Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 July	20 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Albany, Kentucky[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; insignificant event with no significant coverage. Event appeared to have no enduring historical significance, per WP:EVENTCRIT. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Number of troops involved: unknown. Number of casualties: unknown. Lasting significance: none. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge all small ones into a larger list of "Skirmishes of the American Civil War", keep the name as a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a long list. Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123, p. 719 states that Dyer, 1908 divides the military actions of the Civil War into 29 campaigns, 76 battles, 310 engagements, 46 combats, 1026 actions, 29 assaults, 6,337 skirmishes, 299 operations, 26 sieges, 64 raids, 727 expeditions, 252 reconnaissances, 434 scouts, 639 affairs, 82 occupations and 79 captures. I have looked carefully at Dyer's book and I could find no explanation of how he came up with these names for the various military events of the Civil War. I won't comment again here on the usefulness of the categories of these events for Wikipedia purposes. I will note that I think that 76 is too low a count of "battles." Nonetheless, many of the events in the other categories would probably come closer to being what we might think of as skirmishes and we would probably agree with Dyer on a large majority of his skirmish characterizations. Perhaps small or minor engagements would be a better overall categorization for modern readers. In any event, a list of skirmishes or minor military events would be quite long. Subdivided by states, the lists would still be quite long in some cases. Perhaps they would be interesting if a few details could be added. It would be a big typing job. I actually started a list of the military events in the state that had the most such events, Virginia, and after quite a few hours of typing, I have only completed about half of it and may or may not ever finish it. Donner60 (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All that's known about this battle appears to be that the two sides met and fought. The absence of any information that could be used to determine whether this event was significant to the war can be taken as evidence of its insignificance. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. ~ Rob^Talk 04:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The infobox for this two-sentence article gives the commanders as Quincy Gillmore and John Hunt Morgan. On the date of this skirmish, Gillmore had left Kentucky and had returned to his headquarters at Hilton Head. Morgan was a prisoner. The only coverage I could find is in The Union Army; A History of Military Affairs in the Loyal States, 1861–65 — Records of the Regiments in the Union Army — Cyclopedia of Battles — Memoirs of Commanders and Soldiers. Wilmington, NC: Broadfoot Publishing, 1997. First published 1908 by Federal Publishing Company. Vol. 5, p. 25 which states that a detachment of the 23rd Corps killed two guerrillas and wounded three, including Champ Ferguson. It states that a brief official report about this engagement was the only official mention of the affair that could be found. I could not confirm the given details through another source or find any other detail about this engagement or any indication of its place in a campaign or its significance, if any. Donner60 (talk) 06:25, 24 July 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. – czar 19:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promot'Elle[edit]

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

Delete - Article contains no references or sources whatsoever. Thursby16 (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources, no claim of notability. Darx9url (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 22 July 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 Montgomery County Public Schools. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westbrook Elementary School[edit]

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

Should redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES nothing unusual about this primary school to be independently notable. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: fails WP:ORG; purely of local interest. Esquivalience ^t 02:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to school district, as above. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 07:58, 21 July 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. – czar 20:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianni Zanatta Alarcón[edit]

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

none of this shows notability by WP:PROF or otherwise DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. "References" are single line listings of the individual or do not mention the individual. reddogsix (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's [1] but I don't know about its reputation – czar 20:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His Google scholar profile shows zero citations, indicating that he does not pass WP:PROF#C1, and his other academic accomplishments also do not rise to the level of any of the other WP:PROF criteria. There may be a bit of a WP:OWN problem here as well as the article problems: Srcasolco has re-created the article after it was deleted by a PROD (valid, but out of process), reverted the addition of valid maintenance tags to the article, and reverted the removal of useless cruft (such as vanity-scam "who's who" listings and an indiscriminate listing of all of the subject's patents). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While google scholar profiles might not be good to establish notability, those with 0 citations are not anywhere near notable for contributions to an academic field. If I followed the article right this man is currently working on a masters degree. I see nothing even remotrely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 25 July 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 speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 under criterion G5. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Juengling[edit]

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

Not only completely fails WP:GNG but article was likely created by article subject himself who is also sock IP of indeffed user Kbabej. SPI will be filed. As to the article itself: completely a puff-piece that relies on relationships to this person and that person, name-dropping, and activities/incidences that are notable and were either supported by or not supported by article subject. Article subject is completely non-notable for Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 July 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. – czar 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Tsai[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for election to a state legislature. He does not pass WP:NPOL on that basis, and nothing else here provides any evidence that he satisfies any of Wikipedia's other inclusion criteria either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete While being unelected, the subject's coverage in reliable sources for being the youngest ever candidate for a California state office comes close to establishing notability. Sources such as this establish the subject in this context, but there isn't enough to pass WP:GNG outside of routine election coverage. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reeasonf given, it's well lestablushed that this in not yet notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 20 July 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 userfy to User:Coderenius/Draft:Kayahan'ın En İyileri No.1. Bgwhite deleted what became the mainspace redirect under CSD criterion R2.(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kayahan'ın En İyileri No.1[edit]

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

May not qualify under WP:NALBUM. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: This article is notable enough, it is merely not finished yet. Please give me time to improve the article instead of deleting it on the spot. Eventually, it will qualify for WP:NALBUM. Be patient :) Thanks, Coderenius (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: There we go, now a source is added to the article, please be patient. It seems as though you're thristy to delete this article, since you found it and pounced on it. I don't mean to cause any kind of disruption, trust me. Just give me some time, and some WP:TEA perhaps? Thank you very much, Coderenius (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: Actually, I have take a few things into account and now I do realize that it's probably best that I just move the article into my user subdirectory as a draft. Sorry for the earlier haste, I had no intention of coming off as rude. I was simply a bit alarmed by how quickly it happened :) No worries, and the best, Coderenius (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: It is done and the article is now moved out of the article namespace. When it is improved upon enough, it will be moved back, or requested to be done so. :) Greetings to you from the states, Coderenius (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, as this is the author's wish and it's possible this will eventually be notable. It's fairly clear this should have been a userspace draft. The article has already been moved by Coderenius to his userspace at User:Coderenius/Draft:Kayahan'ın En İyileri No.1. In the future, Coderenius, please do not move an article with an active AfD discussion. Write in the AfD discussion what you'd like to happen to the article and a rationale for it. Moving the article and removing AfD tags makes it harder to have a full discussion. ~ Rob^Talk 22:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rob, I will do so in the future. I am new to AfD, so I'll make sure to follow these steps and take your, Samwalton9, and CeeGee's advice in the future. The best, Coderenius (talk) 22:45, 19 July 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. – czar 20:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier kemen[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer, hasn't played in a fully professional league, and France U-19s isn't a Tier 1 match either. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC) (Note: if kept, the article should be moved to Olivier Kemen) Joseph2302 (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:20, 21 July 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 as WP:TOOSOON. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Khazaniuk[edit]

