Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 May	13 May >

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. Davewild (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage Concern Welfare Society[edit]

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

No notability and considerable promotionalism. One of the "achievements" given is that "GCWS is listed on wikipedia as one of the notable NGOs in Mumbai, India" . Good goals, no evidence of accomplishment. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No actual achievements or notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Non notable NGO. Safiel (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Hold on with the delete..I guess a major issue here is that "Joseph2302" discovered that I created the article as a non-disclosed paid wiki writer. He has even nominated same article for Speedy deletion. I have already responded sincerely to him here. Editors please read my story here "[YOU BEING PAID TO CREATE ARTICLES]" before arriving at the conclusion. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Notice to all editors here! Joseph2302 the AFD nominator is taking this issue personal. He has nominated this same article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "undisclosed paid editing". He has really made me cry for the past 24 hours. I don't know why he's attacking all the pages I created so far. He nominated all of them for speedy deletion and then for AFD. There must be vested interest in his mind. I've already alerted Admins about this issue via the appropriate means. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When you come back from your block, among the several rules you should look up is WP:BOOMERANG, before you start flinging accusations about "vested interests" when you admit to being paid to create articles. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, promotional. BMK (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Heavily promotional, without indication of successful results. Better sources and a rewrite would probably change my view here. Scr★pIron^IV 15:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hey, I have a "vested interest" too: it's in pitching NN articles that fail the GNG. This one does. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable corpspam. — Brianhe (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - Promotional bollocks that belongs anywhere but here!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there isn't a sufficient amount of significant and in-depth coverage. This is a very good cause but it simply hasn't received the needed attention so there's not much. My searches found some of the same news results so it suggests this hasn't received that much attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Tickets Zambia[edit]

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

I've also just nominated here the article on the parent company and the proprietor--all written by the same editor. The three articles have extensively overlapping content, and rely primarily on PR. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as with the other 2, they fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP, and are also promotional. So you can buy bus tickets online- big deal, doesn't make them notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Non notable ticketing service. Safiel (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Hold on with the delete..I guess a major issue here is that "Joseph2302" discovered that I created the article as a non-disclosed paid wiki writer. He has even nominated same article for Speedy deletion. I have already responded sincerely to him here. Editors please read my story here "[YOU BEING PAID TO CREATE ARTICLES]" before arriving at the conclusionHilumeoka2000 (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Notice to all editors here! Joseph2302 the AFD nominator is taking this issue personal. He has nominated this same article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "undisclosed paid editing". He has really made me cry for the past 24 hours. I don't know why he's attacking all the pages I created so far. He nominated all of them for speedy deletion and then for AFD. There must be vested interest in his mind. I've already alerted Admins about this issue via the appropriate means. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hilumeoka2000, not disclosing paid editing is a very, very serious thing on Wikipedia. People can still edit with a COI like paid editing, but you need to be up front about this. Also, DGG (the one who actually nominated the articles) is a good editor and one that is extremely unlikely to nominate a page purely because someone is a paid editor. He will mention it if it is relevant but when he nominates articles it is almost always because there is an issue with notability and in some cases, promotional prose. I would like to politely request that you refrain from making statements like this because they are not going to help you out with editing on Wikipedia. You broke the rules by not disclosing your conflict of interest and when you were caught, you proceeded to accuse other editors of doing this out of spite or some other conflict of interest. That's not only assuming bad faith, it's also considered to be an attack against the editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- As Tokyogirl79 says, it is not currently a reason for speedy deletion that an article was written by an undeclared paid editor. It is not a specific reason for deletion at AfD, but we can delete at AfD any article that the consensus determines is unfit for Wikipedia. To avoid confusion, I avoid giving paid editing as the sole reason, and usually I do not even mention it, just as I did not mention it here. I do not need to. We certainly can and will delete an article about a non-notable subject, or a promotional article regardless of subject, and almost all articles written by undeclared paid editors fail on both grounds, along with a good many of those written by declared paid editors. For reasons given at WP:COI, it is extremely difficult to write proper WP articles for pay, though a few people have been able to learn how. It's a specialized form of writing, and people used to writing press releases or the like cannot easily re-orient themselves. If an editor writes a few unacceptable articles, we naturally check others they have written. Each one will be judged on its individual merits.

It is not permitted to use WP for purposes of advertising, paid or unpaid, and anyone who persists in doing so will be blocked from contributing in avoid to avoid further improper contributions. Once they are blocked, anything further they write under any username will be immediately deleted. For completeness, I make a reference here to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. You have now been given a short block by Tokyogirl for abuse of editing privileges. If you write another promotional article, declared or undeclared, you are very likely to be blocked indefinitely. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hey, I have a "vested interest" too: it's in pitching NN articles that fail the GNG. This one does, and I sure as hell wouldn't have the balls to complain about anyone else's "vested interest" when I've been paid to write articles. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely non-notable. BMK (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dot Com Zambia LLC[edit]

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

Non notable firm. 2 minor awards. some PR. Thee same editor made an article on one of the firms divisions, and on the proprietor. This is a typical promotional technique. Even in an area underrepresented in WP, we should not be tolerating such articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteClearly promotional, and no evidence of notability to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Non notable company. Safiel (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hold on with the delete..I guess a major issue here is that "Joseph2302" discovered that I created the article as a non-disclosed paid wiki writer. He has even nominated same article for Speedy deletion. I have already responded sincerely to him here. Editors please read my story here "[YOU BEING PAID TO CREATE ARTICLES]" before arriving at the conclusion Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Notice to all editors here! Joseph2302 the AFD nominator is taking this issue personal. He has nominated this same article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "undisclosed paid editing". He has really made me cry for the past 24 hours. I don't know why he's attacking all the pages I created so far. He nominated all of them for speedy deletion and then for AFD. There must be vested interest in his mind. I've already alerted Admins about this issue via the appropriate means. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Paid editing, even undeclared paid editing, is not a specific reason for deletion at AfD, but we can delete at AfD any article that the consensus determines is unfit for Wikipedia. To avoid confusion, we avoid giving paid editing as the sole reason, and I did not even mention it here in my nomination. I did not need to. We certainly can and will delete an article about a non-notable subject, or a promotional article regardless of subject, and almost all articles written by undeclared paid editors fail on both grounds, along with a good many of those written by declared paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hey, I have a "vested interest" too: it's in pitching NN articles that fail the GNG. This one does. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability requirements. BMK (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Joesph. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:07, 19 May 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) 07:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mawano Kambeu[edit]

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

no evidence for notability, besides some PR. Trivial awards, and mentions. There's also an article by the same editor on his firm, and one one of his firm's operating divisions. but trying to make multiple articles with essentially the same content is a purely promotional technique.Borderline notability+promotionalism is reason to delete an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't show notability, so fails WP:GNG, and also is clearly WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non notable executive. Safiel (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Hold on with the delete..I guess a major issue here is that "Joseph2302" discovered that I created the article as a non-disclosed paid wiki writer. He has even nominated same article for Speedy deletion. I have already responded sincerely to him here. Editors please read my story here "[YOU BEING PAID TO CREATE ARTICLES]" before arriving at the conclusion. ThanksHilumeoka2000 (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note that I declined ALL his speedy delete requests as not being valid speedy delete requests. Safiel (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As explained on your talkpage, all your articles are still a violation of Wikimedia terms of Use. The issue isn't that I found out, the issue was that you should have disclosed earlier. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Notice to all editors here! Joseph2302 the AFD nominator is taking this issue personal. He has nominated this same article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "undisclosed paid editing". He has really made me cry for the past 24 hours. I don't know why he's attacking all the pages I created so far. He nominated all of them for speedy deletion and then for AFD. There must be vested interest in his mind. I've already alerted Admins about this issue via the appropriate means. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, promotional. BMK (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Paid editing, even undeclared paid editing, is not a specific reason for deletion at AfD, but we can delete at AfD any article that the consensus determines is unfit for Wikipedia. To avoid confusion, we avoid giving paid editing as the sole reason, and i did not even mention it here. I did not need to. We certainly can and will delete an article about a non-notable subject, or a promotional article regardless of subject, and almost all articles written by undeclared paid editors fail on both grounds, along with a good many of those written by declared paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established, and article is clearly promotional. Being a successful executive or entrepreneur is not enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Scr★pIron^IV 14:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another promotional, NN, GNG-failing article from someone admitting he was paid to write it. Nuf Ced! Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another Hilumeoka2000 promotional piece. Under other circumstances a redirect to the company would make sense, but that looks likely to be deleted too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 18 May 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) 06:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Round 5 Corporation[edit]

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

This is a catalog of products, not a WP article. All the refs are topress releases, DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A long list of press releases is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. My search didn't find any significant independent coverage of the company. Papaursa (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent third party sources only press releases fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7. unsigned closure by User:Peridon.

Consumer Perspectives[edit]

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

Promotional article of notable company Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 13 May 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) 07:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Football Teams Highest and Lowest FIFA Rankings[edit]

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

Not notable and original research (as well as unsourced and will be hard to find source for it). Discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#National Football Teams Highest and Lowest FIFA Rankings and result was to go to AfD. QED237 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure OR, no sources, notability is dubious at best. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources are official pages of each association at FIFA. i.e. Germany, Argentina, Belgium. And also the best/worst ranking can be found at FIFA ranking tools section such as Germany, Italy or Estonia --Teacher0691 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how does that justify a list of every single country in this format? It doesn't. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable LISTCRUFT / OR. Giant Snowman 07:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it OR? The information is on the FIFA website. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: OR, based on routine info, non-notable. And hey -- if the information's on the FIFA website, why shouldn't people go to the FIFA website? Wikipedia still isn't a webhost, even for soccer. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. It is probably more suited for each team article, e.g. "The German National Team's lowest rank in history was # in YEAR" in a section about team history. But collectively it's just sports trivia. Tarc (talk) 03:05, 14 May 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) 07:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All time appearances in European Cup and UEFA Champions League[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. It is also redundant to the European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As per motivation above, list already exists in other article and shouled not have its own article. Also discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#All time appearances in European Cup and UEFA Champions League, which lead to this AfD. QED237 (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable LISTCRUFT / OR. Giant Snowman 07:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah, does not warrant own article. -Koppapa (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or merge (which is already done). Already merged, no reason to keep a redirect. This article can never be anything more than 2 tables (which should probably be merged themselves into a single table). Non-notable, pointless separate list article of basically 'trivia' information. I could be wrong, but does this not also meet WP:A10 for Speedy Delete? ― Padenton|✉ 05:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, as it isn't a 100% duplication. An article already containing the same information isn't quite the same as one dedicated to said information, if you get what I mean. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete - I think something like this could find a home within another article, but it appears pretty obvious that it doesn't warrant its own article. - J man708 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1828 Kashirina[edit]

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

Doesn't meet N:ASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted / redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. As the number is under 2000, needs not to be done unilaterally per previous discussions, so taking to AfD rather than bold redirect or prod. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Mentioned in a 32-asteroid lightcurve study [1] and an 820-asteroid spectral study [2]. Not enough individual attention to warrant keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources available to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 22:38, 12 May 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Haigh-Wood[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The guy mostly appears in books etc because of being father-in-law to T. S. Eliot. A local historian - Ken Craven - has effectively self-published this family biography but otherwise there is little other than primary sources of the type already used in the article and passing mentions such as this. There are also some passing mentions in art sale catalogues, basically repeating his d.o.b./d.o.d. and a brief description of the artwork. The BBC says even less.

Unless exhibiting at the Royal Academy automatically confers notability, the subject matter does not reach our bar. The article appears to reflect the niche interest of its creator but little interest from others. Sitush (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: There is discussion of Haigh-Wood's paintings. E.g. http://www.americanreadingforum.org/yearbook/yearbooks/02_yearbook/pdf/06_Dowhower_final.pdf For the Royal Academy exhibitions, from WP:ARTIST "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." I've not been able to find out whether these exhibitions featured Haigh-Wood's works as a significant part, or whether his pictures were one out of many. I've also been unable to find if significant art galleries hold works by Haigh-Wood. It appears that the UK national gallery and portrait gallery do not, unless my search-fu has failed. However, as this appears to be a case where more in-depth research is necessary to characterise his notability, I suggest that the article remains until someone can put in the necessary work. Ross-c (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may find that VictorianPainter is the person who can "put in the necessary work" ... the problem being that there is nothing further to say and WP:BURDEN applies. I'm afraid that I can say no more about that here because of the potential for outing. I have an inherently low opinion of topic notability guidelines, so it is probably best that I do not comment on trash like that.
As far as the RA exhibitions go, Haigh-Wood was a mere Associate of the Royal Academy and literally tens of thousands of paintings have been exhibited there. FWIW, I am resident close to Haigh-Wood's home ground, I know a lot of the local history and even round here, he is known mainly for the Eliot connection (and not known at all by most people). He really is a minor figure. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete The only significant biographical data I could find was in a biography of his daughter. I couldn't find anything suggesting him as a significant artist. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Devine[edit]

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

Friend Of A Bush and CIA man, and apparently that's about it. The article is mostly constructed from primary sources, and I couldn't find anything else that didn't say "CIA/friend of GHWB/Zapata" and little else. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails various notability guidelines. I have BLP/SYNTH concerns when editors start stringing together primary and fringe sources to show Six Degrees of Lee Harvey Oswald.-Location (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interesting that Spartacus International (a privately-owned Wikipedia competitor) has an article on him. Not sure whether this is a name that conspiracy theorists love to love or whether this is a figure discussed in depth in serious scholarship, so no opinion about whether to keep or delete. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can find a way to link someone with a JFK conspiracy — in this case, the Big Oil conspiracy theory — you can be sure that Spartacus will create an article on it. - Location (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that, beyond the Zapata-to-Wash. Post link (which doesn't involve Devine per se), their article says what I've said in the first sentence, just with more words. Mangoe (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. jps (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above Nickm57 (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Minor4th 14:50, 16 May 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. Consensus is that this fails WP:SYNTHESIS. Davewild (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Long Beach Airport[edit]

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

Not sure if this topic is notable. Seems like a WP:SYNTHESIS of different information about women who were stationed out of Long Beach Airport. Natg 19 (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being associated with a particular airport isn't something women (or men or children) are commonly noted for. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cleaned this up a bit, but I agree with the nom. Good faith, but off the mark Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The numerous RS already included indicate that such a good historical article is in the offing. I've included several military/aviation categories and tags; hopefully this will bring in more interested editors to clean up the article. (A move to a different title might be a good idea.) Pax 00:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Certainly a synthesis concerning a number of women who are unrelated apart from flying from a particular airport. If the women are notable they should have a free-standing article with a list in the airport article (or one on its history), but if (as I suspect) they are NN, I do not think we can keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)@[reply]
Keep Actually, some of these women are indeed notable. The article's author didn't link to their pages, and in one case had the name wrong. One of the issues for women in wikipedia is how they're listed -- first name/maiden surname, first name/married surname, first name/maiden surname/married surname. It can make it hard to find them and link to them. I fixed as many as I could figure out. valereee (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of the women are notable, and have their own articles. Their connection to the airport, not so much. And what are the WASPs and Rosie the Riveter doing in there? Did any of the Powder Puff Derbies even start from there? The inaugural Women's Air Derby article says Santa Monica, not Long Beach Airport. Any strong connections could be merged into Long Beach Airport#History. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bit of a made-up article, although the women are notable the connection with Long Beach is a tenuos, I cant see any evidence that the connected to the airport is notable. You could probably do the same for most airports by just making up a list of notable women who have a passing link to it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mere WP:SYNTHESIS. Everything here fits more naturally into articles that already exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:43, 18 May 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1401 Lavonne[edit]

