enough refs likely exist if someone does the research (especially if done by someone who can read Japanese), given that Block plays a bigger part in the five Pokémon series, seventeen movies, six video game series, etc. At the worst, Merge with redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I really strongly doubt that insufficient coverage exists for one of the most important characters in arguably one of the most famous, if not the most famous, anime series in the Western world. The article already shows the analysis of the character exists in printed sources, and it's very likely that there's more, both in English and Japanese (and possibly other languages as well?). Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major character from possibly the most well known anime in the western world. Yes, the article is not well cited, but this could be improved. Improve the article as it is definitely notable, rather than forcing anyone who wants to write a good article to start from scratch. Kavidun (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find myself swayed by Satellizer's stance. There's already some coverage in there, and there's bound to be more considering the subject. Keep, but add some clean up tags. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sure there is a lot of references can be found. Even if those are lacking, the primary source could be used which is the anime itself to probably give enough substance to make it worthwhile considering in how many episodes he has been and not to forget the movies.(Just thinking of going over 800 episodes does send a shiver down my spine) However, the thing that is mostly lacking and that is the case with almost all the pokemon articles. Are willing serious editors that are willing to stick a huge bit of free time in re-working these articles in a better more sourced shape. NathanWubs (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brock is a major character and deserves his own page. I'm sure sources could be found that would make this pages' standing more firm. Bensci54 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep in mind this is not a vote, but a discussion, and so far I am not seeing any valid counteraguments. Rather than saying "WP:ITSIMPORTANT and therefore there must be more reliable sources", it would be nice if somebody pointed to a single reliable source that the article is not using... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal that there is already a small amount of sources available, and that said sources (Print Media) indicate that there's likely to be more out there, is, in fact, a valid stance. These discussions are based on their potential rather than just their current status. I can do some digging for sources to be more persuasive, sure, but I don't think its accurate to discount this stance wholesale. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 28 January 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, can be recreated once it conforms with WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavilion des Sports[edit]

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

Unsourced for eight years, appears non-notable for what the article says, and I couldn't find any noteworthy sources on a search. Wizardman 03:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:22, 11 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 04:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no coverage, was only the home stadium of a junior hockey team. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 13 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 08:57, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: could not find significant coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 18:25, 31 January 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 consensus that since nominated topic notability was established through article improvement. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hosilu Mettida Hennu[edit]

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

no evidence of significance Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Hosilu Mettida Hennu

~~Redirect~~ Multiple notable actors and figures it should be redirected to Vishnuvardhan filmography, just like before. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now Keep after good changes. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:34, 24 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 09:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improved the article. Vaidyasr (talk) 00:51, 24 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 00:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now has sources and appears notable. PamD 07:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has undergone a major improvement during this deletion discussion.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:31, 29 January 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jinyu Qin Society[edit]

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

no evidence of notability Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:20, 11 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 10:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep: have you even checked it on Google?--淺藍雪^❉ 16:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed. 33 hits total including books, but when you take out duplicate hits where the content or website is the same, there are just a few separate and pretty low quality English sources that barely confirm the existence of this group. I don't read Chinese so I can't assess the notability in Chinese. Is there a related Chinese article on Wikipedia? Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I beieve I have already provided the link to chinese article before this nomination--淺藍雪^❉ 09:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When nominating an article for deletion, the nominator should explain the reason why it doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SNG, especially when the article does cite sources. Otherwise the deletion rationale will be considered nothing but WP:JNN.--114.81.255.41 (talk) 05:57, 12 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 09:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just FYI that zh:今虞琴社 was also created by 淺藍雪 above in July 2014, and has just slightly more details over the same content and sources. Still the sources looks promising to an editor uninitiated in traditional Chinese music like myself, with (1) (4) (5) discussing the Society's activity and impact more than mere passing mentions. The Society was also listed multiple times in a Taiwanese chronology of music events [37] and a Chinese music dictionary [38]. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 15:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 26 January 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. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Hopman Cup[edit]