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

This nomination is essentially not different from the previous deletion discussion two years ago; Deniz Khazaniuk is not notable by project standards; she has no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category, had no remarkable junior career (neither a Grand Slam champion nor ranked within the world's top 3), and there are no further claims that she is otherwise, at present, generally notable. I have no idea why this was re-created just a few days ago. Jared Preston (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG for consistent coverage over her career. [2], [3], [4], [5]. It looks like there was some kind of drama surrounding her that led to one of her rivals refusing to shake her hand after the match.[6] Probably recreated recently because she won some money in Moscow in June, defeated Anastasia Pivovarova. [7], [8]. Nominator is reminded to look for native-language sources WP:BEFORE nominating for AfD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete The same editor, דעאל123, created both the 2013 and 2015 versions of this article. If an article is deleted and the subject subsequently becomes notable, an editor is supposed to bring the matter to WP:Deletion review, not write a new article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fairly silly. It was deleted two years ago and obviously is not the same version of the page. Where does it say that is a requirement? I see deletion review may be used for that purpose, but no requirement that it must be. If this was really a requirement, it should be impossible to recreate articles that had been previously deleted (like salted articles are impossible to recreate). —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Does not meet tennis project notability guidelines and the limited coverage shown does not seem to me to be sufficient to claim WP:GNG.--Wolbo (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G4, still fails WP:NTENNIS, coverage is WP:ROUTINE ("...routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." [my bolding]), fails WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability guidelines for tennis players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 27 July 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. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Jingles[edit]

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

Article Subject is non-notable. Article cites only two sources, which are one-off interviews. Majority of article is uncited, and contains original research. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Notability Review

I have been asked to provide additional explanation per WP:Notability. I shall do so: Basic Criteria

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

I see two sources, which are insignificant interviews.

Alright, let's look at additional applicable criteria.

Wikiproject Military History Notability Guide: People

"In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour; or Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or Played an important role in a significant military event; or Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat; or Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them; or Were the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war; or Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing."

Sure, maybe in World of Tanks, but that isn't what I call a war...

Any Biography

1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

None of the above apply.

Entertainers

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

2. MAY apply if 400k subscribers count, but I don't consider the Youtube subscriber count to be entirely reliable.

Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 21:28, 19 July 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) 01:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 17:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability in the article, the first ref is an interview (primary source), the other is a one-sentence trivial mention in an article on youtube game intruction videos in general. Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 26 July 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 Got7. Nothing has changed since last January when this had been already redirected. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tuan[edit]

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

This member has no significant solo work outside of work he has done with his group so this page is not necessary at this time and simply restates information found on the group's pages. Furthermore it has information that is un-sourced or not notable enough to be included on a normal artist page. It also lack proper sources and at least one of the variety appearances is false since Mark wasn't in that episode of We Got Married, but the episode isn't noteworthy enough to include anyways. I believe the page should be removed. Peachywink (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second this Deletion. Of the three references used one is Tumblr and the other is YouTube. Mikepellerin^talk 00:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mark hasn't gotten any more notable since the last deletion discussion. He is not independently notable outside of Got7. Random86 (talk) 08:26, 26 July 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. – czar 20:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Batyagaba[edit]

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

Unsourced and non-notable. Not even clear what the article is about: a clan, a language or a father? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -I'd be tempted to CSD that article, but thats just me. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: Speedy deletion was refused. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well...that explains a lot. The long way it is, then! TomStar81 (Talk) 16:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simple searches on Google news, Google maps, Google scholar, and Bing found nothing except for one social media account. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. It seems to be a very rare last name. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 22 July 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. – czar 20:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrius Starta[edit]

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

Don't think this footballer passes any threshold of notability. Played mostly in Lithuanian 2nd tier 1 Lyga and maybe one match in 1 Lyga. I couldn't find any data of him before 2013, when he (supposedly) was at FBK Kaunas and FC Klaipeda. Eranrabl (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:21, 21 July 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. The consensus is "not yet". This closure explicitly does not prevent recreation of the article if and when the subject becomes properly notable, and a request can be lodged at WP:REFUND to recover the content at such a stage. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube Comedy Hunt India[edit]

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

Delete, as of now a non notable competition. Originally nominated for csd. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "coverage" provided is plugs for entrants, it fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). It does not provide more then routine coverage, there is no duration of coverage and no depth of coverage. It does not yet have a significant impact. Still waiting for User:Northamerica1000 to address these concerns but as it wasn't at the top they decided to ignore them. It's now at the top and I've filed the form in triplicate carbon copy. WP:WEBCRIT also does not allow "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content " Coverage is advertising for entrants and amounts to trivial coverage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:WEBCRIT as per:

"Finding the next AIB". India Today. July 11, 2015. Retrieved 19 July 2015.
"Hunt for hilarity". Bangalore Mirror.
"What happens when AIB, Kanan Gill, Jose and a host of comedians come together? Madness!". Firstpost. 7 July 2015.
"YouTube Comedy Hunt Looks For India's Next Big YouTube Star". Maharashtra Times. July 10, 2015. (in Indonesian)
"YouTube India launches The Comedy Hunt". afaqs!.
"YouTube Comedy Hunt can make you big YouTube star". India.com. (in Indonesian)

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should in no way have an article. That doesn't cover depth of coverage and it's a competition that hasn't happened yet. At most a blurb on their page would be appropriate. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I addended my !vote with another source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's still trivial coverage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another source added to my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And most of them are advertising for entrants. Real high quality stuff there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 more added. The sources are news articles, and the topic meets WP:WEBCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the part where advertising for entrants or events was considered a reliable source? I can understand why you are ignoring my concerns though, you can't really contest them. Way to promote shitty articles. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News articles ≠ advertising by default. See WP:RS for Wikipedia's guideline about reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does not count as significant coverage, the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (events) clearly show this does not meet the guidelines. Lasting effect (unknown brand new), Duration of coverage (none it's brand new), Depth of coverage (other then advertising for entrants none). What you are showing is routine coverage nothing more, read the inclusion criteria, it may help if you brush up on what the policies actually say. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have considered including this rationale in the deletion nomination atop. The topic, nevertheless, meets WP:WEBCRIT. I have ignored the aspect of your rude tone in your above comments (diff). See below for more sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that you can help make this article even better?

Perform a search for up-to-date information by using these search tools:

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

I have mentioned it now, and no it still doesn't pass the guidelines. There still needs to be depth of coverage not routine coverage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source synopsis below.

"Finding the next AIB". India Today. July 11, 2015. Retrieved 19 July 2015. – 6 paragraphs, provides an overview about the topic, rather than routine coverage
"Hunt for hilarity". Bangalore Mirror. – 14 paragraphs, provides an overview about the topic, rather than routine coverage
"What happens when AIB, Kanan Gill, Jose and a host of comedians come together? Madness!". Firstpost. 7 July 2015. – 6 paragraphs, provides information about the origin of the topic
"YouTube Comedy Hunt Looks For India's Next Big YouTube Star". Maharashtra Times. July 10, 2015. (in Indonesian) – 2 paragraphs
"YouTube India launches The Comedy Hunt". afaqs!. – 6 paragraphs, provides an overview about the topic, rather than routine coverage
"YouTube Comedy Hunt can make you big YouTube star". India.com. (in Indonesian) – 4 paragraphs

–North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising synopsis below.