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

Consensus is to have a full discussion on those under 2000 rather than a unilateral redirect or prod. Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Another cookie-cutter nomination without regard to the facts of the matter, per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. For example, one can immediately find a paper specifically about this asteroid — Nueva órbita del asteroide 1401 "Lavonne" — but the nomination makes no reference to this. These nominations are obviously being spammed in a disruptive manner without any due diligence. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There are many google scholar hits on this object but most of them are spurious. The ones I found that are legitimately about this object are the 1956 orbit study [3], a group photometric study in which it was one of a dozen objects studied [4], and some talk slides that happen to include a plate in which it is one of nine marked objects [5]. There's nothing to indicate that it has any unusual properties or reason for being studied, and I don't think there's enough content to write a real article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: quite a few ghits, but nothing substantive. Unable to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. If someone wants to provide a translation of the 1 paper Andrew Davidson indicated, I'd be happy to take a look and reconsider. WP:NOTCLEANUP refers to cleaning up articles by removing problematic text in them, not cleaning up unnotable articles that no one can establish notability for. This is exactly what AFD is for. ― Padenton|✉ 22:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm drawing this to a close early as the influx of inexperienced editors is swamping the discussion and causing the temperature to rise. We have had clear analysis of the article and sources by experienced editors who have universally called this as a delete. Participation is already beyond the mean so it seems safe to call this one early to avoid further problems from the apparent external canvassing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Varnell Clark[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This appears to be pure promotion. I first nominated it for speedy but it was suggested an AfD discussion would be better. The creator of the article is a rather obvious promotional WP:SPA whose sole Wiki-activity is creating writing this article, as well as inserting promotional material about this person into other articles [6], [7], [8], [9] or otherwise misusing Wikipedia to promote this person [10], [11], [12]. The article is more or less her CV. Even though written in a somewhat promotional tone, there is nothing to suggest notability. Writing academic papers and lecturing is not enough, that would make every academic in the world notable (and this person does not appear to occupy an academic position, so less notable that hundreds of thousands of academics who publish and lecture). The subject has also written some books, none of which appear notable and do not appear to have been published by any major publishing house. Last, apparently she worked for a local TV station in 1996. That is also far from notability. In short, this article and the activity of its creation are purely done for promotional purposes, and the subject is not notable beyond a relative notability that hundreds of thousands of people enjoy. Jeppiz (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've notified the creator of the article, whose response was to delete the AfD notice from the article [13]. I'm afraid this further proves that it's a purely promotional WP:SPA.Jeppiz (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DMRRT I an not a very experienced Wiki user, but this article is not promotional. Miss Clark is one of the top Respiratory Therapists and nursing researchers in the US as evidence by her awards and publications. She lectures all over the world. Her books and publications have been translated into several languages. In addition she has had a very successful career as a journalist. The scholar link you listed on top proves it. The information is well referenced by 3rd party websites and sources. Why are you trying to delete it? The content on this page is verifiable and does not violate any copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, the content is verifiable and nobody said it violate any copyrights, but how is this person notable? You claim she is one of the top researchers in the US, but it is not evidenced by any awards or publications. On the contrary, I found no particular academic record in peer-reviewed journals, no PhD and no professorship. Most starting assistant professors have academic CVs that are stronger. The same thing goes for the alleged "very successful career as a journalist". For which major newspapers has she written? I have absolutely no objection to this person, who probably is charming and intelligent person. That is not the point, though. The question if if she meets Wikipedia's requirement of notability, and nothing in either your article or your reply provide any verifiable information that she is more notable than hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of persons who write research papers or are journalists.Jeppiz (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning notability Given that claim that the subject is a "leading researcher", I checked it out. Not one single hit on JSTOR, very few hits on Google Scholar, only one of which appears to have been cited, and only 8 cites for that one. That is very low, influential books and articles have thousands of cites. Once again, this could be a charming person but she is most definitely not a top researcher.Jeppiz (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She taught second and third year medical students in Boston, wrote for Reuters news, started many of the regular feature pages on Medcape/WebMD and is the only nurse to receive the American College of Chest Physicians International Humanitarian Award, but most of that I was told by someone called “ the Red Pen of Doom” we could not put in the article because I would have to reference her CV. We could only put 3rd party verified information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And She is published by the leading medical textbook publisher in the US JB Learning. http://www.jblearning.com/about/overview/ She was also a columnist for Advance News for 20 years, the leading national magazine for Respiratory Therapists and Nurses. http://respiratory-care-sleep-medicine.advanceweb.com/ I know her text books have been published in Russian and Indonesian. I can find websites for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Neither teaching medical students nor writing for Reuters news is notable. I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself, but teaching students or writing are claims that would apply to hundreds of thousands or millions. A Google search for "American College of Chest Physicians International Humanitarian Award + Varnell Clark" does not return a single hit. And like you say, “ the Red Pen of Doom” is not a reliable source. If no particular notability can be verified from a reliable source, then the subject is not notable by Wikipedia standards. I'm afraid you're confusing being available online with notability. Again, her textbook is almost never cited, it is not notable by academic standards. Jeppiz (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is interesting: you said she was not published by a notable publisher and I showed that she is published by the leading text book publisher in the US and one of the leading national magazines for 20 years, you ignored that. You said, that she did not have a viable teaching CV, I can prove she does. You ignored that.

You can't find the humanitarian award. Here is the link. http://2010.accpmeeting.org/program/award-winners

Here is a link where she is guest lecturing in Spain in a few weeks, http://cesearchengine.com/ce_details.php?ce_id=22769

Here is a link the American College of Chest physicians posted about her on You tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51CITImJwiA&list=PLD3C4E6CC68FA948D

Here are several links to some of her peer reviewed articles (I was told that we could not put too many on Wikipedia because it would look promotional) please note these are all 3rd party publications.

Varnell Clark, Margaret (2014). "CME Monograph: Managing Hyponatremia in the Hospitalized Patient" (PDF). CME University and the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Retrieved 6 January 2014. http://fcmcme.org/courses/2222/PDF/CME-U_Managing_Hypo_Mngraph_fnl.pdf
Varnell Clark, Margaret (2007). "Peer Review Article: Base Hospital 43: The Emory Unit". MedGenMed. 2007; 9(3): 10. 9 (3). p. 10. PMC 2100082.
Deitelzweig, Steven et al. (2013). "Outcomes Assessment of Hyponatremia in a Regional Hospital Medicine Program". CME University. Retrieved 29 January 2014.http://www.ceknowledgecenter.com/index.php/services#outcomes
Greenberg, Barry et al. (2013). "Measuring Continuing Medical Education Outcomes: An Assessment of a Heart Failure Society of America Inc Annual Meeting Symposium" (PDF). Heart Failure Society of America. Retrieved 29 January 2014. http://clarkmedicalwriting.com/uploads/HFSA_Poster_-_Handout_version.pdf
Deitelzweig, Clark et al. (2015). "Longitudinal Evaluation of a Multimodel Regional Continuing Medical Education Initiative". CME University. Retrieved 12 May 2015. http://nebula.wsimg.com/4271df4e99cd111ad97a514566fcf204?AccessKeyId=F256D2BCD8406D5BD17F&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Clark M "We Need to Do a Better Job of Preparing for the Next Big Disaster". 2012. Retrieved 21 January 2014. PMC 1781282

Here is a link to two monographs in which she was asked to be guest faculty for the Florida Medical Society last year.

Asthma and the Primary Care Physician https://flmedical.inreachce.com/Details?resultsPage=1&sortBy=&category=a845c7b0-2f2e-45d8-a4ca-f2a298d6c388&groupId=8792ffdb-287b-411e-8f68-d232d7bc4d6e

Stroke Prevention and Improving Outcomes in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation https://flmedical.inreachce.com/Details?resultsPage=1&sortBy=&category=3d4694d6-de6a-4d89-b683-3f91bdfde5d9&groupId=3b16516d-53f5-461b-92ce-8c476fcc10d4

How can you say she is not notable? How many nurses are the sole faculty on physician education programs?

I can start tracking down her Shakespeare work if you like. There aren't a lot of people who are quoted in the Introductions to the Oxford Shakespeare series. There are a lot of English professors out there who wish they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

OH and I didn’t do this, but it looks like other people are referencing her work in Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_St._Alphonsus_Liguori,_Rome

I realize you're new here, but we're not talking about the same thing. I never said she didn't do anything. And I would kindly ask you not to put words in my mouth, which you're doing repeatedly in the post above. She is no doubt a good ~~physician~~nurse, but you're intentionally or unintentionally flooding your posts with "stuff", perhaps hoping the mass of it will sound convincing. It would be much better if you found one clear case of her being notable.

You talk about her teaching CV. Utterly irrelevant, there are millions of teachers. Giving guest lectures abroad certainly isn't notable either.
The most damning case against her notability as a researcher comes from you. You provide what you claim to be six peer-reviewed articles. I checked each and every one of them in Google Scholar. Not all of them are really peer-reviewed articles but the most revealing fact is that Not one of them has ever been cited. Again, there are hundreds of thousands of academics who both publish and are cited, and all are more notable as academics than this woman.
The book to which you have kept inserting links is a self-published book. It cannot even be used on Wikipedia as per WP:RS and it is not notable.
The book by "the leading text book publisher in the US" has been cited a mere 8 times, and not reviewed even once at Amazon. There is nothing to suggest it's notable.
I know nothing of her Shakespearean research but with all due respect, given how severely you misrepresent her academic record I am afraid I must suspect the same to be the case here.
In short, you have made my much more convinced than when we started that she is not notable. I doubted it from the start, but thought there may be a possibility. A fact-check of your post above, long and polemic though it is, shows that unless a new Wikipedia policy decide that every single academic who has ever published anything is notable, this woman is not notable. At the very least, no verifiable proof of her notability has been given.Jeppiz (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a physician! She is a nurse who is recognized as acknowledged as an expert in several countries and teaches physicians !!! Her articles have been cited, her textbook is used all over the world. How come I can find them in google and you can't? Just like you couldn't find the humanitarian award? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 23:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

My bad, so she is not a physician, she is a nurse. Changes nothing. There is nothing to suggest she is a recognized as an expert anywhere. On the contrary, all the evidence this far shows the contrary. If you can find articles of her that have been widely cited, all you need to do is to post the link here to Google Scholar so we can verify how often she has been cited, by whom and in which publications. [14] is a random example of a medical article that really is published in a leading peer reviewed journal and has been widely cited.Jeppiz (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be something personal with you. Her article has been on Wikipedia for more than a year with no problems. I have shown where she is published both nationally and internationally. Her books are translated into other languages and used world wide, she has won awards from major national physician associations, is asked to present educational programs for physicians, is cited in other publications. And your response is to accuse me of "but you're intentionally or unintentionally flooding your posts with WP:STUFF, perhaps hoping the mas" I am not sure what you mean by this, but clearly you seem to have a grudge here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is nothing personal, and I kindly encourage you to read WP:NPA before you start talking about the personal motives of fellow users. You may also want to read WP:COI. I don't think we'll get any further until you start provide verifiable facts (verifiable by proper sources). I already showed you how to link to Google Scholar, if she really is well-published and well-cited. My own search of Google Scholar, JSTOR (for academic publications) and Amazon (for her books) all show the opposite of your claims. She has almost no citations in Google Scholar, I did not find her on JSTOR and the book you claim to be so famous is neither widely cited on Google Scholar nor ever reviewed on Amazon. You make a lot of claims, but not one of them stands up to scrutiny. If she is as notable as you say, you should not have to spend your time making inflated arguments here, you could just post a few links to show it. Is Graham Colditz notable? Yes, he is, and that link proves it, his work has been cited 221398 times. His top article alone has been cited 3911 times. That's how easy it is to prove the notability of someone who really has an notable academic record.Jeppiz (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wish I could support this, but I'm afraid I cannot go for the yes. Even tried a search, but nothing is really special to support this article and discussion. Jeppiz's comments also concerns me about this nobility of this article. Unless you find something that is really reliable (and also verified, besides news sources), I have to shoot for the delete. Sorry.--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 00:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me pull some additional 3rd party references. But please explain how these people are more notable than Miss Clark. They are not being held to this standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollye_Jacobs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlene_Kramer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Kolcaba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Orem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_E._Rogers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ildaura_Murillo-Rohde — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have no idea if those persons are notable or not. If they are, great. If they aren't, perhaps those articles should be deleted. In either case, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Even if you manage to find another non-notable person, it doesn't make the subject of this article any more notable.Jeppiz (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please let me know which one of these references do we need to validate. Do we need a second reference for Marquis' Who's Who or the Oxford Shakespeare?

References

1.	b"Congratulations to The CHEST Foundation's 2010 Award Winners | CHEST 2010". Chest 2010. 2014. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
2.	 b c d e "Marquis Who's Who". Retrieved 8 January 2014.
3.	Varnell Clark, Margaret (2014). "CME Monograph: Managing Hyponatremia in the Hospitalized Patient" (PDF). CME University and the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
4.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (2007). "Peer Review Article: Base Hospital 43: The Emory Unit". MedGenMed. 2007; 9(3): 10. 9 (3). p. 10. PMC 2100082.
5.	 Deitelzweig, Steven et al. (2013). "Outcomes Assessment of Hyponatremia in a Regional Hospital Medicine Program". CME University. Retrieved 29 January 2014.
6.	 Greenberg, Barry et al. (2013). "Measuring Continuing Medical Education Outcomes: An Assessment of a Heart Failure Society of America Inc Annual Meeting Symposium" (PDF).Heart Failure Society of America. Retrieved 29 January 2014.
7.	 Deitelzweig, Clark et al. (2015). "Longitudinal Evaluation of a Multimodel Regional Continuing Medical Education Initiative". CME University. Retrieved 12 May 2015.
8.	Varnell Clark, Margaret (2013). Buku Asma Panduan Penatalaksanaan Klinis Pengarang Margaret Varnell Clark. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 0763778540. Retrieved 14 October 2014.
9.	 "The CHEST Foundation's Not One More Life Asthma Clinic". Chest 2010. 2014. Retrieved 10 January 2014.
10.	 "We Need to Do a Better Job of Preparing for the Next Big Disaster". 2012. Retrieved 21 January 2014.
11.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (1998). Inspiration: Your Guide to Better Breathing. ISBN 0937776114.
12.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (2005). The Louisiana Irish. ISBN 0595433634. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
13.	 "Chef John Folse Guests and Goodies: Recommends Margaret Varnell's The Louisiana Irish". 2012. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
14.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (2009). Asthma: A Clinicians Guide. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 0763778540. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
15.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (2013). Самая большая электронная читалка рунета. Поиск книг и журналов. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 0763778540. Retrieved 14 October 2014.
16.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (2013). Asma Panduan Penatalaksanaan Klinis. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 0763778540. Retrieved 14 October 2014.
17.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (2013). Walking through Rome. ISBN 1475981333. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
18.	 "2013 Decatur Book Festival: Festival Appearances – Margaret Varnell Clark". 2013. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
19.	 "The Shakespeare Bulletin". Multiple Peer review Articles:. ISSN 0748-2558.
20.	 "Shakespeare on Film & Video: Books and Articles in the UC Berkeley Library". Richard III. 2014. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
21.	 "Shakespeare Quarterly, suppl. World Shakespeare Bibliography 200153.5 (2002): 665-679". Margaret Varnell, On the Move with the RSC: An Interview with Adrian Noble. 2002. Retrieved6 January 2014.
22.	 Jouett, John (2008). "The Tragedy of King Richard III 2001 & 2008 edition, page 94, 109". ISBN 9780199535880.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I found these references. Please let me know if you need more.