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

Like a tooearly case. 333 -blue 10:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, article is premature (WP:TOOSOON).--Wolbo (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is a stub - yes - but given that the 2015 edition of this annual competition has concluded, this is the next one to happen. If this were an article about the competition several years ahead, then it would be 'too soon', but the 'next' edition is fair enough for Notability in my book. Witty lama 22:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; early days but the next event is fair game for an article. Obviously anything further ahead would not be. Frickeg (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the next event and not too soon. Some refs would be nice but other than that i see no reason to delete it. Kante4 (talk) 15:13, 25 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 00:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON + WP:CRYSTAL - It can easily be recreated in 2016 where it'll be alot more backed as opposed to all the "TBA" nonsense now. –Davey2010^Talk 01:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be recreated when we have actual verifiable details of who's playing and so forth. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per the reasons already stated by others such as WP:TOOSOON. It's not able to tell us anything useful at this time.Fazzo29 (talk) 11:52, 5 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 01:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Jae-suk[edit]

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

This article was nominated for speedy deletion under criterion A7, but since it credibly claims notability as a actress, it needs the full scrutiny of AfD. The credits all seem to be accurate, but for (fairly significant) supporting rather than starring roles. I haven't found any significant coverage in English, but ~~I expect there's~~ there might be some in Korean. cc: Mcmatter. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete A7~~ - being an actress does not establish Notability, it may have some semblance to significance but notability is established by meeting WP:NACTOR which this article fails. Not to mention it is an unreferenced BLP.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:MichaelQSchmidt has added Korean references however I can only still go off what I can find in English as I don't speak or read Korean, with that being said WP:NACTOR still does not seem to be met as a significant role must be played which has not been established. WP:GNG may be applicable if we get some translations and confirm coverage for this actress.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... thank you. I'm sorry you do not read Korean... but it's not an issue nor a deletion rationale. In your due diligence, did you consider use of something like Google Translate to at least get the gist of source content? Admittedly, my own WP:BEFORE tends to be kicked into high gear when a brand new article is set for a speedy leas than one hour after being contributed,[39] though perhaps suggesting to the author that he move it to a userspace for additional work could have been reasonable. She being a named character Na Yoo-ri nine years ago in all the episodes of Alone in Love (2006), as Jo Mi-Ran in the multi-award-winning My Too Perfect Sons (2009), and as Lee Hee Joo in the award-winning Pasta (2010) were my first clues that WP:ENT was met... and motivation to look further.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my choice to CSD this article originally, the instant a page is saved in the article space it should meet the requirements it is up to the author to prove notability or at least make a claim of significance, a filmography is not a claim to significance. Since I cannot read the only references found for this person my opinions are invalidated according to current Wikipedia consensus.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that a topic should meet inclusion criteria, but a use or not of available sources is not the issue and CSD is a different standard than is WP:N. Enough English-language sources were available through searches [40][41] to allow a reasonable inference that Korean-language sourcing for a Korean topic might offer even more information,[42] and that under WP:DEL#REASON and its WP:ATD, deletion was perhaps not the better option. Your worries have been addressed so no harm, no foul. And while I added a few sources and was the more "vocal" at this AFD, my grateful thanks go out to User:Staticshakedown who was working on the article even as it was being tagged for deletion and who quietly continued throughout this discussion to turn someone else's stub-with-potential into a decent start-class. Kudos for ~~him~~ her awesome work ! Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm a "she", for the record... static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 11:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Corrected above) No slight intended. Terrific work.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep as it appears in looking that this South Korean actress meets WP:ENT AND as a topic is not unsourcable and, as she gets lots of attention in Korean media,[43][44][45] I apply WP:NRVE. Admittedly the article can benefit from attention from Korean-reading Wikipedians, but needing attention is not a valid deletion criteria. User:Neil P. Quinn was right to decline Mcmatter's speedy request. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pretty sure with the work that's been done to the article these last few days, it's good enough to keep now. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 10:47, 11 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, Michig (talk) 12:04, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS's rationale and Staticshakedown's work. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:34, 26 January 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.

[2] "Fellow status is an honor bestowed upon APA members who have shown evidence of unusual and outstanding contributions or performance in the field of psychology."^[1]

[1] "APA Membership Types: Fellows". American Psychological Association. 2015. Retrieved 26 January 2015.

[3] "Division 40 of the American Psychological Association". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 26 January 2015.

[4] "Warren Brown | Closer to Truth". PBS. Retrieved 26 January 2015.

[a]

[2]

[3]

[1]