[[9]]- "A rib-tickling promo for the hunt has been released on AIB's official YouTube channel featuring some of the popular YouTubers taking pot shots at each other, while brainstorming to find the next big star on YouTube who will create refreshing and original content.nt to watch a funny 6 minute video, here's the link: Any individual or team above 18 years of age can participate in the contest by setting up a YouTube channel and uploading a three-minute-long entry (video). Participants with pre-existing YouTube channels are allowed to submit a video for the Comedy Hunt, as long as their YouTube channel does not have more than 5000 subscribers, as on June 1, 2015. In such cases, videos created and uploaded before June 1, 2015 are not eligible for submission. Entry videos can be in any language. However, subtitles must be added to videos that are in languages other than English or Hindi. The last date for uploading entries is July 26, 2015."
[[10]] "To participate in the competition you have to do only that YouTube Talent Hunt, which you want to create a video that will be coming to the art. And there is a video on YouTube to share. 26 July prevail asuna your video if you would like a chance to become unmentionable yutyubastara. Those who want to be involved in the event is to share the video link on this www.youtube.com/thecomedyhunt."
[[11]]"This is in recognition of the opportunities provided by the yutyubanam abandoned. Competition in the video 's www.youtube.com/thecomedyhunt"
[[12]] "So if you think you're the next comedy star of India or if you just want to watch a funny 6 minute video, here's the link:"
[[13]] "YouTube creators have to create the humorous content on their channel and then send the entries (last date is July 26) to www.youtube.com/thecomedyhunt. The creators will then be shortlisted by comic stars such as All India Bakchod, Kanan Gill, Jose, SnG Comedy, East India Comedy, Abish Mathew, Aditi Mittal and Shudh Desi Endings. The stars will then groom the top contestants and put them through seven weeks of challenge rounds after which the top finalists will go on stage and display their videos live in front of an audience." Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable and very popular in India. Creating a page about some contest which hasn't happened yet doesn't mean advertising. If gone by that criteria 2020 Summer Olympics is also advertising. Mr RD (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a clear difference, read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (events). It has a significant impact on the world, it has significant coverage and it has duration of coverage. This article does not. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is notable and popular in India. User:Hell in a Bucket saying that event needs "significant impact on the world". I mean what is the definition of the "world" here? Even world level events of many sports like archery gone unnoticed in hosting country itself. We can't expect that everything should be published in The New York Times and BBC. This event is popular and national level India Today published news about it [14]], also national level Marathi language daily Maharashtra Times also published news about it [15]. I think this is surely notable. --Human3015 knock knock • 16:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No that was the reference I was using for the olympics and denoting it's impact. It was also an invalid argument because it is an established competition that we "know" will be here and we "know" is notable by default. This is a brand new competition. It should start on youtubes page, then as it grows then it should have it's own article. I'm not at all saying that this may not have significance after the event and if there is the coverage depth we need to make a stand alone. Also please explain how it id popular in India when the show has not even aired yet? The sources you show above are also shown above by myself as routine coverage advertising for participants. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket, I was not talking about olympics, I was talking about individual events of some sports, for example Archery World Cup. I wonder how many people knows about such world cups of many sports even if their homeland is host nation. And how much coverage does mainstream news gives to such events? And I'm saying "this is popular in India" because people involved in it are famous among youth and whatever initiative they starts it becomes famous in youth. As you yourself saying that all these news are "adverts", then purpose of "adverts" is to make particular thing "popular" or "sensational", so thats why its popular in India. (Note: I'm not defaming great art of Archery here, its just for example, I do follow Archery events) --Human3015 knock knock • 19:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well once it goes beyond advertising and it truly has significance it will be a different story. It does not yet. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are also right in some extent, but it is very hard to decide stage of this event, we can't decide if this is just an "advert" or "sensible news". It can be individual perception. You nominated it for deletion, so sometimes nominator takes it personally and don't take sigh of relief till article gets deleted. I am not saying you are completely wrong, your arguments is also valid. We should wait for some more comments, or can I post it on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics for requesting more comments? --Human3015 knock knock • 19:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Human3015 usually that sort of thing is frowned on as canvassing but in this case it may help to have additional languages competence if there are other sources out there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice I'm not buying into the keep arguments. This is something that never been attempted, hasn't produced any results, makes no credible claim of significance, violates WP:CRYSTAL, because the material as added TOOSOON. That having been said, when the results are in, I think that there could well be enough notable information concerning the contest to make a decent article. I have no prejudice against having the material here, but I think hell in a bucket is right: build in after all is said and done. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Some fine sources found by Northamerica1000 (I don't agree they should be discounted), but they're all from the same week. Notability requires lasting significance / sustained coverage. Sometimes there's such a huge amount of coverage we can come to the conclusion at AfD that sustained coverage is extremely likely, but I don't think that's the case here. WP:TOOSOON. I would suggest Userfying to preserve the work done and sources found so far, since it may be notable soon, but as the biggest advocate for keeping here, NA1K, is an admin and would have access to the article regardless, that's probably moot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. The subject lacks notability due to sustained coverage with actual depth. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing enough depth of coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR: While this currently does not meet WP:NEVENT, we should still not delete it as it is a considerable contest. It would be likely to be useful to people that are interested in the contest; there are likely many per the coverage. WP:NEVENT's strict requirements should only apply if it prevents Wikipedia from being a news source; contests are within the scope of an encyclopedia. We are not a paper encyclopedia, so I don't see how we lack the capacity to cover confirmed, future events. Esquivalience ^t 10:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a new event, and other than 1 week's coverage, there is not enough evidence to show that this will be a significant, long-term event with lasting significance/sustained coverage; it seems "local news" (albeit India is a large locality!) and it may well remain that way. If it meets the criteria for inclusion in the future, then the article can be recreated. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – For what it's worth, the event has continued to receive some ongoing news coverage, such as this short article below.

"‘Comedy on the Web is in infancy’". The Asian Age. July 23, 2015.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 28 July 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. – czar 20:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Bladimir[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Award is a local award from a web development/SEO company, not a social welfare related organization. Looks like an attempt to provide Wikipedia based advertising for individual. reddogsix (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant additional sources are presented to establish notability; if they are, then rewrite thoroughly. Note this has been speedy deleted previously under G11 (Blatantly promotional) and has been tagged for G11 again. DES ^(talk) 14:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May fail WP:GNG since the subject of the article does not have significant coverage. The two sources are based on one source that may not be reliable. The article was speedily deleted on 17 July and has since been recreated. However, it remains promotional and does not contain substantial content to show the notability of the subject as a preacher. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs are nothing more than mentions. The claim that he helps thousands to get their food is not explained or proved. Peridon (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've declined the G11 speedy deletion request — not because it doesn't qualify, but because the inevitable deletion here at AFD will be firmer, "stickier", more significant (or whatever you want to call it) than a speedy deletion as spam. If someone creates another article on him after one spam speedy and one AFD for notability, and the new page is deleted, it will probably be salted, but that might not happen if the two previous deletions were both un-discussed spam deletions. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as much as I hate to agree with reddogsix, the subject does not meet the notability requirements, I found no secondary sources to support the article's retention. Wayne Jayes (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, even assuming everything in the stub is true. This is patently an advertisement for a charity, but Wikipedia is not a web host for do-gooders. In fact, according to the Silver Rule, if 100 Wikipedians insisted on being fed by this man, three meals a day, in perpetuity, we would be taking away food for the needy, which he would no doubt feel is unfair. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Sounds NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete it may simply be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highbeam and Questia searches return nothing, Google returns nothing substantial, including the already-cited references from a site which invites user-submitted content. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 15:16, 26 July 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 irrelevant, as the article was a copyright violation from its first revision. There's clear consensus here that we can support an article on this person, however; if any of the nonadmins commenting below want the sources added to the article, I'd be happy to provide them. —Cryptic 00:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Hazar Khan Bijarani[edit]