Here is a link to 288 articles written by her from Advance for RTs as Margaret Clark (after marriage) http://respiratory-care-sleep-medicine.advanceweb.com/Editorial/Search/SearchResult.aspx?KW=margaret+clark&SS=R

Here is a link to an additional 118 listing her as Margaret Varnell http://respiratory-care-sleep-medicine.advanceweb.com/Editorial/Search/SearchResult.aspx?KW=margaret+varnell&SS=R

Here is a link to 24 articles published as Margaret Clark in the Advance Nursing Management Magazine http://nursing.advanceweb.com/Editorial/Search/SearchResult.aspx?KW=margaret%20clark

Here is a link to 18 articles published as Margaret Varnell in The Advance Nursing Management Magazine. http://nursing.advanceweb.com/Editorial/Search/SearchResult.aspx?KW=margaret%20varnell

Here are some other articles that reference her work from a google scholar search:

Caring for the Dying: The Importance of Nursing PA Grady - J. Health Care L. & Pol'y, 1998 - HeinOnline ... See Margaret A Varnell, Palliative Care: A Patient's Right, 1 Advance for Nurses 29, 29 (1999) (stating that palliative care is defined as therapy designed to reduce the intensity of uncomfortable symptoms, but not to produce a cure). 298 Page 2. ...

Nursing Perspective on End-of-Life Care: Research and Policy Issues, A LE Moody, J Lunney, PA Grady - J. Health Care L. & Pol'y, 1998 - HeinOnline ... 57, 57 (1998). 8. "Palliative care.., is therapy designed to relieve or reduce the intensity of uncom- fortable symptoms, but not to produce a cure." Margaret A. Varnell, Palliative Care: A Pa- tient's Right, 1 ADV. FOR NURSES 29, 29 (1999). ...

There are two citations to her work in this book http://www.percussionaire.com/pdfs/part2chapt5.pdf

Her articles are cited in this bibliography http://www.medtech.com.br/percussionaire/Ipv-1.htm

Theses links reference articles she wrote for Reuters, I am not sure how to verify all the citing articles. I know she was with them for years and found 64 references/citation in all.

PrevnarTM: A Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine for Infants and Young Children https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/136_prevnar_cetap_e.pdf

Health Officials Warn of 'Klingerman Virus' E-Mail Hoax By Margaret A. Varnell Reuters http://washingtonpost.com:80/wp-dyn/articles/A58021-2000May23.html

An e-mail message warning of a mysterious Klingerman virus arriving via a package is a hoax, say officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia.

Citations to her asthma book from Google Scholar

A Review on methods using capnogram signals for detecting asthmatic patients M Kazemi, MB Malarvili, AH Teo - Jurnal Teknologi, 2013 - jurnalteknologi.utm.my ... [1] Amy, P. Miller. 2006. New Development in Asthma Research. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc. [2] Margaret Varnell Clark. 2011. Asthma: A Clinician's Guide. Jones & Bartlett Learning LLC. [3] Christopher Fanta, H., S. Elisabeth Stieb, L. Elaine Carter, E. Kenan Haver. ... Related articles Cite Save [PDF] from utm.my

Assessment on methods used to detect asthmatic and non-ashmatic conditions using capnogram signal M Kazemi, NI Imarah - Jurnal Teknologi (Science & Engineering), 2013 - eprints.utm.my ... [1] Amy, P. Miller. 2006. New Development in Asthma Research. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc. [2] Margaret Varnell Clark. 2011. Asthma: A Clinician's Guide. Jones & Bartlett Learning LLC. [3] Christopher Fanta, H., S. Elisabeth Stieb, L. Elaine Carter, E. Kenan Haver. ... Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save

Clinical recommendations for cardiopulmonary exercise testing data assessment in specific patient populations M Guazzi, V Adams, V Conraads, M Halle… - European heart …, 2012 - Eur Soc Cardiology From an evidence-based perspective, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a well- supported assessment technique in both the United States (US) and Europe. The combination of standard exercise testing (ET)[ie progressive exercise provocation in ... Cited by 40 Related articles All 15 versions Cite Save [PDF] from utm.my

Assessment on methods used to detect asthmatic and non-ashmatic conditions using capnogram signal M Kazemi, NI Imarah - Jurnal Teknologi (Science & Engineering), 2013 - eprints.utm.my In this paper, a review on methods for detecting asthmatic conditions using capnogram is presented. This includes an investigation on capnography as a new approach for monitoring asthma and related researches. Manual analysis of capnogram is time-consuming and led ... Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save [PDF] from utm.my

NEW PROGNOSTIC INDEX TO DETECT THE SEVERITY OF ASTHMA AUTOMATICALLY USING SIGNAL PROCESSING TECHNIQUES OF CAPNOGRAM K MOHSEN - 2013 - eprints.fbme.utm.my Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the bronchial tubes that happens approximately in 3% to 5% of all people in their life. Currently, capnography is a new method to monitor the asthmatic conditions, and unlike traditional methods, it is taken while the patient is ... Related articles Cite Save [PDF] from ulaval.ca

[PDF] Mécanismes de la toux chez les athlètes s' entraînant en air froid M Bordeleau - 2013 - theses.ulaval.ca Résumé Les athlètes, particulièrement ceux impliqués dans des sports d'endurance et ceux en contact avec des allergènes, des polluants et d'autres irritants présents dans l'air, sont plus à risque de développer des troubles respiratoires. En effet, ces athlètes d'élite sont ... Related articles All 2 versions Cite Save More [PDF] from ul.pt

Determinantes genéticos na fisiopatologia da asma RR Prabhudas - 2013 - repositorio.ul.pt A asma é um grave problema de saúde pública a nível mundial que apresenta uma elevada morbilidade. Apresentando uma interacção complexa de diversos factores, a asma é uma doença inflamatória crónica das vias respiratórias caracterizada por uma obstrução ... Related articles Cite Save

[CITATION] 抗白细胞介素-13 疫苗治疗哮喘的研究进展马雁冰 - 中国生物制品学杂志, 2013 - cqvip.com 哮喘是仅次于癌症的世界第二大致死, 致残疾病, 造成的经济负担超过结核病和艾μ 病的总和. 严重的哮喘目前尚不能治愈, 迫切需要新的有效的疾病干预手段. 临床研究显示, 白细胞介素-13 (interfeukin-13, IL-13) 与哮喘密切相关, 动物模型研究也表明, IL-13 在哮喘病理机制中处于 ... Related articles Cite Save

Her Shakespeare work:

There are 2 citations in The Tragedy of King Richard III: The Oxford Shakespeare The Tragedy of King Richard III (Oxford World's Classics) Paperback – June 15, 2008. On pages 94 and 109.

Search inside on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-King-Richard-III-Shakespeare/dp/0199535884/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1431483229&sr=8-2&keywords=Oxford+shakespeare+Richard+III

This book has 3 citations to her Shakespeare publications https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2yM8BQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA169&dq=margaret+varnell+shakespeare+&ots=hfkk_MOjuu&sig=5RCmiNPgCJLEBeKnK4HND0heWLc#v=onepage&q=varnell&f=false

This book has 2 citations. Shakespeare's Spiral: Tracing the Snail in King Lear and Renaissance Painting Gleyzon, Fran&çois-Xavie https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cS2WPLOyB9QC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=margaret+varnell+shakespeare+&ots=rYqFd3fwHn&sig=AqwRiYaodgp0_c576SNC5jwu43Q#v=onepage&q=varnell%20&f=false

This book has 2 citations The Reel Shakespeare: Alternative Cinema and Theory Lisa S. Starks, Courtney Lehmann https://books.google.com/books?id=Hg-3hBD8cMEC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=shakespeare+in+love+varnell&source=bl&ots=itTRnAEVdE&sig=1ujciZaE7Rf-OJBjnPrekn7UXwk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9LRSVfDSCYq3oQTHiICoAQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=varnell&f=false

This has 2 citations Star Power: Al Pacino, Looking for Richard and the Cultural Capital of Shakespeare on Film

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10509200690897617?journalCode=gqrf20

This book has 1 citation

Almost Shakespeare: Reinventing His Works for Cinema and Television edited by James R. Keller, Leslie Stratyner https://books.google.com/books?id=2yM8BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=shakespeare+in+love+varnell&source=bl&ots=hfkkZOKkox&sig=Pyo86UvS28gcSoSFRW9uuhHN068&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9LRSVfDSCYq3oQTHiICoAQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=shakespeare%20in%20love%20varnell&f=false

Other citations from google scholar

[CITATION] Acting the Words: An Interview with Patsy Rodenburg MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1998 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] A Mission of Performing and Educating M Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 2000 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] On the Move with the RSC: An Interview with Adrian Noble M Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 2001 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Acting and Directing Shakespeare: An Interview with Margaret A. Varnell M Pennington - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1997 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Shakespeare and Film, Adaptations LS Starks - 1998 - Texas A&M University-Commerce Cite Save More

[CITATION] Stanley Wells Reflects on Shakespeare's Life in Drama MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1997 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Hamlet, Georgia Shakespeare Festival M Varnell - Shakespeare Bulletin, 2000 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Macbeth, Tulane Summer Shakespeare Festival MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1996 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Sir Peter Hall on the Art of Playing Shakespeare MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1997 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Working as an Actor: An Interview with Michael Maloney M Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 2001 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] King Lear, Royal National Theatre MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1998 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Looking for Richard, A Fox Searchlight Pictures Production MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1997 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] The Bedford Falls Company Production M Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1999 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] The Training of Actors at RADA MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1997 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

This book references her Louisiana Irish book Louisiana: The First 300 Years JB Garvey, ML Widmer - 2001 - books.google.com ... Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism; Laura Street/ Noel Memorial Library-LSU in Shreveport; Dorothy L. Benge-Los Islenos Heritage and Cultural Society; Mary Curry-Jefferson Parish Historical Society; Margaret Varnell/ medical historian; Cary B. McNamara and ... Cited by 1 Related articles Cite Save More

Sorry, for the second posting. Someone just told me she wrote for Post Scripts. I didn’t know. Here are the results from Google scholar. Apparently, she has over 40 academic publications related to Shakespeare. The ones listed above are the articles that have been cited by other authors, not her full publication list.

Google Scholar: Shakespeare on screen – 2 citations By Sarah Hatchuel, Nathalie Vienne-Guerrin https://books.google.com/books?id=o4P5AKSlAogC&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=postscript+1912+richard+III&source=bl&ots=unNZ0VD7DQ&sig=sBB_Sm5-E_uoMhyv6cuuyeQLtR4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JctSVZKJIca2oQS33oBQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=varnell&f=false

2 citations- The Tragedy of King Richard III By William Shakespeare https://books.google.com/books?id=RrhKwVUHESYC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=postscript+1912+richard+III+varnell&source=bl&ots=oBJNhgpXKF&sig=rvw_9OAXqW0sPVhDzgz712F4WxM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=w8xSVevBM8jFggS2zIHICQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=postscript%201912%20richard%20III%20varnell&f=false

From a google search of “postscript 1912 richard III varnell” Citations to her work were found in:

Bibliografie Des Fantastischen Films http://www.bibfan.de/frindres.php?such=Richard+III+/+Life+and+Death+of+King+Richard+III%2C+The+%281912%29&sziel=tind

Shakespeare on Film & Video: Books and Articles in the UC Berkeley Library http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/ShakespeareBib.html

General Reference Bibliography/Shakespeare http://www.canadianshakespeares.ca/Production_Shakespeare/PrintAllReferenceBibliography.cfm?public=yes&RequestTimeout=20000

Post scripts home page http://postscriptessays.blogspot.com/2008/08/articles-bibliographies.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Amazing that you are trying to throw this lady off Wikipedia. I googled her and came up with 90,119 results including reviews, speaking appearances, and people recommending her books.

Cajuns, creoles, pirates and planters - Claitor's Law Books www.claitors.com/veach/cajunsv3n26.doc

2010 - Chef John Folse & Company http://www.jfolse.com/stirrin/facts2010.htm

AMWA-SE Past Meetings and Events www.amwa-se.org/meetings_03_04.html

Margaret Varnell Clark - AJC Decatur Book Festival https://www.decaturbookfestival.com/2013/authors/detail.php?id=313

And her books get great reviews on Amazon! http://www.amazon.com/Walking-through-Rome-Interesting-Eternal-ebook/dp/B00C6VIJLS/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

What’s the problem? RCP110 (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — RCP110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi,
Margaret Varnell is quoted a lot in Shakespeare in the UK and in Europe. And not just as a reference, they actively discuss her work. Here are some examples:

Shakespeare in Space: Recent Shakespeare Productions on Screen https://books.google.com/books?isbn=082045714

Enter Shakespeare.: - Page 302 https://books.google.com/books?id=TZplAAAAMAAJ&q=inauthor:%22Berit+Bettina+Schubert%22&dq=inauthor:%22Berit+Bettina+Schubert%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fA9TVYTcIdG7ogSopYDACQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA .