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

~~Unreferenced BLP~~ with questionable notability. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added references obtained from a Google Search. The subject has been elected both to regional and national assemblies and has served as a government minister, so meets WP:POLITICIAN criterion #1. AllyD (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think TomStar81 did a great job in flagging a problematic article and AllyD supplemented the article so that it passes the hurdle. Excellent example of the AfD process performing well.--Rpclod (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Subject of the article obviously meet WP:POLITICIAN as elected member of national assemblies and former government minister. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. postdlf (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Múgica[edit]

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

I am starting an AfD for this article because it is a BLP which has been far too poorly referenced ever since it was created and the corresponding Spanish language article was deleted for (if I understood correctly as I don't speak Spanish) lack of notability. That doesn't mean that we have to follow suit but it certainly raises the question. There are also COI issues. The article talks a good talk but fails to back it up with references so verifiability is a big concern. If the claims can be referenced properly with RS coverage then the article could have a future but my attempts to Google him are not very encouraging and, although I don't have Spanish language skills to say for certain, the deletion on Spanish Wikipedia makes me suspect that it can't be. DanielRigal (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are about 10 book/film/theater reviews of his work in El País alone. The article was deleted from es.wikipedia under a process similar to PROD in en.wiki whereby you can tag an article as non-notable and if no one objects it gets deleted after 30 days. I doubt the outcome would have been the same if it had gone to the es.wiki equivalent of AFD. It's a clear COI job and needs a lot of work but the subject is notable. Vrac (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I had the article restored in es.wikipedia, then added references, article here.Vrac (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 17:41, 26 July 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. – czar 20:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Wraith[edit]

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

Non-notable actor - notability not supported. Does not meet WP:GNG. Article is more of an advert than encyclopedia and following links does not support some of the hyperbole. Claims of mainstream starring roles are not supported by references or by following links to the m0vies articles. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Searches and simply even looking at this article and IMDb show there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any notability criteria for martial arts and has no significant independent coverage. Film roles are greatly exaggerated--claims of starring in movies where his role is listed as things like "cop in utility room". Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 23 July 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. – czar 20:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King's Leigh[edit]

King's Leigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats); (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Summary: This is a non-notable real estate development. It is not a new suburb in Werribee, Victoria, Australia
Reference analysis

http://kingsleigh.com.au/living-at-kings-leigh/the-story// - this is simply a restatement by the developer to prospective buyers
http://www.realestate.com.au/project-king%27s+leigh-vic-werribee-600005183 - an online advertisement on Realestate.com.au for this real estate development
http://dacland.com.au/our-communities/ - A page by the real estate developers
http://kingsleigh.com.au/living-at-kings-leigh/the-developer// - A page by the real estate developers
http://kingsleigh.com.au/pdf/kingsleigh_nowselling.pdf./ - A page by the real estate developers. It 404s, but that is not the issue here.

Should this be redirected to the developer?

Dacland Pty Ltd is the developer. If created, it would fail the WP:CORPDEPTH test for notability.

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we consider this to be an article about a company (which is fair since it does not qualify for WP:NGEO) then it would completely fail WP:CORP, not to mention the fact that it apparently doesn't even exist yet. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It reads very much like an advert to me. Alec Station (talk) 13:17, 20 July 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaim Australia[edit]

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

Fringe far-right group who've held two rallies. Getting 150 people to a rally doth not notability make, even if said two rallies made the newspapers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve. Notability is there in reliable sources. --Decent Dan Moore (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am really not seeing how this passes WP:NOTNEWS. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I may not agree with them they're well covered Alec Station (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- At the moment I haven't been able to find coverage I'd believe to fall under WP:GNG. But I haven't had time to search really thoroughly. It's mainly news coverage of some of the group's rallies. Certainly strikes me as violating WP:NOTNEWS at the moment. It doesn't help that the article is written like a summary of routine news coverage. I'm not voting delete however as there may well be sources that help it fulfill GNG; I haven't done a thorough enough job to be sure either way. If people find appropriate sources please ping me. -- Shudde ^talk 23:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There have been more than two rallies - other rallies were held subsequent to the post at the top of this page. The group is able to coordinate on a nationwide basis. Let's link to analysis and background articles as they appear, rather than just adding more links to general news coverage of individual rallies. Meticulo (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As unpleasant as they are, they have gained enough notability to warrant an article, as seen over the last weekend. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seem notable at the moment. If they vanish from public view this could be reassessed.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 22 July 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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. Davewild (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Shore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Most of the sourcing is cruft or links to pornsites and the one decent source - Salon - has clearly been included to bolster the credibility of the article as it isn't about this person, simply mentions that she wrote a blog about the subject they were reporting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sweep turns up empty and my other sweeps did not find anything either to establish WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:08, 23 July 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. Davewild (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Peters[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG - whole article sourced to one document whose provenance is entirely unclear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim for passing WP:PORNBIO. Even if you count Manshots as a reliable source, it can't satisfy WP:GNG all by itself. Searches for reliable sources get unrelated people and a Find a Grave posting. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I received notification that this article had been marked for deletion because I was the one who started it in June 2010. (Luckily the L.A. Times had an article on the View Park neighborhood today and I logged in to Wikipedia to check if anything in it could be used in the Wiki entry, otherwise it could have been weeks before I found out.) In defense of keeping the article: he appeared in 15 movies during the 1980s. [16] Additional observations, which probably don't hold much weight in this argument:
- It's been on Wikipedia for 5 years
- It had been tagged as within the scope of WikiProject Biography
- It had been tagged as within the scope of WikiProject Pornography
If it does end up being deleted, please at least send me a note explaining why 15 titles is not a high enough threshold for a porn star's bio to be on Wikipeida. Inconsistency in article acceptability is the reason I've pared back the amount of time I spend in contributing to Wikipedia. DL77 (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Performing in X number of films does not establish notability for porn actors. That criterion was excluded from PORNBIO many years ago. Film database entries like the link you posted above don't establish notability either. They are not considered significant reliable source coverage. As for the article being on Wikipedia for 5 years, I don't see how it satisfied inclusion guidelines back in 2010 and the guidelines have been tightened since then. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the reasons set forth by DL77 show notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:43, 20 July 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 20:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Marcela[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO and the claim to fame (Indonesia's first porn star) is so risible that I'm not even going to comment on that. The only source is clearly a publicity stunt for an politico and contains no decent biographical detail about her. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verifiable claim for WP:PORNBIO as noted in the previous AfD. Falls short on WP:GNG. RS coverage lacks depth. The most significant coverage I found in searching was an XBIZ article that looks like a repackaged press release. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 21 July 2015, 13:27 CET
Comment Anybody read indonesian? Seems to be several google news hits across different dates on jade marcela but can't judge the sources' reliabilities.[17][18] [19][20] If delete, then do it without prejudice to a later recreation with the appropriate sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can read Indonesian, those are Indonesian medias, the first and the last two (sidomi and kapan lagi) are Indonesian entertainment news web media, which often feature tabloid journalism, the merdeka.com is the parent media group of kapan lagi and is actually a merdeka newspaper's web version. Those are Indonesian media alright, the news is quite reliable. Gunkarta talk 05:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have rewrite and add references for the article. I understand she might not be a notable pornstar according to WP:PORNBIO criteria. Nevertheless she is quite notable here in Indonesia, as the first Indonesian woman that pursue a career in professional pornographic industry in USA. For this she has stirred a controversy in Indonesia. Gunkarta talk 05:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So two sources are Tabloid and would therefore be ruled out as non-RS and one is a proper source? Are you able to find any additional quality sources and what bioghraphical detail about the subject does the RS have? Does BLP1E come into play with this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does meet WP:PORNBIO unless Indonesian media does not count? Suastiastu (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are, inter alia, no reliable sources for any claims regarding the subject's ethnicity, and no sources at all for the claim of being the first Indonesia porn performer in the US market. To the extent the Indonesian sources are reliable, they include no substantive content supporting notability. Being mentioned by a publicity-seeking political figure isn't enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:26, 26 July 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 MisterWives. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Lee (singer)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independent of MisterWives. Potentially worth a redirect there. Boleyn (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it should be redirected and not deleted, why did you bring it to AfD? I even suggested that we could discuss this on the talk page but you haven't said a word. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response I didn't say I think this should be redirected, just outlined a possible alternative to deletion that is worth considering in this discussion. I didn't feel it should be discussed on Talk page, but at AfD. How do you think she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independent of the band? Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree this should have been discussed on the article's talk page before bringing it here. AfD gets clogged every day with nominations that don't need to be here. If agreement can't be reached there then it could have been brought here. A redirect would seem the best option here as she appears to have no notability outside the group, although a redirect from this title isn't going to be useful - the entry at Mandy Lee would be better changed to link to the band. --Michig (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom (User:Boleyn) appears to be using AFD for an issue that could have been worked out on talk. I agree with User:Michig that the courteous thing to do would be to withdraw the AFD and go hash things out on talk.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree; I don't think there was any chance of reaching agreement on Talk. I think it would be far more helpful for people to stop debating venue and start debating its notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know there's no chance on reaching an agreement on the talk page if you didn't even make an attempt to? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Boleyn, I think I now see your point. The article lacks sources that establish this singer independent of the band she sings with. In the event that this was merely WP:TOOSOON, in the event that is, that sufficient independent sources cover her life and work, a new article can be made.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If Lee's band MisterWives is notable, her article should most definitely redirect there so long as the band remains notable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:08, 25 July 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.