Hamlet Studies - Volume 23 - Page 136 (in German) https://books.google.com/books?id=EeNDAAAAYAAJ&q=varnell+Margaret+shakespeare&dq=varnell+Margaret+shakespeare&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yw5TVY-dOY3coATbqoGIBA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBg

Shakespeare and Higher Education: A Global Perspective https://books.google.com/books?id=Tn9lAAAAMAAJ&q=varnell+Margaret+shakespeare&dq=varnell+Margaret+shakespeare&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yw5TVY-dOY3coATbqoGIBA&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCQ

William Shakespeare, Richard III: nouvelles perspectives critiques https://books.google.com/books?id=LRkrAQAAIAAJ&q=varnell+Margaret+shakespeare&dq=varnell+Margaret+shakespeare&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UBBTVY75BZbaoATC2IHABw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgK

The Creative Reception of William Shakespeare in The Netherlands: The Case Of Arthur Van Schendel. http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/3146/1/SteinmetzArdaseer99MLitt.pdf

Literarydiva (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Literarydiva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete When in doubt I analyse the references:

http://2010.accpmeeting.org/program/award-winners shows that she exists and was given a grant. Not significant coverage. Fail
http://marquiswhoswho.com No mention. We do not use references that require searches, and this is not, to my recollection, WP:RS. Fail
http://fcmcme.org/courses/2222/PDF/CME-U_Managing_Hypo_Mngraph_fnl.pdf she is the editor. Thsi is thus part of her body of work. Her editing is not subject to peer review even if the item has been. Fail
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100082/ is a peer revoewed publication. Pass
http://www.ceknowledgecenter.com/index.php/services#outcomes Cannto Find Server. Indeterminate, potential Fail
http://clarkmedicalwriting.com/uploads/HFSA_Poster_-_Handout_version.pdf 404 error. Fail
http://nebula.wsimg.com/4271df4e99cd111ad97a514566fcf204?AccessKeyId=F256D2BCD8406D5BD17F&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 No idea if thsi is peer reviewed or not. Indeterminate.
http://mabastore.com/buku-asma-panduan-penatalaksanaan-klinis.html is a book by her. IN general work by someone can not be a reference for them. There are linmited circumstances where this is not so. This does not appear to be ine of them. Fail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51CITImJwiA&list=PLD3C4E6CC68FA948D unreliable source. Fail
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1781282/ Opinion piece by Clark. Fail
Varnell Clark, Margaret (1998). Inspiration: Your Guide to Better Breathing. ISBN 0937776114. Book by her. Fail
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RmJ8GQAACAAJ&dq=margaret+varnell+clark&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UC_HUpb1DcaF2gWDuICwCg Book by her. Fail
http://www.jfolse.com/stirrin/facts.htm fails to mention clark. PR piece anyway. Fail
http://www.jblearning.com/catalog/9780763778545/ spam linl to her own work. Dual Fail
http://bookre.org/reader?file=1113571 link to her own work. Fail
http://bakulbuku.com/kedokteran-dan-medis/9714-asma-panduan-penatalaksanaan-klinis.html Cannto find server. Indeterminate. Probable Fail
http://bijouxpress.com her own books may not be references for her. Fail
https://www.decaturbookfestival.com/2013/authors/detail.php?id=313 Speaker profiles tend to be self generated. Primary source. Fail
https://www.worldcat.org/title/shakespeare-bulletin/oclc/181820423 behind some form of membership wall. No idea.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/ShakespeareBib.html behind some form of membership wall. No idea.
http://www.proquest.com/en-US/catalogs/databases/detail/iipa_ft.shtml redirects to a page where the server cannto be found. IMdeterminate, likely Fail
Jouett, John (2008). "The Tragedy of King Richard III 2001 & 2008 edition, page 94, 109". ISBN 9780199535880. Cannto access quoted pages. indeterminate.

This analysis shows that there is almost nothing useful in the reference list, which are WP:BOMBARD, leading me to conclude that this is WP:ADMASQ. If the lady were notable then there would be a great tranche of references in WP:RS. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. I see none of that, not to the least degree. This appears to be an attempt made to give her faux notability by having a Wikipedia article. Fiddle Faddle 11:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that there is a load of listing of alleged references above this message. Doubtless, based on long experience at AfD we will see further lists below this. My firm advice to those who believe that they are references is to check that them meet the criteria in my message above. If they do, then use them in the article, if they do not, please stop bandying them about. With regard to her work, it is simply not usually possible to use it as a reference. Let me try to explain. If s/he manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be her/his work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for her/him, simply because it is the product s/he makes. So it is with research. However, a review of her/his work by others tends to be a review of her/him and her/his methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for her/his work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely.

Most of this discussion falls into the WP:TLDR category. Arguments need to be policy based, not WP:ILIKEIT and not WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And absolutely not "Try this reference for size!" Our job is to write articles. Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is getting silly. Instead of understanding WP:BOMBARD the article has now blossomed suddenly with a huge tranche of new alleged references, none of which I intend to analyse. There are at least three areas where WP:CITEKILL has been perpetrated. Every time I see this, especially with an author of self published works, I think WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. There does seem to be a determined effort to publicise this author and these works. Fiddle Faddle 16:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear I couldn't agree more, and that was my impression already yesterday after trying to talk to DMRRT. The more we tell the user how to do, the more they do the opposite. I fear we are but a little step away from seeing the entire Google history of the subject posted into the article as "references". I tried to assume good faith at first, but this looks ever more promotional.Jeppiz (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll update the references, there are many out there for her. But I will say we keep getting conflicting direction. When this article was created, I was told I could only use what was in her Who's Who, because it was a published 3rd party, and other sources like that i. e. the YouTube that was not posted by her, etc . Even in this go around, we have to use what is in google scholar? We can't use Pub Med or CINAHL? So for her books we have to use references that appear in Google Scholar and Cite her work, not the work itself? DMRRT (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you really need is to establish her notability. This far, that has not been done. Currently, every established user who has commented here (three in total) has recommended that the article be deleted as no case for her notability has been made. No established user has recommend the page be kept. And yes, Google scholar would be a good start, as I told you several times yesterday. If I can give a friendly piece of advice, and echo was Timtrent said, stop WP:BOMBARDING the discussion with a mass of stuff. Try to write messages of just a few lines where you make a short, coherent, sourced case.Jeppiz (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established. What has been established is that the subject is competent in her job, even respected in her field. This is not notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of qualified - or even exceptional - practitioners in any field. While she has a commendable career, and is clearly a contributor in her profession, she does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Scr★pIron^IV 14:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me finish cleaning this up. You all have gone off on these tangents and decided she is not notable before even giving us a chance to make any changes. When this article was written two years ago, we worked with a couple of editors who wanted the references done this particular way. And now suddenly as of yesterday none of this is right and it all has to be redone. I can go back to those recommendations in the history, I was told to list her books like this: William Faulkner: Novels 1930–1935 (Joseph Blotner and Noel Polk, ed.) (Library of America, 1985) ISBN 978-0-940450-26-4. Specifically, to reference them and not to use reviews. We were forced to use Who's who, which was old at the time. Now you are telling me I have to use google scholar? In fact looking back at the history. I was told by an editor I could not use credentials such as RN. So please try adn work wit us in getting this sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out, it would be helpful if you would not assume personal motives (WP:NPA). We simply follow well-established Wikipedia guidelines. The article argues this person is a notable academic, and we apply the clear and detailed guidelines in WP:ACADEMIC to explain why that is not the case. She may very well be a good academic, but that is not the same as a notable academic.Jeppiz (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your own criteria

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. –

Having another country use your book as their national standard is substantial.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. –

Please read the bio, she was the Editorial Director for Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Medscape/WebMD, and the Pulmonary Medicine Editor of the peer review journal MedGenMed. Medscape/WebMd is the largest and most respected company in Medical Education today.

9. The person is in a field of literature - This certainly does not apply, and let's not even waste any more time on that dead end. She is the author of a self-publihshed book about Rome. That is very far from notability for an author

You seem to keep forgetting the other 3 books. All the medical publications and all the Shakespeare publications — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not my criteria, Wikipedia's criteria.

7. No, having your book used in another country is not automatically notable. That would make most authors of standard textbooks notable. Truly notable textbooks usually have 3000 cites or more on Google Scholar.

8. Medscape/WebMd isn't even a journal, doesn't apply under Criteria 8. MedGenMed isn't a leading academic journal, it's just an online journal. Besides, she was never the editor of either of them.

9. Typical WP:BOMBARD. One non-notable or several non-notable books, no difference. Notability has not been demonstrated for a single one.

Like most users, I give up on you.

You don't know how to edit WP:COMPETENCE

You don't understand academia and what constitutes academic notability WP:ACADEMIC

you refuse to listen WP:HEAR.

You're not even trying to make a good article, you're just trying to make sure this person stays on Wikipedia WP:NOTHERE.

~~It's impossible to discuss with you, and I won't waste anymore time.~~ Bye.Jeppiz (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Miniapolis 23:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both GNG and WP:ACADEMIC, and the spam, desperate digging for notability where it clearly does not exist, SPAs and references to "we" is just worrying. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine medical editor. But, Jeppiz, I think some of your comments are out of place. When there is as strong as case for deletion as there is here, there's no need to get personal. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, you're absolutely right. I got a bit exasperated but that is my problem. Already told the user I'm stepping away from this.Jeppiz (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not for personal conversation. Please use your own talk pages

Give it up DM. This Jeppiz person is clearly on a power trip. She threatened to block you in the very first comment she made and has been on the attack from the start. Look at the tone of her comments. She did not help you and deliberately got in the way when you were trying to make adjustments and interact with the others.

There is a lot of talk here about upholding the “integrity and standards of Wikipedia”. What a joke! Apparently, those standards mean that a google search carries more weight than PubMed and CINAHL.

These people know nothing about medical and scientific research and they don’t know how to interact with authors.

Oh and she sent me a message accusing me of being a sock puppet too. She doesn't listen. She is just interested in expressing her own views, and accusing others to make herself look important, not really in helping anyone. This is a huge ego trip for her. She decided this entry was going to be deleted and that was never going to change. RCP110 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had to sign on a look. Yup, Jeppiz sent me a sock puppet message too. You're right it doesn't matter how many times she gets told WE ARE NOT SUCK PUPPETS. She has decided. So she can just be rude and do as she pleases.

I think you are absolutely right too about the “standards” of Wikipedia. How interesting DM that you weren’t allowed to put Miss Clark’s education or previous positions held because that would have been “using her CV to promote her” even though you could verify them. But American Idol contestants can list their own websites as a reference. Says a lot about Wikipedia. Literarydiva (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find significant coverage that makes the subject notable under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 13:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me begin by saying I am not a sock puppet. Do not send me messages and attempt to negate my opinions by doing so. In reviewing this page it is very obvious that the decision to delete the entry was predetermined and no amount of editing or revision would have changed that outcome. I am equally sure that it will be deleted, not because it is without merit, the Lady appears to be more than notable in her field, but it will be deleted to appease someone’s ego.

It appears that a significant amount of emphasis was placed on google searches. Which allegedly did not produce any results? DM appears to have repeated those searches, the first step in any good scientific evaluation, and found that there were many viable citations to the Lady’s work, as well peer review articles, etc. Which is what the first editor said they were looking for? He posted those results and they were categorized as spam. He/she (I do not know DM) was also apparently not allowed or advised not to post the material that would further authenticate the Lady’s accomplishments. It is also obvious from the flow of the discussion that while attempting to address a query from one individual, he/she was being harassed by another and not allowed the opportunity to complete the changes without being directed in another area.

I think there are some good people in this discussion that would have been helpful, had they been allowed to be and had DM been allowed to discuss and ask questions. How interesting that no recommendations were actually made on what to add to the article. No one actually helped DM or answered his/her questions. Instead “standards” were discussed at length.

It should also be noted that inappropriate comments made by the Wikipedia editors were left in the body of the discussion, but any comments being made relating to the editorial process were hidden by someone this morning. They accused individuals of being sock puppets and when the charges were answered, they hide it. Interesting! To my professional colleagues who asked me to review this. Thank you. It has been a very thought-provoking case study in how not to manage authors. It also illustrates that Wikipedia’s editorial decisions are arbitrary and easily lend themselves to the editor’s self-gratification. In a poor attempt to impose editorial standards, the credibility of Wikipedia is only being damaged by such practices. M0302 (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)— M0302 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment "I'm not a sockpuppet!", this is your only edit ever and I'm sure everyone believes you. Are you aware Meat puppetry is a form of sock puppetry? Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking they keep holding her to the "standard for physicians". Which she is not. Why don't they compare her to other notable respiratory therapists? Then I realized, because they don't have any in Wikipedia, we are completely ignored as a profession. RCP110 (talk) 16:59, 14 May 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 nomination was withdrawn, due to WP:NALBUM #2. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Delicious Poisons[edit]

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

Delete My nomination for Speedy Deletion was removed by User:Chrislk02, stating only "(not A9)". In fact it is my belief that the non-notable and unknown musical recording does indeed qualify for Speedy Deletion under WP:A9. Ormr2014 | Talk 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the creator of this page. Creating it was a lot of work and the reason I did this was because I wanted to improve Wikipedia. Viktor Lazlo is a very well-known singer throughout Europe, especially in Germany, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, etc. The album has spent eight weeks on the Dutch album charts and was still very successful. Lazlo was on television many times performing songs from this album, which were co-written by famous songwriters. This definitely is NOT an unknown musical recording as Lazlo was signed to Polydor records for ten years because of her stardom. Sunpoint (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Sunpoint (creator of the article)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The citation you used does not say anything about the Dutch album charts. In fact, the song is not listed in "the Best of" section, nor does it show up when you click the "Charts" link. Yet this is the citation you put to substantiate the Dutch Album Charts claim. Ormr2014 | Talk 13:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It did show the album charts, when you had clicked on CHARTS. But I changed the link to a direct page now, so it should show up now. Why are you so keen on deleting an article that someone else has created putting a lot of time into it? Viktor Lazlo is a well-known singer and this was a successful album and thus it enhances Wikipedia by having detailed information on this release. Sunpoint (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunpoint I didn't single out your article for deletion because I was "so keen on deleting an article that someone else has created putting a lot of time into it". I singled it out because the only reference you gave did not substantiate your notability claim (for the song, not the singer) and searching for information on Google didn't yield much.

The fact is, many people create articles about non-notable songs, people, books, etc. Sometimes a singer will be notable but a particular song they sang isn't. It happens a lot and people often assume that since the artist is notable the song is too. When the article gets deleted, they don't understand why. It's not a matter of harassment or editors being jerks, it's just a matter of safeguarding the encyclopedia from inappropriate content being added.