Withdrawn, content already merged. (non-admin closure) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 01:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Planned Parenthood scandal[edit]

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

One-time media newsflash from a few days ago. Notability questionable. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 06:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As proposer. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 06:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge After reading some of the responses, it is clear that merging and redirecting this article would be the best solution. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 19:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. I doubt this will have much long-term impact, and if it did, it would be about the executive/doctor in charge. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a dumb hoax. Artw (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While I don't believe there is enough for a whole article, this is definitely notable enough to be included in the main Planned Parenthood article. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect at a bare minimum. Not a "dumb hoax" nor "one-time media newsflash". It will very likely have long term impact due to multiple already planned congressional hearings and a serious attempt at federal defunding of PP.VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Definitely enough reliable sources here to confirm its notability, but not enough content to warrant an entire article. Dogbert (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to keep article title, the page Live Action (organization) and Planned Parenthood will cover this in depth -- Callinus (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can be covered in the main article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Davewild (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiki Twirl[edit]

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

This is a mass produced ride that is not unique or different. Article has no references and fails to show notability. Astros4477 (Talk) 05:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would say redirect to Great America article but there's other theme parks that have this ride as well —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The ride is not notable enough to have its own article, and since so many other rides have the same name it can't really have a re-direct either. I would say delete it entirely. It doesn't significantly stand out from any other flat rides. ~Euphoria42 05:53, 23 July 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 and redirect to The Bella Twins. – czar 20:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Team Bella[edit]

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

Minor storyline that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Does not have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Any sources would be WP:ROUTINE match results. Maybe redirect to The Bella Twins. Nikki♥311 04:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 04:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable group, content should be sent to The Bella Twins / Alicia Fox. starship.paint ~ KO 06:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to The Bella Twins - not notable.LM2000 (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to The Bella Twins per above - Non notable to warrant seperate article but seems to better to redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 22:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Team bad per nomination, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. If B.A.D. continues as a stable after the bellas fued, they may earn an article --w^L^{<speak·check>} 07:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WikiLeon, I've readded your !vote but have removed "TheBellaTwins1445: is also nominating the following related pages:" above- Since everyone's !voted on one article I think it's best that the other article is basically a completely new AFD otherwise this AFD isn't going to make sense to anyone , Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:40, 23 July 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.

Keep, the deletion reason is mis-leading, this is not a 'minor' storyline, it's the biggest thing the Diva's division had done in a long time. Ranze (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lee (producer)[edit]

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

Non notable producer. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest improvement or a better understanding of notability with my searches here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article isn't the best showcase for his achievements but you can't read articles on him (here) and not see that he is an accomplished hip hop producer and a fixture in the Houston music scene. I began by believing this article was just promotional but when I read what he has achieved, how many artists he has worked with, I think he meets notability standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this self-published? source says "multi-platinum", is there a way to either confirm or disprove this claim? Kraxler (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the name makes it hard to find sources. Not a single act in the text is linked - has he produced anyone notable? —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A blog and twitter feed are not reliable sources. The article does not support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the few platinum and gold albums were CO-productions with several other producers, where he isn't even listed as "Executive Producer". See the track listing for Homies as example: The article misrepresents Mr. Lee's role (in just 1/3 of all tracks). Aside from that I am not convinced that 10 involved artists, the album and 6-10 producers can all gain notability from the same sales record (WP:MUSIC and WP:PEOPLE aren't really clear here). Without significant critical coverage of his work in independent sources those sales statistics fail to establish notability (imo). He obviously has a successful long career in his field but that fact alone - without coverage in sources - is not "notable". GermanJoe (talk) 07:23, 20 July 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. Davewild (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kishan bagh[edit]

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

The claim for notability is not significant enough Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very poorly written article. too brief, no real info. place doesn't seem very notable at all. half of it is sentimental and unreferenced rhetoric written in an unencyclopaedic style. delete!Rayman60 (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 16:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a case of WP:TNT and would be need to be rewritten with a new start; my searches found nothing to suggest good improvement such as this. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 19 July 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. The possibility of a merge is left as an editorial decision. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SUNIST[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that this is WP:NOTABLE. It could possibly be merged / reidrected to Tsinghua University as an alternative to deletion, if felt worth having as a section, but I was unsure on that one; it is not even mentioned at present in that article. Boleyn (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Scholar indicates a number of fairly non-trivial mentions (including elaboration and associated research) to me. That implies it has achieved some academic interest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Jo-Jo. I'm getting 8000+ mentions in GS, so there's significant science done at that place. The main problem here is that finding sources about SUNIST would probably require speaking Chinese. This isn't a clear keep for me, but given that I don't speak Chinese, I would be very unconformable deleting it given the GS results. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into and re-direct to Tsinghua University. Not enough here to stand alone.--Rpclod (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chin-Cheng Wu[edit]