In any event, the new link you added to the charts section clearly shows the song peaking at 71 in the Dutch Charts, which is why I'm withdrawing my nomination. Ormr2014 | Talk 19:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep due to nomination withdrawal and everyone else indicating it should be kept. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masshiro[edit]

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

Delete. - There is absolutely no indication of notability; the references are all in Japanese and the external links seem promotional in nature. Ormr2014 | Talk Ormr2014 (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact the references are in Japanese is irrelevant to an AfD discussion (see the second criterion in WP:GNG). The issue is whether there are WP:RS or not. The article already cites multiple articles in major Japanese news sources such as Oricon and Sports Nippon, and there are plenty more: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. Admittedly, one reason it was the subject of so much coverage was that it was a ratings failure, despite featuring a major star. Still, failure does not mean it is not notable. As a golden hour TV show on a major network, the show easily clears WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- The language of the sources is relevant per Citing Non-English Sources. Because none of the sources cited are in English (given that this is an English Wiki), the ability to adequately gauge the legitimacy of inclusion is severely hindered. Furthermore, according to Citing Non-English Sources, "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page."

and

"When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote." Ormr2014 | Talk

If you want to dispute that the Japanese sources are RS, or argue that the citations are incorrect, you may do so. That can be an issue on an AfD, though often it is better to start with a discussion on the article talk page first. But the fact they are in Japanese itself is not an issue for the AfD. Articles in any language can be cited as support in an AfD discussion. And given WP:NRVE, the mere existence of such Japanese RS -- and not their actual citation -- is sufficient to prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The series received mediocre ratings but lots of third-party media coverage, so the basic WP:GNG notability criteria are adequately satisfied. --DAJF (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Michitaro says, Japanese-language sources are certainly satisfactory to establish notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument against the use of Japanese sources per se, but the validity of citing only Japanese sources as proof of notability, without English translations, and the Wikipedia policy concerning the use of foreign language sources as outlined in Citing Non-English Sources, which clearly states that such sources should be accompanied with English translations when there is a dispute. This article fails to comply with this rule. Ormr2014 | Talk

Comment It's not against policy for an article to cite only non-English sources as proof of notability without translations, though. Translations are only needed when making a direct quote or when an editor makes a request challenging a specific citation, which hasn't happened here. If there's something you'd like translated, that can be done. --Cckerberos (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cckerberos When a "dispute" (the word used by Wikipedia and not my own choice of words) arises over non-English citations, a translation must be provided. There is and has been a dispute in the form of this AFD. I am challenging the validity of these sources as proving notability and therefore English translations must be provided.

Here's the main problem where these citations are concerned. Whenever I come across non-English citations, I run them through Google translate to determine the validity of the citations. Having done so with these particular citations, I found nothing to support notability, but as the sources are not in English, making a case against them is problematic, which is why I have repeatedly emphasized the need to provide English translations (which Wikipedia's policies indicate is the correct course of action), which the author and others voting in favor of keeping the article have continually refused. So, to provide a little greater clarity, I will provide a synopsis of the first three citations and links to their English translation for others to peruse:

Citation #1: A four paragraph blog post stating simply that Horikita Maki will be playing in “Pure White”^[1]

Citation #2: Another article stating the same and giving a brief description of the show.^[2]

Citation #3: Another description of the show^[3]

Anyone who reads the English translations of the citations can clearly see they all pretty much simply describe the show and do not establish notability.Ormr2014 (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "English Translation of First Citation".
^ "English Translation for second citation".
^ "English Translation of third Citation".

I agree that an AfD is a dispute, but policy states that editors "may request" a translation of a citation in the case of a dispute, not that translations for all non-English sources must automatically be provided. You're correct that in this case the cites describe the show rather than provide analysis of it; they seem to have been cited only for specific facts. But they (and more so those provided by Michitaro) are still enough for WP:GNG as their existence shows "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In this case, the specific claim to notability seems to be that the article's subject was a primetime show on a major national network starring a popular actress. --Cckerberos (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I got so wrapped up in the discussion that I completely overlooked Michitaro's citations. I'm Withdrawing my Nomination, but would appreciate someone adding those to the article. Ormr2014 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 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) Esquivalience ^t 00:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Shmuel Ashkenazi[edit]

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

Delete: no indication of sufficient WP:NOTABILITY to merit an article on Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 20:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very notable chief rabbi of city in Israel. A clear keep per notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Ism schism. He was a WP:N head rabbi of Kfar Chabad and famous Posek from 1983 until his death in 2015. The minimum sources cited are sufficient for WP:V. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG was the Chief Rabbi of Kfar Chabad, Israel and an Expert on Jewish Law.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:33, 19 May 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Adrift[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:NBOOK. There are no sources listed in the article and it makes no claim of notability. Jbh ^Talk 20:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did find two reviews from local newspapers ([20], [21]), but local sources are usually fairly depreciated when it comes to showing notability. Other than that I'm only finding blog reviews and other SPS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not inclined to think the Billings Gazette material is an independent source. His bio lists him as an editor and says "You can catch him on the copy desk of The Billings Gazette"[22]. CSPAN is more specific and describes him as "Former Billings Gazette Book Editor Craig Lancaster" [23] so I can not see Billings Gazette articles as being independent for anything relating to his books. Jbh ^Talk 12:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Acc. to the WorldCat entry, this was published by "Amazon Publishing" which is a self-publisher. It's held in only about 55 libraries, which is not many, and the book has been out for two years. The book is available on Amazon for $0 in its Kindle edition. LaMona (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find no sources to show book meets WP:NBOOK. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 (for the second time), no assertion of any actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Black[edit]

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

Was considering prodding this but going this route instead-she seems to be a singer who falls way under too soon. Wgolf (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No refs supplied or found. No confirmation of notability. Guffydrawers (talk) 20:19, 12 May 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 (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin close). Tarc (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seveneves[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NB Ormr2014 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article cites three reviews of the book in suitable sources, and doesn't include [24] or [25]. Stephenson is sufficiently high profile that there will be plenty more reviews when the book is published, which will be when this AfD closes. Clearly meets the first point of WP:NB. Hut 8.5 21:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neal Stephenson meets the outlined criterion of a "historically notable author." All of his novels have articles, including several otherwise unnotable books, such as The Big U and Reamde. Seveneves will clearly be worthy of a page once it is released in five days, and it seems silly to dlete it now. SamGensburg (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my nomination. There are really only two reviews cited. The first citation is a catalog entry and the citation listing Publishers Weekly has a passing mention of the book and is not even remotely a review. But in checking out those citations, I was able to find quite a bit of other stuff that would clearly establish notability. Ormr2014 | Talk 13:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The historically notable author thing can be debated- the catch with that sort of thing is that when it was initially written it was intended to cover authors like Shakespeare and Edgar Allan Poe. We've had trouble establishing this level of notability for authors like Stephen King and even Isaac Asimov, so Stephenson would be just as difficult. In any case, a search brought up multiple reviews for the work and many articles. I'm adding them in now, so this will have no problem passing notability guidelines as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 17 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Air Cadets 276 (Chelmsford) Sqn[edit]

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

I am unable to find reliable third-party sources that cover this cadets squadron with some depth and I believe the subject fails the relevant notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual elements of cadet and youth organisations are rarely notable enough for a wikipedia article (per previous AfD discussions) and I cant see this as being an exception. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BRANCH; individual unit does not meet WP:ORG, WP:MILUNIT, & WP:GNG; as a branch of a notable organization a redirect to the parent organization is the common result.
Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. See Wikipedia:Merging.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just a comment to oppose a redirect on the ground that article title is wrong and would not be any use as a search term, to be accurate the official title would be "276 (Chelmsford) Squadron Air Training Corps" so we need to just delete it. MilborneOne (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Than the article should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME and then made into a redirect per WP:BRANCH.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not generally have articles on individual cadet units and nor should we. Just a local youth organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1966 Tristan[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO to the list of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as attack page. I cannot believe this was allowed to stand for so long. That the material might be suitable for an article here is not out of the question; that it can be allowed in that form certainly is. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report to the Inspector General into Mobile Telecommunications Licenses in Iraq[edit]

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

This article currently reads like an attack page and I do not believe it meets WP:GNG. It was tagged in August 2014 for not being written in an encyclopedic tone but, most problematically, it uses original research (especially WP:SYNTHESIS) to make personal and professional claims about Jack Shaw. I would like to be clear that I am working as a consultant to Mr. Shaw and therefore have a COI with this article topic. For this reason, I hope impartial editors can review this article and decide on the best course of action. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 00:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 00:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TNT Oh wow. I see a lot of issues with this. The lead is based on a MotherJones article and a book someone wrote. The MotherJones article doesn't seem to support many of the article's claims. The book is used as a reference for claims throughout the article, represented as undisputed fact. Books aren't reliable sources, even Then Wikileaks is used as a reference. All in all, this article is mostly original research. Other sources include democraticunderground.com, illinoispaytoplay.com, etc. If this article is kept, it needs a complete rewrite, every section is riddled with non-neutral language, and an article like this would only be statable as fact had there been a conviction or an admittal of guilt. I am having trouble finding one, but am of course open to reconsidering if one is presented. Many revisions would also meet the grounds for WP:CRD #2 as they attack a WP:BLP. Really, the easiest way to get a useful article would be to just 'Blow it up and start over', assuming this can pass notability guidelines. ― Padenton|✉ 00:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 00:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 00:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article is one of the worst examples of non-neutral editing that I've seen and it's rife with BLP violations. As far as I can tell, coverage in reliable sources is sparse, suggesting that the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. Since there is no NPOV version to revert to, I have nominated the article for [[WP:CSD#G10|]] deletion.- Mr X 04:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Billinghurst as cross-wiki spam by article creator. Esquivalience ^t 02:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iran man[edit]

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

SIgnificance not adequately supplied in article ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, should have been speedy deleted as an A9. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per above. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete – like all the other recent songs/albums created in the past few days of this non-notable artist without an article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment:

Hi, Please refer Wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2015/03 discussion and :meta:Vandalism_reports/Archive_7 an old global push spamming issue seems to be still around as late as today en wikipedians are discussing the same issue here once more. Besides also refer User:Iran man. I suppose experinced spam fighters too look into the issue.

Mahitgar (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if possible Snow closure this one, and Salt, it was Crosswiki spam.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 08:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:A9 Dalba 23 Ordibehesht 1394/ 08:40, 13 May 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) 16:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt[edit]