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

Does he meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG independent of his company ArrowPoint (which is a redirect, it does not have an article of its own). I couldn't verify that it is. Boleyn (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of acquisitions of Cisco as my searches such as this and this found nothing outstanding to suggest good notability. The most notable coverage is for the Arrowhead-Cisco and some here and there but nothing particularly significant about him. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Hasn't received significant coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His company redirects to List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems but this BLP isn't even mentioned there so don't really see the point in redirecting ...., I know redirection is preferred but in this case it'd be utterly pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 26 July 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. Davewild (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SWAT Team (process model)[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It is outwith my area of expertise, so maybe someone else can prove me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP doesn't need support another software consultant's neologism.--Rpclod (talk) 20:23, 19 July 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golden's method[edit]

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

No evidence that this is anything other than an a hoax. Search on Taylor Gorden provides no results and the lack of ref is a significant issue. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's plausible enough that something like this works, so I wouldn't call it a hoax exactly, but with no sources it's still original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article does not show that the equation is notable or why it is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence whatsoever of notability. PianoDan (talk) 14:55, 23 July 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 Primary biliary cirrhosis. Sandstein 20:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PBC Foundation[edit]

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

The organization's claim to notability is that they promoted the term primary biliary cholangitis as a replacement for the more common name primary biliary cirrhosis. Unfortunately, I was unable to find enough reliable coverage for this foundation. A search results mostly in press releases, brief mentions, articles about primary biliary cirrhosis/primary biliary cholangitis, and quotes by people related to the foundation. Sadly, I couldn't find much about the foundation itself. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope other editors will visit this page and add more to it to improve the entry rather than deleting it. This UK-based patient-support charity is the main group for a disease affecting up to 1:1000 women. It seems similar to many of the other 210 entries in the Category:Health charities in the United Kingdom such the British Heart Foundation, Coeliac UK, Diabetes UK, or Tourettes Action.Jrfw51 (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Merge to Primary biliary cirrhosis - the intro is a bit sketchy. It claims to successfully lobbied to have rename the disease from Primary biliary cirrhosis to primary biliary cholangitis (latter redirects to the first), but I see no evidence of this in the article or in my searches, which still refer to the disease as Primary biliary cirrhosis. Certainly, a foundation would receive significant coverage if it managed to have a disease renamed, but there is no evidence of this. I'm sure the organization does great work and would love to recommend keep, but I can't find any in-depth coverage of it. I see it mentioned in a few articles but nothing that would satisfy GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Primary biliary cirrhosis, where it came from, before someone wanted to remove it from there... GangofOne (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 refered to the essay "Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause"; no, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world, it is here to tell just the people who want to read the article Primary biliary cirrhosis , who might be interested, who might find it a significant organization, and to whom it might be a matter of life or death. GangofOne (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The aricle Primary biliary cirrhosis was not tagged for deletion, and there's no reason why they can't read about the organization there or on the PBC Foundation's website. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the originator of this entry, I want to point out again that there are hundreds (? thousands) of similar pages on patient support charities and similar organizations for multiple disorders. Category:Health charities in the United Kingdom (for just one country) and Category:Medical and health organizations by medical condition. The charity is not the disease.

The PBC Foundation advises patients, supports fundamental research and campaigns for greater recognition. The name change initiative is only the latest campaign. There are multiple references in major international research publications (Nature Genetics) and in the UK National media (BBC, Scotsman) which are cited. It easily meets the criteria for WP:notability_(organizations_and_companies).

Searches for the new name of PBC will not find the new name in the published press -- as it is new! Please read Primary biliary cholangitis references [5], [6] and [45] to get the information necessary and repeat the search again in 3 months. I will improve the entry some more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrfw51 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrfw51: Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because Wikipedia has articles for many charities doesn't necessarily mean this one should have an article as well. Each article must stand on its own merits (meaning, they should pass our notability guidelines). Perhaps those other charities pass our notability guidelines (maybe they have been covered in reliable sources). But from the looks of things, this one doesn't make the cut. Which is a shame since charities do a lot of great things. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the Scholar links? Jrfw51 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 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 List of Spider-Man enemies in other media. Selectively. Sandstein 20:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman (comics)[edit]

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

This is a non-notable character from a minor children's novel series, secondary/tertiary material to a Marvel Comics series. A lone WP:OR editor (page creator) seems to strongly believe this character corresponds to a small role in a popular film series. However, no references exist to that effect. The apparent footnotes on the page are actually just "ref" tags enclosing further WP:OR claims, and without any cited sources. Further, if the correspondence did exist, the character would still not be notable, as articles are not handed out to unnamed characters with one or two lines from movies, even popular movies. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defense / Keep: I just added several reliable third party sources to confirm that the Gentleman is indeed in the film series. These sources include The New York Times, MTV News, Entertainment Weekly and Vanity Fair. I'd also like to add that the Gentleman's role in the Amazing Spider-Man films was not a "minor role", as the character served as a major antagonist for the series. Darkknight2149 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The character is not a "major antagonist" - simply not true. The character has a couple lines in each movie, in a single scene, is never shown and does nothing within the movie. Not notable. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The character may not have had much screen time but he was indeed a major antagonist in the film. He was a behind the scenes villain (much akin to Chris Cooper's Norman Osborn, who also didn't have much screen time) who was heavily implied to have a vital role in the events seen in the film. He was also confirmed to appear in the now defunct sequels to the film.

The amount of screen time a villain has in a film is irrelevant to their importance (or lack of importance). Hannibal Lecter didn't have very much screen time in The Silence of the Lambs, Darth Vader didn't have all that much screen time in the first Star Wars film, and Thanos has barely had any screen time at all in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Darkknight2149 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're not giving an honest description of the character or your article, and it's obvious to anyone who has seen the movie.

Darth Vader and Hannibal Lecter aren't comparable at all; other characters refer to them by name many times when they are off-screen, and they appear throughout their respective films, not in single scenes at the end. (And it's possible the sources you claim pulled their information from the very article being debated and the other information you've salted throughout Wikipedia.)

Imagine asking the average person walking out of Star Wars or Silence of the Lambs to describe Darth Vader or Hannibal Lecter, respectively. Anyone who saw the movie would be able to describe the character with ease. Now imagine approaching people coming out of either Amazing Spider-Man film, and asking them to describe "The Gentleman" or "Gustav Fiers". They'd give you a blank stare and ask you, "Who the hell is that?" ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you asked someone about the "man in the hat" in the film, they would know EXACTLY who you are talking about, and considering he was referred to in dialogue as "Mr. Fiers" and was listed in the credits as "The Gentleman (Gustav Fiers)," yes they probably would know who the Gentleman is. And the problem with that question is this: ask the average person about the Pazzi family (for instance), chances are they aren't going to know who they are. Only history buffs and historians are going to recognise the Pazzi name. Does that mean that they are not notable enough to have an article? No. I'm not saying the Gentleman is anywhere near as important as the Pazzi family, I'm simply pointing out the error in your question.

As for the honesty thing, I only claimed that the Gentleman plays a vital role in the films. And he does, as he served as an important antagonist to the franshise.

And I did NOT salt information for the Gentleman all over Wikipedia. While you have falsely accused me of advertising an article I created, you clearly don't realise that most of that information was originally placed in the articles by other articles by OTHER editors and even pre-dates the existence of the Gentleman article (such is the case in Sinister Six). I'd advise you remember to assume good faith before making wild accusations such as this one and the one you just made here. And no, several reliable sources did not pull CONFIRMED information (confirmed in featurettes, by the director, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 movie itself) from a single Wikipedia article. As a matter of fact, the director was teasing the existence of the Gentleman in the films long before the article was conceived.[21] Darkknight2149 (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We require significant coverage of a film character in independent, reliable sources to have an article about a character. As far as I see, no such coverage of this character exists. Please correct me if I am wrong. References to sources connected to the comics or films are worthless for establishing notability, and I see nothing of substance in independent reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a combination of primary and secondary sources. The article is cited by a number of third party sources, such as Slash Film, Entertainment Weekly, MTV, Vanity Fair, ComicBook.com and the New York Times. Darkknight2149 (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - WP is not a fanzine.--Rpclod (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article considered more fancruft than the other character articles pertaining to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics? Darkknight2149 (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge/redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies in other media, as we generally do in such cases. Cavarrone 07:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this seems sensible to me. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this decision, as long as we add selective key information from the article to List of Spider-Man enemies in other media. The Gentleman article is lengthy, so obviously we will lose the vast majority of the article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Selective merge/redirect per Cavarrone and Darkknight2149.--Rpclod (talk) 23:52, 23 July 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) Kraxler (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chehere (2015 film)[edit]

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

Not notable. Just another movie. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's taking me a pretty long while but it looks like a lot of coverage is under the spelling "Chehre". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've hit a wall and I'm using the special Google search that WP:INDIA created for India newspaper coverage. I've asked them to look for sources just to make sure that I haven't missed anything. So far I'm not really seeing much, so I'm leaning towards this getting userfied if anyone's up for that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources looks good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.137.167 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep either now or after release in August. Flming is complete and release is pending. And for a completed and unreleased film, it is getting the coverage [22][23][24] to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. This film has not yet been released.--Rpclod (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: I suggest you read WP:NFF and pay close attention to paragraph 3. We do not need to wait for a release as long as filming has begun and the topic has coverage to meet WP:GNG. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...which supports a delete. Unreleased films "should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." I see no notability regarding the production itself. WP is not a crystal ball.--Rpclod (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...sorry for your inability to see or accept it, but your quote actually supports a keep, as the film's planning, writing, crewing, casting and music and such (its production) has the coverage showing it as meeting WP:GNG, and so thus meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Had filming not begun or if its production not received coverage, I could agree with you. But if a completed-yet-unreleased film has the requisite coverage, our inclusion criteria are met. So, and supported by policy and guideline, I gladly disagree. And thanks for sharing your opinion about CBALL, but the article is not "a collection of unverifiable speculation", and so that policy specifically allows inclusion and explains how, because information cited to reliable sources is not a staring into a "crystal ball". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS & these found on HighBeam - [25][26][27]. –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 27 July 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PRstore[edit]

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

Another rather non-notable company that wouldn't even be close to locally notable with my searches finding nothing outstandingly good here, here, here and here. In a way, this one's a little different than others, it's been rather heavily edited by people from the company and even went as far as blanking the page for the "negative information" and later an IP started rewriting cotnent in July 2013; with no improvement or signs of it since March 2008, better to delete. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the nominator, I am seeing nothing beyond routine announcements in the period to 2009 and then the given references to the legal action, but nothing that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable franchise business with no recent news coverage. Most notable is the franchisee lawsuit but that suit was dismissed. Interestingly, the official website listed in news coverage (as in Franchising.com) now belongs to a different company that helps people search public records. There is a similar business at PRStore but a) it is in Scotland and b) this company was founded in 1999 while the U.S. company was founded in 2002. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Citobun (talk) 07:35, 23 July 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 United Independent Party. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Falchuk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive claims of notability are as an unsuccessful candidate in an election and as the brother of a more notable television producer. While the content here is written differently enough from the original version that I can't justify speedying it as a recreation of deleted content, his notability hasn't gotten any stronger under WP:NPOL and the volume of sourcing still isn't enough to claim WP:GNG instead. It's still either a delete, or a revert back to the redirect that resulted from the first discussion. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect to United Independent Party, which does seem to pass the notability bar and already mentions the subject. PWilkinson (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – has received significant coverage for his gubernatorial campaign as well as his efforts to get a statewide ballot question on the proposed 2024 Olympics. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sourcing here just namechecks his existence in the process of failing to be about him — and the media are required to cover all candidates in an election taking place in their coverage area on "equal time" grounds, so campaign coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE unless it erupts into a firestorm on the order of what happened to Christine O'Donnell. If campaign coverage could get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, we'd have to keep an article about every single person who ever ran for village dogcatcher. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[28] [29] [30] [31] all provide more than mere "namechecks". Furthermore, he has continued to receive coverage since his campaign [32] [33], which means, unlike "every single person who ever ran for village dogcatcher", he is notable enough for a standalone article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Independent Party - campaign statements are not creating notability for unelected candidates, the two sources taht mention him after the election are connected to his party activities, no stand-alone article warranted yet, per WP:NPOL, and fails WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Independent Party - He does not appear to be notable in his own right (most of the coverage is minor regarding him personally, and would be considered routine reporting of a candidate's details) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a lawyer, he would fail my standards. Delete. Bearian (talk) 13:30, 28 July 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 Skankin' Pickle. Davewild (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Phelps (drummer)[edit]

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

Completely fails to register in Google News, and his band Skankin' Pickle doesn't seem to be notable either, with its only references being the band's MySpace page, some flyers (!!), a student newspaper, and one random blog. I don't see any indication that he satisfies any requirement for notability. I'm not at all an expert in AFD, so if I've erred in the creation of this nomination, please help. Thank you. Red Slash 01:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a caution to the nominator: if a person's notability is tied principally to a band that broke up in 1996, then Google News ain't where to even try for improved sourcing — it doesn't archive anything that far back, because it didn't exist back then. That said, WP:NMUSIC clarifies that if a person's notability is tied principally to a band, and they're not reliably sourceable for much outside of that context, then they should exist as a redirect to the band and not as a standalone BLP. Redirect to Skankin' Pickle (who definitely also need sourcing improvement, but they do meet enough NMUSIC criteria to be allowed the benefit of the doubt.) Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skankin' Pickle which is more notable than one band member. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:20, 19 July 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 userfy . j⚛e decker ^talk 22:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mapfig[edit]

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

Non-notable software with no independent sources. Conifer (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On July 16, 2015, we released our own tile set "Whitewater" [34], becoming one of only handful of map providers (notably; Google, CartoDB, MapBox, MapQuest, Stamen, and OpenStreetMaps) to offer free map tiles for public use.

Further, the tiles are available under https as well as http.