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

First wife of ~~US President~~ Theodore Roosevelt, died long before he ran for president and was, therefore, not First Lady. Searches will turn up info on her but only in relation first to her husband based on their four-year marriage. No notability on her own, not even while she was married to Roosevelt. Fails WP:GNG and, as a result, fails WP:BIO as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED or a given based on WP:1E. If her husband had not become famous after her death, we wouldn't be here discussing this at all as the article wouldn't have been written in the first place. It's her husband who has the notability, not his deceased wife. Article's content ~~could~~ should be merged into Theodore Roosevelt if there is no consensus for deletion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIOFAMILY, which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Not noted for anything other than her relationship with Theodore Roosevelt. No prejudice against a redirect to his article, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I read the arguments to keep on the previous AfD and I concur. The subject is notable, it's acknowledged that she influenced Roosevelt, and there is enough verified information about her to support an article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Influencing someone ≠ Notability. Frankly, the previous "keep" arguments overlooked how just about all reliable sources discussing her really pertain more to the President himself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People, places and things can gain notability because of public interest, even if people are only curious about those subjects because of their proximity to highly notable people. It is simply a fact that there is public interest in people associated with people considered to be of great historic notability, and this can result in long-term coverage in reliable sources, including encyclopedias. I really don't see how you can argue this is not true. In terms of places, if a really famous person once lived there, even if it's way "before" they became notable, there's a good chance we will probably celebrate that space by putting it on our "Big Book of Notable Buildings!" (ie National Register of Historic Places). Or if the person was REALLY famous, he didn't even have to live there but let's say someone he was related to lived there and our notable person probably visited though we have no specifics... even though the actual building is long gone, we'll build a cool replica and declare the surrounding land to be a historic park. All because of loose proximity with a notable person. If you sincerely don't believe that things can be notable purely by proximity/relationship with a notable person, then there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia I should see you attempting to delete, if you apply that simple criteria. I will give you some suggestions. How about Gerald Ford's dad, who was an alcoholic who had no relationship with his son? Stalin's first wife, who he was only married to from 1906-1907, or John Lennon's dad, who also had almost no relationship with his son, but has a full biography that even includes an "urban legend" section!? And seriously, don't cite the "Wikipedia:Other stuff exists" (which is an essay, not an actual guideline by the way). If there is an important rule that you apparently feel is a black-and-white issue and not subjective, you should not have a problem applying it to other articles. That's the whole point of having a rule: if it only applied to one thing one time or is applied abstractly, it's not actually a rule; it's just a decision. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please keep the focus on Alice's article for this AFD; other subjects should be dealt with in separate discussions. Secondly, see WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria and WP:Notability (people)#Family. Third, "only essay" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions as it undermines the value and insight that essays can bring. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big bold tag at the top of every essay that declares THIS IS NOT A WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINE, so I don't know why there's any point in pretending otherwise. People observing may think see the alphabet soup and incorrectly infer that a guideline is being cited, when it's really just an essay you personally agree with. And, again, if you cite that something is not notable because of a very strict guideline, then you should have no problem applying that guideline to any article. It's a no brainer. You're supposed to WP:BEBOLD, remember! Otherwise, the claim that you are applying any neutral criteria rings hollow and is a demonstration of "I just don't believe THIS person is notable." —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Shakes head in disappointment) there is nothing about the pages I linked that isn't neutral, and I DID apply guidelines in this AFD. So did Winkelvi. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons spelled out in the prior AfD. It doesn't improve the encyclopedia, or anyone wanting to use it, to bury significant well sourced, well organized information like this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't about reliability of sources or the organization of information. Also, "bury[ing]" information isn't a convincing argument per WP:LOSE, which states effort/information put into something does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines and In some cases content can be merged to other relevant articles. All notable information on her can simply go into her husband's article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is ample coverage of her life in reliable sources, including ANB (see last AfD for DGG's arguments on this) and a book about her. The earlier merge proposal from January was also being heavily opposed for this reason, and because there is too much content to merge to Roosevelt's bio (starting an AfD with an ongoing merge proposal is also a bad idea). A merge would just lead to a spin-out article on his first marriage, essentially recreating this bio. Leave it be. Fences&Windows 23:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sufficient sources out there for her to pass out notability requirements, as shown in the previous AFD. The ongoing merge discussion on TR's talkpage is failing because she is notable enough. Calidum T|C 23:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: When this is closed, the closing admin should do the honor of putting the four-month old merge request out of its misery, since both really on the same fundamentally flawed interpretation of our notability guidelines. It doesn't matter why an article gets coverage in reliable sources; it only matters that that coverage exists. Calidum T|C 18:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason DOES matter; one does not become notable simply for being discussed in a notable person's relationships. Notability guidelines FOR BIOGRAPHIES are more nuanced than simply "It has been covered in reliable sources". WP:BIO is the relevant guideline to apply, and it indicates she's not a notable person for only being noted as one's wife. See the WP:BIO1E and WP:BIOFAMILY sections in particular. It is in fact the "keep" votes that are misunderstanding and/or erroneously disregarding BIO. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm absolutely floored at the number of Wikipedia editors with a reasonable amount of edits behind them who have no clue regarding WP:GNG, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:1E. Adequate sources does not notability make. Further, if you take the time to actually look into those sources, you will find that the focus of those sources is on President Roosevelt, not his first wife. What's more, one life event (marrying TR) that wouldn't have passed GNG when it occurred also does not make for notability. Like I said in my OP at the top of this page, if TR had never become president, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Those of you !voting "Keep" might want to consider the fact that the only thing making her notable based on your reasoning is that she was briefly married to someone who became president long after she died. Because she died long before he was elected, that isn't notability for HER per Wikipedia standards, policy, or guidelines, it's notability for HIM. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INHERITED is part of an essay. It says not to argue that an article should be kept because of passing associations to something else. WP:BIO#Invalid criteria is what you want, which says not to create bios just due to relationships. But it is trumped by WP:GNG. WP:1E does not apply -she is not known for any one 'event'. The basic criterion for notability is: "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." She certainly passes that assessment, and absent WP:BLP issues (long dead), WP:V issues (sources check out), or any other policy issues, that basic guideline is all we need to pay heed to. Fences&Windows 07:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, GNG doesn't trump BIO here. GNG is simply a bare minimum needed for any type of article to meet notability. BIO is the specific notability critiera used for people, and she fails BIO regardless of GNG. Nothing notable outside of a relationship, and just about every reliable secondary source that discusses her really pertains more about her husband. We have specific notability criteria for a reason, so it should be put to use. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:ONLYESSAY, Fences and windows. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - We follow WP:BASIC, a restatement of WP:GNG that notes exclusions. But no exclusions apply, as WP:1E is not relevant, no BLP concerns or other policy concerns arise, and the guidance on "Invalid criteria" says "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" [my emphasis]. Absent a policy reason or other reason to exclude this bio, the significant coverage of her life in multiple reliable sources meets our inclusion criteria. Fences&Windows 12:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problems with that are 1) she fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BIOFAMILY, 2) The (reliable) sources are really more about Theodore than Alice herself. 1E also applies as her relationship with him is essentially the only thing she's noted for to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the results of the first AFD discussion, especially if its true that there are seven paragraphs about her at the American National Biography. Regardless of the context or her actual role, or lack there of, in history, sources cover her in significant detail, and there's enough content to warrant a short article at least. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standards might have been different in 2008, but today she fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BIOFAMILY. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding any WP:BLP violations or WP:NOT concerns (which there are none here), the WP:GNG is the ultimate thing it needs to meet. All of our WP:NALBUMS and our WP:BIOs are all helpful in indicating whether or not they meet the GNG, but the GNG is the ultimate standard. It meets that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNG isn't an automatic keep; it's simply the bare minimum requirements for any article. There are specific sets of notabikity criteria like WP:NMUSIC for music-related articles, WP:NFILM for movie-related articles, and WP:BIO for biographical articles. The specific criteria exists for a reason, and therefore should be applied as opposed to simply general criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what else to say other than "No, your current understanding is incorrect". I mean, there's a reason why virtually all of these other standards have a paraphrased version of the WP:GNG as one of the clauses that satisfies the respective standard. WP:NALBUMS point #1, WP:NBAND point #1, WP:BASIC, which is the opening section for "Notabilty (people)", etc etc. Its because the GNG is the standard every subject must adhere to ultimately. (Again, outside things like WP:NOT or WP:BLP issues, which again, are not a factor in this one.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other sets of notability criteria mentioned (such as WP:ANYBIO) have additional requirements, though; one can't simply overlook or dismiss those. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 paragraphs above ANYBIO, the paragraph describing the various subsections of "Notability (people)", clearly states that failure to meet these other criteria (ANYBIO is part of this) is not conclusive proof for dismissing a subjects notability. (Because, you know, that's what the GNG is. Note the statement is not placed before BASIC. ) Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that notability requirements for certain articles like biographies are more nuanced than simply "must covered by reliable sources". BIOFAMILY (which applies here) states that people do not warrant articles for only being family members of notable people. Given how she's not noted for anything other than her relationship with TR, she isn't notable enough for her own article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because she is a part of American History as the wife of a former president, and because of that there is a public interest / need for information about her. Just because she died early doesn't make her not notable. HesioneHushabye (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except she was never the wife of a former president. She was the wife of a NY State Assemblyman. How many articles are there for the non-notable wives of state assemblymen? The wives of state assemblymen who did nothing notable other than marrying a man from a wealthy family? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable enough for American National Biography notable for us. Most members of immediate families of US presidents easily pass GNG due to wide range of academic biographical publications of history and genealogy on them. That essay should have no place on super historical people, only modern celebrities like Heidi Montag or something. The argument about the sources mentioning Theodore when they mention her mean very little, imagine if someone on the level of Aristotle had a son and they won 1000 grammys or academy awards, the fact that he is Aristotle's son would be the primary thing brought up, such things happen with atrociously notable people, we can't avoid that and it shouldn't be a dis-qualifier. Atrociously notable people bring in so much coverage that it rubs off on immediate relatives, that's how it goes. GuzzyG (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed in a certain book is not an automatic indicator of notability. Also, per WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria and WP:Notability (people)#Family, being related to someone famous DOES NOT BY ITSELF make one notable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely funny if being in the national biography dictionary did not match our encyclopaedic mission. you completely missed the point on the family thing, the sources are there for her and considering the time frame of course they are going to mention her "more accomplished" husband, that's just how it went then. A non-notable relative is someone who has no sources but is the sister of someone with a page, someone who has multiple sources, half a book writen about her and in a national biography dictionary of arguably one of the top 5 biggest countries would blow the GNG out of the water... How many sources back then would there have been that have not survived? We can't expect a time magazine and a new york time interview like she is the new pop star or something, so being referenced in historical biographies are our go to. GuzzyG (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raw number of sources that mention her notwithstanding, she has no independent notability because she's only noted for being TR's first wife (which isn't enough on its own for a separate article). Notability is not inherited; she must be noted for something on her own without family affiliations to meet the notability criteria for biographies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced article. We don't judge notability according to our opinion of a person's life. We judge notability according to the sources. Generations of mainstream historians, journalists, writers and curators have studied and written about this woman. Our job is to acknowledge that teh multiple, reliable sources covering her life make her qualify under WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with opinion on her life or reliability of sources used; the main issue is she isn't noted for anything other than being Theodore Roosevelt's first wife. Notability is not inherited through relationships, and WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the context, reliable sources and historians have covered her in detail, providing significant coverage. Her marriage may have sparked the initial interest, sure, but the article isn't just one sentence saying she married Teddie, sources have dug deeper to provide further information on her. As someone alluded to above, I think BIOFAMILY is more to keep us from having these ridiculous spin-out articles, like the siblings or offspring of Flavor Flav or something, of which has no coverage, no encyclopedic content, and don't inherit his notability. This is different. This person has been discussed in massive, national encyclopedias. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are right...her hair length, the color of her eyes, her beauty, her height, and her nickname are all quite well covered -- which certainly makes her short life encyclopedia material. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the American National Biography wrote about that, and stretched that out to 7 paragraphs, eh? That's either impressive on their part, or a gross oversimplification on yours. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what Sergecross73: since you have access to this incredible encyclopedic biography of AHLR, how about you recreate those pages here for us to purview (or provide a link, if there is one), and we will decide for ourselves if it's 7 paragraphs of encyclopedic content, okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be realistic - we're talking about an award winning, nationally published encyclopedia published by a major university and the American Council of Learned Societies. What do you think those paragraphs are going to be about? Her measurements and her likes and dislikes? Get real. No, I don't plan on shelling out money or taking a separate trip to a Library to research something that's on the verge of a WP:SNOW keep anyways... Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is how just about every reliable source mentioning her at all really focuses on her relationship with TR her death. Also, WP:BIOFAMILY applies to spouses as it does siblings or children. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't intended to express the idea that it mattered were it about spouses or siblings, I was merely providing what I felt was probably more of the type of thing the guideline is trying to prevent. Anyways, it doesn't really matter, as I stated above, direct quote from WP:BIO is People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. (That's the GNG.) WP:BIOFAMILY and like everything you've listed are all the criteria they're referring to here. It's literally backing up my stance of "Yeah, these criteria may help you figure out if they're notable, but the GNG is still the actual final word. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, GNG isn't the "final word" when BIOFAMILY says that one must be noted for something other than family affiliations in order to be notable. The requirements of BIO provide nuance than simply "is significantly covered in reliable sources". Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The part I bolded in the last comment directly and literally shows that passing BIOFAMILY is not a requirement. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's still discouraged to make articles on people only known for being related to famous people, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep That the srticle survived one nomination and has improved itself with secondary sources only reinforces that the first decision to keep was the correct one. The objections on Teddy's talk page center on Notability is not inherited, yet the wikipage on the subject refers to the case of notability for his cousin's wife:

"Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady or membership of a Royal house. For instance, being married to the Governor of Arkansas does not make the spouse notable, whereas being married to the President of the United States typically does."

Therefore, Alice is notable, she was married to POTUS, and further significance has been borne out by secondary sources, including Ken Burns' documentary on the Roosevelts that has come out since the first nomination. There are books about the wives of Teddy Roosevelt, which by its scope is not about the president. What NOTABILITY IS NOT INHERITED actually means is that Alice's relatives don't get to have their own article, because even if they are mentioned in TR's or ALR's bios and secondary sources, there is little notability that can be drawn about them from secondary sources. But Alice does, because she was the wife of an important man and affected the life of that man in a notable way, moreso than any wife of Henry VIII. MMetro (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't meet WP:Speedy keep criteria, and it's not like all the votes are "keep". Additionally, WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria says that being married to someone famous (even POTUS) is by itself not an indicator of notability. WP:NOTINHERITED applies to Alice as much as it does her relatives. She also is essentially a case of WP:BIO1E; the only defining thing about her is the TR relationship. One person affecting another's life is also not necessarily an indicator of notability. She would have to be noted for something outside of family affiliations to meet notability criteria for biographies. As for the Ken Burns documentary, it's not like that is exclusively focused on her. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She appears in sufficient sources. I'm sure she would be even more notable if she hadn't died in childbirth at age 24, but she was significant in the only role a woman would be allowed at that time. LaMona (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily the only role a woman could have at the time, though the sheer number of sources existing doesn't by itself establish notability per WP:MASK when she fails WP:BIO. Also, she died at 22. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What?. Now we !vote keep because...FEMINISM. Holy fucking cannoli. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, calm down, pretty sure that's not what is being said there. I think the editor was just saying that women had less of a role in things back then. (Politics, history, etc.) I agree that that's largely irrelevant to whether or not the article should be kept, but the editor also made the claim that there are sufficient sources, which is relevant, so it's fine. Sergecross73 msg me 12:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand that simply being related to a notable person is not itself sufficient justification for a Wikipedia article. But if, in real life, that relationship generates enough interest for the person to be written about in sufficient depth in reliable sources, then that generates their own notability due to public interest. And there do seem to be plenty of good sources writing about her in some depth. Mr Potto (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Chrislk02- Not sure why it was deleted so early but hey ho. –Davey2010^Talk 18:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mega superstar[edit]

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

This page was created by a blocked (indefinitely) Sockpuppet User:Nobody is perfect and i am nobody , who was used to be a big promoter of his favourite actors Mammootty and Kunchacko Boban. About 15 of his socked accounts have been found till date. This page was also created as a promotion of actor Mammootty. Now it is used as a redirect page. VagaboundWind (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) Wrong place as a redirect (2) The redirect only stood for less than 30 minutes as Nobody's dab, and much longer standing as Pepper's redirect (approx 2 years). Not much reason IMO for complete deletion. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:33, 12 May 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 Deleted G5 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Nambiar[edit]

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

This page about an unsignificant film character was created by a blocked (indefinitely) Sockpuppet User:Nobody is perfect and i am nobody , who was used to be a big promoter of his favourite actors Mammootty and Kunchacko Boban. About 15 of his socked accounts have been found till date. This page was also created as a promotion of actor Mammootty. Now it is used as a useless redirect page. VagaboundWind (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Reynolds[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Ormr2014 (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lengthy biography of her in Contemporary Authors (2008 edition, copy available from HighBeam Research here) notes that she's won and been nominated for multiple awards, summarizes and includes a list of reviews of her works in Booklist, Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal and others, and also mentions the controversies over her sometimes-banned book Detour for Emmy. She's included in a selection of top YA authors in the book Dear Author: Letters of Hope Top Young Adult Authors Respond to Kids' Toughest Issues [26]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn -Arxiloxos Thanks for providing that citation. I withdraw my nomination. Ormr2014 | Talk

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. Consensus is that the article should be deleted from wikipedia. It has already been transwikied to wikiversity. Davewild (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gramophone Company of India Limited Vs. Shanti Films Corporation and others[edit]

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

Original research. Although it is clear that the facts of the case are drawn directly from the relevant case files and case law, the conclusions drawn in this article regarding the significance of this case, and the comparison of Indian and US copyright law, are original opinions of the article's author. In fact, they were actually stated as the author's opinions ("I am of the opinion...") but when the article was PRODed, the author (when not logged in) removed the "opinion" introduction, but left the remaining text unchanged; so it is clearly still the author's own opinion and synthesis. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concurs with nom on WP:NOTESSAY/WP:OR. Cites are only linking to the mentioned primary/court materials and not independent reliable sources. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the objection to this article is that it is original research and an essay, the correct outcome is to transwiki it to our sister project Wikiversity, which accepts both. We are not allowed to delete material that is eligible for transwiki to a sister project before it has been transwikied. Alternatively, this could be rewritten, though this might involve stubifying it and completely rebuilding it from scratch. Either way, the text of the essay, and relevant page history, should be imported into Wikiversity. The case itself is notable under GNG (search for "Gramophone Company of India"/"... Co ..." + "Shanti Films") and under criteria 2 of CASES, as decisions of the High Court of Calcutta are binding: [27]. James500 (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @James500: I agree that this article might well find a home on Wikiversity, and a transwiki move might be a good outcome. But WP:ATD-TRANS does not require that we perform this transwiki move, it just recommends that it be considered as a viable alternative. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that is compatible with the words "in perpetuity" in article 2 of the WMF bylaws. I assume that means that transwiki has to come before deletion, not after. I was under the impression we have to do as they say because they own this website. James500 (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One must remember that the words preceding "in perpetuity" include the phrase "useful information". For Wikipedia purposes, we have clear definitions of what constitutes useful information, and original research is not included in that. Since there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that requires the transwiki policy, and since the Wikimedia Foundation has not sought to rewrite the policies based on this element of the bylaws, I don't think we need to WikiLawyer the process. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I further point out that Wikiversity also maintains verifiability and reliable sources policies, so while there might not be an explicit policy forbidding original research, such a ban is implicit in the existing policies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:WikiDan61: The 'pages' you link to are red links. The Verifiability policy actually says that "material added to Wikiversity pages" which "has been produced by scholarly research performed at Wikiversity" does not need to cite reliable sources under any circumstances whatsoever. The reliable sources policy says that reliable sources are not required if it is not possible to cite them (as in the case of original research). The original research policy expressly allows original research in express words. It actually says "Original research which meets the guidelines of this policy is permitted on Wikiversity." (See also v:Wikiversity:Research and the research guidelines on the multilingual hub which apply to all language editions of Wikiversity, here). If you don't believe me, ask at the colloquium. I have spent more than enough time on Wikiversity to know exactly what is and is not allowed there. As for the WMF bylaws, original research is "useful information" if it is 'good quality' original research, that is to say, as long as, at the very least, for example, it isn't clearly wrong (such as claiming that the Moon is made of cheese). That is why it is allowed on Wikiversity, and why we have to send it there when we are confronted with it on this project. The utility of information has nothing to do with the nature of the project on which it is present. It is an intrinsic property of the information. "Useful" means what is useful from the point of view of the WMF, who also run Wikiversity, not what is useful from the point of view of the Wikipedia community, who are only one small part of the WMF's Wikimedia 'project' (and the different WMF sites are all one project). James500 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The refs are to single random statements, the article itself can be written well with proper references as it is indeed a landmark case in Indian copyright law. However, in it's present state it's an unsourced opinion piece often moving into first person and does a disservice to readers in the current form. —SpacemanSpiff 14:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:OR. Wikipedia is an WP:ENC so has to come from published sources. AfD waits for nothing - if this is not trans-wiki'd before deletion then it can be undeleted, trans-wiki'd, and redeleted when someone requests it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the rubric of AfD does it say "AfD waits for nothing"? I've never seen that there, and I don't support that idea. James500 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, that is simply total nonsense, as the rubric of AfD expressly says that "transwiki" is an acceptable outcome of AfD, and is an acceptable !vote. James500 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An article with matching subject matter, structure, and problems, Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, was created by User:SeverusSnape07 just a day earlier than this one (I have started to wikify and source that one). May be a case of sock-puppetry or, more likely, result of some law school class exercise, in which case there may be other similar articles out there. I would vote weak delete unless someone takes up the task to bring up the article, on a notable subject, up to at least minimal wiki-standards while this AFD is open. Abecedare (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have requested that this page be transwikied to Wikiversity with this edit at v:Wikiversity:Import. The page should not be deleted here before that request has been approved or rejected by a custodian there. I don't expect it to take more than a day. James500 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The page has been transwikied to v:Gramophone Company of India Limited Vs. Shanti Films Corporation and others. James500 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford Heginbotham[edit]