Combined with MapFig's Open Source code, we believe this is highly significant and warrants inclusion on WikiPedia. MapFig Studio represents a major new choice for anyone wanting to make web based maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGhedini (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not notable. Fails to get anywhere close to WP:GNG. Comments by DavidGhedini clearly indicate a lack of understanding about what a Wikipedia article is. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being only one of only a handful of map tile providers in the world is not notable?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGhedini (talk • contribs) 22:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, "notability" means that a topic has received coverage in reliable, independent sources. If it has, then it is deemed significant enough to have an article. Whether someone considers a topic important or not is not part of our guideline for inclusion. Conifer (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Do we have some time to provide this? We do expect mention in several trade and other outlets this week? - David — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGhedini (talk • contribs) 07:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, we can move the article to your user space. Then, when there are more reliable sources on Mapfig, you can have an experienced editor review the article to see if it meet the notability standard for companies. Conifer (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would great. Thanks for your assistance. David — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGhedini (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per discussion above. PianoDan (talk) 16:52, 20 July 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 20:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TimeTac[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, references are self-published or review blogs, couldn't find anything in WP:RS. Article deleted twice from German wiki, AFD here. Vrac (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless anyone else can find good sources which my searches found none (at least, nothing good) and there's no good target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 22 July 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 ScrewAttack#Current_shows_and_featurettes. All primary sources—merge from history as you wish. – czar 20:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death Battle[edit]

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

While this may be a popular web series from Screwattack, there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources to back it up, only linking to the episodes. Nothing of value to show its notability. GamerPro64 01:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I think its notable in general standards, I have had huge issues running into reliable sourcing for this to bring it to WP standards. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ScrewAttack as my searches found nothing to suggest good independent notability with the best results I found here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ScrewAttack, and redirect, do not delete and instead preserve content as history for the future potential for further article development. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 26 July 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 deletion G3. (Non admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rockteem bhattacharjee[edit]

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

Failed Google test, and salted with the "b" capitialized. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax - no evidence this person exists, "references" are 404 or no mention of him, created by apparent vandal who blanked my AfD nomination (one below) in attempt to delete this AfD —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 19 July 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) Kraxler (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midtown High School[edit]

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

non-notable fictional high school; does not meet WP:GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are rushing the deletion nomination. I am not not done working on it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to change its notability (or lack of). —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already put one reliable first party source on there. I am confident I can find more. Like this one. Maybe more than the article Empire State University and the Daily Bugle already has...if you have given me time. You were just stalking my work and decided to be hasty and determine what is notable just by seeing what's already on the article. This is infuriating! Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why oh why would I (or anyone) be stalking your work? I have no idea who you are and as far as I know have never interacted with you. Btw, as soon you choose to create an article on WP, anyone can edit it any way they want, including nominate it for deletion. If you have a problem with that, create your own Wiki only you can edit. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean you stalked me. I mean you noticed my edits by noticing my contributions probably on the recent edits page. Also you're right. You don't know me. If you known what kind of editor I was. You could have told me how you felt about the notability or placed a prod and I would have put it in the incubator. Where I would have worked on it. In fact I promise you that I will incubate it if you would speedy close this right now. Because I am not in the mood for this. You have made a huge waste of time for me now that you AFD'd this article. It's not possible for me to add to this article now. I am a busy man in the real world personally. It's late where I am at and I am not active Sundays and Wednesday due to church and work. I would speedily delete it but I want the work saved and I will contact a few other editors to help work on it for me. Words can not express how aggravated I am right now. I am sure you are a good editor just like I strive to be...but this ~~was a stupid~~ and unnecessary act in my humble opinion. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even Variety acknowledged it. Spider-Man being in high school isn't a minor plot device of Spider-Man. Also guess what. It's always Midtown. It has appeared in numerous media. Almost all the Spider-Man movies. It's going to appear again. Almost all the animated series. Also please none of this it's only reported because Spider-Man is notable. Usually when they are referenced this much in a news source like Variety, they at least deserve to have a redirection of themselves. Not deleted. Not to mention that I planned to use this article as a redirection to a certain fictional character. ALSO to any new editor that decides to vote on it. This article had potential to expand. It was going to be expanded. This article doesn't look like much right now only because of the AFD. I can still make it better. But I won't do it while I still have to discuss and defend it. That's too much of a mutli-task. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at all these "unreliable sources" (keep clicking the rest of the pages. Of course the first results are Wikis etc.) when you google it properly. This isn't even counting google news or google books. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 03:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[35],[36], [37], [38] Jhenderson^77:7 03:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may have found more or the same amount of sources compared to The Daily Bugle, the Baxter Building, Lexcorp, Latveria and Oscorp. Yet you compare it to a couch you own? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 04:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are unaware of the requirements for notability on Wikipedia. None of those discuss the subject of your article (the fictional high school) in-depth. You should also be aware that, contrary to your claims accusing me of somehow singling you out or stalking you, all new pages appear at Special:NewPages and that new pages are patrolled: the checklist for new page patrollers specifically states: if you believe that the article is not salvageable, either propose it for deletion or nominate it for deletion, whichever is more appropriate. You have plenty of time to find sources for your article. Good luck. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said you did. You must have missed that comment. I corrected myself with the word "stalking". Also I am just proving it has coverage. I also read that guideline. I agree to disagree that these sources are not proving general notability. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 04:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Allow Userfication back to contributor Jhenderson777 as requested above and allow him to continue work outside the ticking clock of AFD. The article is not a policy violation, and I can understand his angst... as his work was brand new and less than one-hour old when it was nominated, and the only notice he receeived of possible problems was when the AFD notice appeared on his talk page. Editing since 2009,[39] he is no newb, and a little courtesy would have been in order. I say we allow him to continue his efforts out of article space. Let a better article be considered in a few weeks, if it must be so. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MichaelQSchmidt. There are several non-fiction books about Spider-Man, or which include Spider-Man, that talk about this fictional location — one that's as important to this canon as Smallville is to Superman. And the fact that in 1962 or '63 that it was placed in a real-life location, New York City, rather than in a fictional Metropolis or Central City, etc., makes it a small milestone. I would urge contributors to this article to find creators talking about how and why they devised it and how it is used as a story element — it can't be all fictography.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- According to this. It was based on this high school. I guess that's a start. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

- Also regarding pop culture. It was listed on this book next to many other popular fictional schools like Hogwarts, the X-Mansion and Starfleet Academy. Just one of maybe many to come. My only complaint is that I am not finding valuable information for the article with books like these. Commentary, reception and behind-the scenes development would be the best thing to maybe stop the deletionists at their track. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can be returned to your draft space where you can improved at your leisure and without the ticking of the clock. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. I have just modified it with the student and faculty info as well as it's media appearance. It should at least be left to be improved on by other people that might have other history on it like Spider-Man's fights with Sandman and Living Brain. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtkat3::I have the information in a userspace for now while redirecting it. But you are definitely welcome to expand it on the userspace or put it back to the mainspace if you feel strongly about it. I didn't notice your modifications. I hope I didn't mess it up somehow when I did all that.Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a speedy deletion of the actual title because I made too many errors moving it to my userspace. All the correct history is still in my userspace. I will just move that userspace back to the article until the consensus is over. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your moves were done during the course of the AFD. I have moved it back with history to the proper article name-space. Let's wait this one out, shall we? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I am asking. I just had an misinterpretation of something you said. I am the one who should be sorry. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As said above: Midtown High is almost as important to Peter Parker as Smallville is to Superman. Spidey104 02:13, 20 July 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.