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

Having read through the article, the main subject is the Bradford City stadium fire, and little else substantial to provide notability. This is a case of WP:BIO1E, as Heginbotham was known for little else other than the fire and related inquiry. Primefac (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the record, the book written by one of the survivors (which is what the majority of the article is based on) came out one day after this article was started. Primefac (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not uncommon for new books to prompt articles is it? There have been quite a number of authors who have expanded the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was also the founder of a toy company and the chairman of Bradford football club for some years. I note that the two current co-chairmen of that club both have articles, even though one at least has done little else. Even without the fire, he would pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, he meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chairmen of British league football clubs have long been considered inherently notable. The page is well referenced. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As one of the main contributors to the page I can also state that there is more information to be added with regards his time as Chairman of Bradford City which he was on a number of occasions, I will endeavour to flesh this out despite User:Overagainst attempts to not want a rounded view of Stafford Heginbotham (RedJulianG40 (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Can we have a SnowKeep on this please? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:53, 13 May 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. Happy to userfy this to allow the editor to continue to work on that missing extra source. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vinh Xuan massacre[edit]

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

Page relies on a single source which has been deleted. I have searched for other WP:RS of this event but am unable to find anything other than copies of this page Mztourist (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I updated the dead link; it now goes to the article on Newsweek.com. I don't think it was popularly called "Vinh Xuan massacre" - I think also found some hits about it in Google Books (based on the search results), but unfortunately none of them had previews of the actual page. I'm wondering if, because it involved the South Koreans and Vietnamese and not the Americans, and this was apparently not an isolated incident, it has not been widely covered in the western press. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding a link, but one article written 33 years after the supposed event based on the account of a single Vietnamese villager cannot be regarded as WP:RS Mztourist (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oy. First, Newsweek, as a respected magazine, has fact checkers. They wrote about what happened to him, but no way would they publish that without verifying it without experts. Printing this article based on this one guy's story alone would be incredibly stupid and would defy all basic tenets of professional journalism. They would have at minimum one fact checker who verifies names, locations, dates, etc., and probably two for this type of story because of the history of atrocity propaganda. If that had turned out to be a hoax or stories from a delusional person, it would be a notorious goof like other cases and would have possibly destroyed careers (ie Sabrina Erdely). It's pretty obvious that English-language sources are going to be limited. The article has some clues to other sources - the Korean student whose investigation exposed the massacres, the Korean documentary in which former soldiers admitted to massacring civilians, and the human rights organizations demanding both governments stop covering it up. That it happened 33 years earlier is totally and completely irrelevant when you think about the context - governments have significant motivation to keep information secret. (The U.S. government refuses to declassify thousands of documents related to the Kennedy assassination and the Cold War.) Additionally there is no indication at all that "Vinh Xuan Massacre" is a WP:CommonName for this incident - I'm guessing that was just a title chosen by the article creator recently, because every reference I found with the English phrase "vinh xuan massacre" comes from the WP article. I'm going to see if I can get find some Korean sources - I hate to see an article deleted as unreferenced without due diligence. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Vietnamese invent a lot of stuff about the war, I have been involved in the deletion of several articles about battles in the Vietnam War which were based on solely Vietbnamese sources and written 30+ years after the supposed battles took place. The article really says it all when it states: "Koo Soo Jung, who is pursuing a history degree at Ho Chi Minh University in Vietnam. Koo has spent nearly three years gathering government documents, many based on eyewitness accounts, from Vietnamese war museums" If the only sources she is relying on are Vietnamese then she is just repeating Vietnamese propaganda/POV which hasn't changed since the war. They invent battles and massacres that never happened and massively inflate casualty figures when it suits them. Newsweek isn't perfect and I seriously doubt they would have fact-checked to the extent that you believe. The article states "NEWSWEEK has found several villages like Thoi's, where witnesses readily recall South Korean horrors", witness reports 30+ years after the supposed events without any secondary sources is not WP:RS. The fact that the first account occurs 33 years after the supposed event is relevant because news of this would have leaked earlier particularly given the investigation of the My Lai Massacre. Compare and contrast this to the Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre which was documented at the time. If you can find WP:RS for this event then obviously it should stay, otherwise it must be deleted as being based on non WP:RS or even WP:HOAX Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - "The Vietnamese invent a lot of stuff about the war" ..... wow. I think you need to step away from these articles and let them be handled by people with a more WP:NPOV. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you need to do a bit more reading of Vietnamese sources to understand the fact that they continue to perpetuate the official narrative that the Communist Party of Vietnam were the patriots who reunified the country defeating the colonialists (US) and their puppets (South Vietnam) and mercenaries (South Korea) as that is the sole basis for the Party's continuing monopoly on power. Suggest you have a look at a few examples here of invented battles and losses: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chà Là and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The references to Newsweek and an encyclopedia mean that this now has RS and should be kept. I accept that wartime propaganda is not an acceptable source, as it is liable to be invented or distorted, but that will not apply to stories that either side was telling against themselves. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Encyclopedia is further reading, not a source for this event. If you read the Newsweek article you will see that minimal detail is provided and it is all based on the claims of one eyewitness. Mztourist (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I share the nom's concerns about the sourcing of this. It would be preferable if something more neutral could be located if the article is going to be kept. Intothat darkness 17:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Peterkingirons reasoning. I think this is a clear case of not falling under wartime propaganda.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Newsweek story gives no indication that this story is anything more - or anything less - than the memory of an individual soldier long after the war ended. The Newsweek story, which is short, is about a South Korean graduate student working to recover the brutal side of war. This story in the opening anecdote. What Newsweek claims to have uncovered is "a pattern of atrocities survivors say were perpetrated by South Korean soldiers." It is not enough to base an article on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One source is identified. More are necessary to establish WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, a valiant effort by Mztourist to find the Newsweek source. That being said WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources that give significant coverage to the subject. Presently there is but the single source. Please notify me if more significant coverage is found elsewhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:17, 22 May 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. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disenchantment: The Guardian and Israel[edit]

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

Non-notable. One of the two refs is Amazon. Needs at least two non-trivial refs to be WP:NBOOK. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Amazon is linked because it contains the reviews from the Jewish Chronicle and The Economist. AusLondonder (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One word from a review is not a source. The actual reviews need to be cited. I spent about five minutes trying to find the Jewish Chronicle one, but could not. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BKCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several reviews in newspapers and one in a magazine, all of which are still considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. Whether or not the Guardian (which is normally a RS) would be usable in this article as a RS is questionable since they're the topic of the book, but I did find a journal article that references the book review so I've added that to the article. I also need to note that the book was used as a reference in this article that was posted in the journal Media History. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears to be cited as a source in several books as well: [28], [29], [30], [31]. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this editorial post in the Jewish Chronicle that mentions the original article, which isn't a review but an article that focuses on the book. Through this I was able to find the JC article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It must be pointed out that The Guardian commissioned the book "to justify itself", so any review (e.g. #9) coming in anyway from the The Guardian is worthless. Five other refs are not possible to verify without a subscription. Ref #1 is more a discussion about The Guardian than the book it commissioned. Ref #2 appears to be about the fact that The Guardian commissioned the book about itself. #5 is about The Guardian which uses the book commissioned by The Guardian as a discussion point. One subscription item does state that it is a review of the book, so assuming that one of the other subscription refs is a review, the book passes WP:NBOOK. However, I'm not going to assume that. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my position from Delete to Merge to The Guardian given that it is a bought and paid for Guardian publication. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However at the same time, there are still multiple reviews for this work. I'd initially left the Guardian review in the article because it was interesting, but what made me really highlight the review is that this was covered in an academic journal, Jewish Political Studies Review. This is also relatively frequently cited in various books as a source, which also somewhat counts towards notability. The second source (the book) was more listed to back up the fact that the Guardian commissioned the book. However this source does mention Baram's work quite extensively. It's going to be very, very difficult to find an article of any type that would completely separate the book from the newspaper. There are multiple portions of the article that go into some depth about the book, including this statement: "Baram, a lawyer who is on the far left of Israeli politics, illuminates these issues and produces a picture of a Guardian much more complex than the anti-Jewish monolith of current communal discourse." Also, reference 5 is a book review, labeled as such by the newspaper itself (The Economist). Like I said above, you're going to be very, very hard pressed to find a book that does not talk about the Guardian since discussing the paper will be necessary to actually talk about the book. As for which items are reviews, the Jerusalem Post one is a review (reviews are either labeled as such or will have the book's name and publishing info at the start of the review), as is the New Statesman. I think what you're trying to do here is make several WP:POINTy nominations in order to make NBOOK harder to pass and weaken newspapers as a reliable source, however you will not be able to really do this via AfD. Policy changes of this nature need to be discussed on the applicable pages (WP:NBOOK, WP:RS, WP:RS/N) rather than at AfD. Right now this book passes the notability guidelines for books and newspapers are still considered to be reliable sources. It's extremely rare that an AfD will be the sole reason that a policy changes. I really only know of one AfD that created a new policy and that's the America Deceived AfD- an AfD for a book that failed notability guidelines so hard that even Wikipedia editors from 2006 agreed it was non-notable. This is during a point in time where notability was pretty much based on whether or not something existed. Even then the changes still had to go through the required steps to be considered official and it still required that a large portion of editors participate in the discussion and vote for the changes. (You can see the general debates here.) If you want to make the guidelines stricter then you need to start with a discussion in the right places. AfD is not the correct place for this, not when these guidelines are considered to be pretty standard and solid. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passes WP:NBOOK at this point given the reviews in the Economist, the New Statesman, and the Jerusalem Post. --Aquillion (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:A11 – czar 07:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banterlope[edit]

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

No indication of importance Rberchie (talk) 10:31, 12 May 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) 02:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 should apply I think. And possibly A11? -- ferret (talk) 02:48, 16 May 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) 16:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police[edit]

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

Non-notable. The reviews cited are little more than advocacy pieces using the book as a back drop. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book has received reviews in multiple newspapers such as The Times, Sydney Morning Herald, and New Statesman. The LRB piece is a review, although it is wordier than most. The one from Peace News might not be usable entirely since I can't really verify the magazine's editorial policy, although the magazine is certainly notable. In any case, there is enough with the news articles to where the book would pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - Tokyogirl79 has added enough sourcing, that even though I am still dubious about the reviews, I would not object to a speedy close. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - (Creator) Unfortunately, this appears to be yet another clearly vexatious nomination. Per WP:BEFORE, before nominating an article for deletion an editor is required to 'Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability' which does not seem to have taken place. Thanks to Tokyogirl79 for adding the sources, however I would like to indicate to the nominator that the article was clearly notable before the reviews were added. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By any real sense of the word notable, this book is most definitely not notable. The problem is that Wikipedia book notability is absurdly easy to meet. For example, ref #2 added by Tokyogirl79 is the only review I can find by that reviewer. The review does not appear to have been in the print edition. Of the ~23 recent reviewers at the paper, only one or two had more than one review published on the web site. In other words, the review is on a web site that will publish pretty much any coherent submission. Many, if not most, of the reviews on the articles I AfDed are about the same as #2 here. Unfortunately, these reviews technically meet WP:NBOOK, which is why this article will end up being kept. To get your book on Wikipedia, all you have to do is get two friends (or do it yourself by using false names) to submit reviews to the web sites of numerous small to mid size newspapers until each gets accepted. So no, the nominations were not vexatious, but simply an attempt to keep little know/read books from cluttering up Wikipedia. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Sydney Morning Herald, so it's a reliable source regardless of whether it was in print or only on their website. Again, newspapers are reliable sources and it's really, REALLY not that easy to get reviews published in a newspaper. Most papers are pretty exclusive in who and what they will have published, regardless of whether it's print or electronic. Even if the person only wrote one review, that review is still usable as a reliable source if the newspaper published the article in any format. I know that you dislike newspaper sources (to the point where it appears to be a strong bias) and you might mean well, but right now newspapers are considered reliable sources for articles. If you want that to be changed, you need to bring this up at WP:RS or WP:RS/N. If this was say, The Patch, then I'd be inclined to agree with you on that but the SMH is the oldest newspaper in Australia and has a very high distribution rate. I hate to say this, but your argument against many of the book AfDs you've participated in essentially boils down to "I don't like newspapers"- despite the fact that newspapers are considered a very strong reliable source on Wikipedia. You're not going to change policy based on these AfDs, so any WP:POINT you're trying to make with these AfDs is likely going to be seen as disruptive. If you want these articles deleted you're going to have to change policy first- and that's going to take a very, very long time and need some extremely persuasive arguments since you're arguing that some very notable and established newspapers should be considered unreliable/unusable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A circulation of 132,000 is a very high distribution rate? Space in a print edition has a high cost. Space on a web site is all but zero cost (even just a couple clicks on it will more than pay the cost). The "Undercover" reviews are basically nothing more than entries on the paper's "Undercover" editor's blog. The "Undercover" blog actually calls itself a blog. She alone decides what reviews are put on her "Undercover" blog. It's nothing more than a technicality (i.e., the web site the blog is on is owned by a newspaper) that makes it a valid ref. My problem is not with newspaper print editions; it is with the blogs of individual newspaper editors being regarded the same as actual newspaper content. Given that there is zero chance of making any significant change to WP:NBOOK, I'm not foolish enough to tilt at windmills. Frankly, you have utterly misunderstood where I am coming from, and completely fail to understand how simple it is to get on somebody's blog. My issue is not with newspapers, but with blog postings on web sites being confused with actual newspaper content. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a review is published through a newspaper then it's considered a reliable source. A review from the Sydney Morning Herald is not the same as say, a book review from Katie's Book Blog or a random review on Goodreads or Amazon. While a review of any sort is ultimately an opinion, a newspaper review undergoes much stricter criteria than a self-published source. It must go through an editorial staff for factchecking/accuracy claims and the reviewer needs to take more than their own viewpoint into consideration. The newspaper will also be more selective in who they allow to write a review. For example, despite claims that anyone could get a review published in a newspaper, odds are extremely high that if you were to try to submit a review you would more than likely be declined. If it were that easy to get work published then there's be far, far more freelancers out there writing book reviews and articles and fewer people trying to put stuff in blogs, wikis, and the like. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the circulation numbers you're citing does not include the Saturday edition (228,000) or the Sunday edition (264,434). It's no New York Times, but that's nothing to sniff at. And again, a newspaper is not the same thing as a self-published source. The average newspaper is fairly discerning in who and what they publish, even on their websites. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since what you're trying to assert goes against the currently established policy, I'll bring this up for you at WP:NBOOK and WP:RS. If you want to change policy you need to start there, not here. If the policies are changed then you can come back and re-nominate these articles, assuming that the consensus here is to keep- which is likely. If you are not going to try to change policy then there's really no point to any of this. A newspaper website is not the same thing as a blog. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bring this up at RS/N first, actually. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are saying that a self admitted blog is not a self admitted blog if it has any thing at all to do with a newspaper. I am okay with that, I guess, if that is literally how WP:NBOOK defines what is or is not a blog. Hey, it would not be by very far the worst interpretation of a WP policy that I have dealt with. If insanity it is, then insanity it shall be. Note that I had already consented to a speedy close on this prior to the start of this thread; I show WP:FAITH and get none in return. Par for the course. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:VMS Mosaic - The article in The Times of London is by David Aaronovitch a very well-known journalist, commentator and columnist in the UK. The book received significant coverage in the media. It just is not true to say this book is not notable, regardless of your ludicrous conspiracy theories about submitting false reviews. Have you got a print copy of every edition of the Sydney Morning Herald from around that time to prove it was not in the paper? Why don't you submit a review to The Guardian and see if they post it online? To suggest this book is 'little known/read' borders on the laughable. AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not the reviews are 'advocacy pieces' as the OP says is irrelevant to whether they establish notability; the coverage in numerous reliable mainstream periodicals still illustrates that the book itself is noteworthy. --Aquillion (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. meets WP:GNG, reviews cited makes it notable.Coolabahapple (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per AusLondoner. GregJackP Boomer! 18:44, 17 May 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) 16:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glastonbury Festival line-ups[edit]

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

Nearly unsourced promo The Banner talk 09:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or split - I'm a bit torn on this one... I think Glastonbury is highly notable and culturally significant. It's the biggest festival in the world. Since it's been around for decades, I don't think it's unreasonable to have one article with the full history, as long as it can be sourced. I don't see how it is promo - who benefits from a listing of the 1984 lineup? However, at the same time, there are already articles for the 2008-2015 festivals, and I would have no problem if someone were to create one article for each edition, so maybe that would be a better suggestion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of notable acts playing one of the most famous music festivals would seem to satisfy the notability for a list. If being unsourced is the problem, then fix it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am waiting for your edits now. The Banner talk 21:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you'll be waiting a long time, son. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know that. You just talk but don't act to your own words. The Banner talk 07:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the fact it's an extremely notable & famous event - I try to avoid "WP:ITSNOTABLE"-type !votes but Ignoring the rules for once. –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a useful source for information which is difficult to find elsewhere. Deleting this article would be a disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.77.59 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is why it needs sources... The Banner talk 21:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Banner - FYI, http://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/history/ has a lot of information, and there's a book about the history too: Glastonbury: An Oral History of the Music, Mud and Magic which is solid and not too expensive. So sources exist to fix this page - I think tagging it with references needed is sufficient. I looked at the talk page - it's actually a really old article (2006) and has had a lot of people working on it. It wasn't properly categorized with the appropriate talk page - I tagged it the same as Glastonbury Festival article - which is top priority for Wikipedia:WikiProject Festivals and high importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset. You might drop a note at WikiProject Festivals and let them know this article is so sketch it was tagged for deletion - hopefully some volunteers will start improving it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those sources should be in the article, not here. The Banner talk 07:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Note that promotional tone can often be corrected by copy editing the article, and that topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. Users commenting here are not obligated to add sources to or otherwise copy edit the article. Furthermore, see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and advertising-free. But a stance like this is seriously undermining that. The Banner talk 09:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's encyclopedic and sourceable. How is a list of bands that played the festival going back to 1970 a 'promo'? --Michig (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been going to Glastonbury for 12 years now and I find this page very interesting. Invaluable, you could say, when trying to remember previous festivals. I don't know how to edit Wikipedia but I did look at The Banner's user profile page here and it's clear that he's on a crusade to rid Wikipedia of what he considers to be promotional pages. This page, to anybody that knows the festival or has attended in previous years (millions of people) is clearly not promotional in any way. Thank you to whoever created this page and went to the effort of collecting together previous years listings. It could only have been "marked for deletion" by somebody who has no understanding of the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.212.55 (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is not going to be deleted. This debate should end now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.105.203 (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article about the history of significant UK cultral event and therefore should be kept. Should we remove all articles about companies or football clubs as they promoting them? No, the article is factual, with the 2015 lineup updated new facts emerge around the line up. 80.69.142.131 (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1471 Tornio[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, consensus is that it is well-discussed rather than redirected unilaterally. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO's guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close (and the others with this rationale). AfD is not the place for proposing redirections. ~~WP:RFD is the appropriate venue.~~ I see WP:NASTRO says "Asteroids numbered below 2000 should be discussed before re-directing" so maybe ~~either RfD or~~ the talk pages would be appropriate. Deletion is a last resort and should not be done unless all else fails. Thincat (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I have struck parts of my comment now David Eppstein has helpfully corrected me. Thincat (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. RFD is for discussing whether to delete a redirect. We are discussing deleting the content of an article, and (most likely) replacing it with a redirect. Previous participants have objected to bold redirects, and mass discussions, so we have to discuss them individually and AfD is an appropriate process to do so. I would welcome some tighter limits on the rate of creating new discussions of this type (I think the numbers we've been seeing are too high to easily keep up with all the discussions) but I think we need to have these discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment David Eppstein, I've been sticking to around 10 a day per another editor's suggestion; if you think that's still too high, please let me know. I understand how it can be seen as difficut to keep up at the moment. Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - Oh, yes, I was not familiar enough with RFD. However, AFD is not the right place either. See WP:AFD "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." These nominations accept that deletion is not required. So, I suppose the talk pages or the WikiProject would be most appropriate discussion forum. Although redirect can be a perfectly good outcome at AFD it should not be used for proposing redirection. Thincat (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thincat, the nomination is for delete or redirect. Many discussions have gone on over years (this has been tagged for notability for over 3 years) at Wikiproject going round and round in circles; AfD is the best venue as it stands. Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all unsympathetic. These articles should never have been created in the way they were in the first place. For people who are not wanting to do a redirection themselves, or who have been asked not to, WP does not seem to me to have any "central" venue for discussing things. I think WikiProject Astronomical objects should be able to sort things out with you in a way that does not involve asking the whole community to consider a large number of questions about which almost everyone won't have the faintest clue about an answer. Thincat (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A mini-project or task force would be the proper way to clear out 95% of the main belt asteroid stubs created. Unfortunately, the criteria being used by even the good faith editors is arbitrary. If an asteroid was part of a small study by a nobody it is considered notable. But if that object is one of the largest of its type (say one of the largest 20 of its kind), and is part of a larger group study it is dumped with the bath water. The harm being done here is larger asteroids are being re-directly as easily as small non-notable ones. -- Kheider (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; single photometry study found. Praemonitus (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. One two-object study [32] is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1586 Thiele[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, consensus is that it is well-discussed rather than redirected unilaterally. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO's guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One four-object study [33] is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1399 Teneriffa[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, consensus is that it is well-discussed rather than redirected unilaterally. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO's guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. ― Padenton|✉ 22:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1497 Tampere[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, consensus is that it is well-discussed rather than redirected unilaterally. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO's guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient source content available, hence non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:31, 17 May 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. Davewild (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1312 Vassar[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, consensus is that it is well-discussed rather than redirected unilaterally. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 per NASTRO's guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an unusually high inclination asteroid [34], has been the subject of multiple early orbital studies [35] [36], and has also been considered as a candidate object in an interesting orbital resonance [37] [38]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David even if his "interesting inclination" and single object resonance study seems arbitrary. Had someone studied 5+ objects in a single paper, David would have probably have blown this object off. -- Kheider (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I am primarily looking for multiple in-depth reliable sources that we can use to write an article that is not merely a copy of someone's database entry, and secondarily for properties that make these objects somehow unusual rather than run-of-the-mill. Sources about one object are in general more in-depth than sources about many objects, which often reduce each of the objects they study to a line in a table. I am also not counting the many papers that list favorable positions of asteroids but say nothing about them, and the many publications that list names of asteroids (because they're too unselective and not enough about the asteroid itself). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that being the largest ~20-30 asteroids of a certain type would make an asteroid "somehow unusual rather than run-of-the-mill". -- Kheider (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that WP:MILL is an essay, not a policy. It's also just a recommendation of what types of articles not to create. Praemonitus (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much as WP:NASTRO is merely a guideline and should not be used to remove borderline asteroids and commit needless genocide. The problem was created by bots and should not be over corrected. -- Kheider (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you seriously just call 'taking these articles to AfD so their notability can be discussed' genocide? Seriously? ― Padenton|✉ 20:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I compared re-directing 15,000 bot-created asteroid stubs to genocide. Apparently, you took a strong offense to my usage and started attacking me on several pages. -- Kheider (talk)

Armenian Genocide is genocide. The Holocaust was genocide. Genocides_in_history is a nice long list of real genocides. Genocide "is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group." And you're comparing the nomination of articles with questionable notability (completely within policy by WP:AFD) to systematic mass murder of a group of people? You seriously don't see a problem with that?

I didn't attack you anywhere. I said there were several policies you were violating, and provided evidence to support my claims. ― Padenton|✉ 15:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1263 Varsavia[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, consensus is that it is well-discussed rather than redirected unilaterally. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO's guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found at least a pair of light curve studies, plus multiple mentions in other sources. Praemonitus (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the light curve studies (one individual and one as part of a triple) it has been included in some occultation studies [39] [40] and Google scholar is also telling me about another 1956 paper on its orbit, "New Elements of (1263) Varsavia" (Minor Planet Circulars 1956) that I can't track down any more information about. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per above opinions. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1673 van Houten[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, consensus is that it is well-discussed rather than redirected unilaterally. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO's guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1351 Uzbekistania[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, consensus is that it is well-discussed rather than redirected unilaterally. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO's guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP. Insufficient sources. There is a photometry study that I can't access; the rest are position reports. Praemonitus (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Being part of one six-object lightcurve study [41] is not enough. (It's also part of an 820-asteroid study [42] but I don't think that's sufficiently selective to confer notability.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on IRAS observations it is a relatively large 65km asteroid. This concept of notability is no worse then other largely arbitrary interpretations used to define notability for many main-belt asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the astronomy notability criteria deals with size, and its threshold is "The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye." ― Padenton|✉ 20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 20:18, 17 May 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) 17:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Central media[edit]

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

Vague concept/neologism as defined by one weak source; fails WP:GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not enough significant coverage. Turns up in just a few results on Google Books; one provides quite a bit of coverage, another occasionally mentions it, and the third only gives it a passing mention. APerson (talk!) 13:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- per lack of significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a bit of synthesis/essay based on minor and limited usage of the term, and it's not supported as a generally-used term by significant coverage in reliable sources. (See also Lateral media by the same author, which reads as even more of a personal essay, and which I think should also be nominated for deletion). Mr Potto (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC) (I've now nominated Lateral media, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lateral media. Mr Potto (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by Nominator. Wieno (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Lewis[edit]

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

Withdrawn by Nominator - with the posted sources he does meet GNG after all. Wieno (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Wieno (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it took some searching (common name) but it seems he was a big deal in the '70s electronic music scene. According to this profile/video interview here, he invented the first computerized sound file or whatever you call it. (It isn't a secondary source, but as a national organization related to the music industry it has some credibility.) There's a solid article here at theverge.com, local newspaper profile here and also of note is this glowing mention in this book about synthesizers (not self-published, from Oxford University Press). Additionally, someone even made a documentary made about him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:-Per Wikimandia. Subject of the article meet WP:BASIC. Trout slap to Wieno. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:27, 12 May 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) 07:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Calzada[edit]

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

"entrepreneur, speaker, television host, and author " No evidence at all for notability as entrepreneur, speaker, or TV host. There is some evidence about whether she is notable as an author: Her book 180 ways is in exactly 3 libraries, a/c worldcat, Inspiring passion' is in none at all, , and the rest of her work is a small number of interviews in magazine articles. This article is apparently an advertisement for her executive training firm. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, she isn't notable as an entrepreneur, speaker or TV host, possibly as an author. However, this article isn't the one that's going to show that- if they are considered notable as an author, I would support WP:TNT, as this is a WP:ADVERT, with not enough focus on the only possibly notable thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources that would confer sufficient notability to meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. SmartSE (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable either as entrepreneur, speaker, or TV host and fails WP:AUTHOR and is Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:54, 18 May 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. Wizardman 00:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ysmael Carmona[edit]

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

Non-notable career minor leaguer, fails BASE/N and GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Non notable minor league free agent. Spanneraol (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I was actually surprised to find some coverage of him in a book [43] but I don't think that's enough unless someone finds more. Rlendog (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 May 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) 07:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Goldberg[edit]

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

Non - notable artist. One piece only in a museum, and that not a major one. No major critical interest. The refs are mainly mere notices. The Long Island edition of the NYTimes is fundamentally just a local paper, are local notices in it mean no more than any other local paper. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few news articles turned up, but they're all generally press releases or local newspapers. Fails NARTIST and GNG. APerson (talk!) 13:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but press releases, fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and is Promotional and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:59, 19 May 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) 07:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard[edit]

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

The notability is in the cases they dealt with. Every single one of the references are about the cases, not about the firm. The article is indistinguishable from what law firms use for advertising. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG. What is needed is coverage of the topic--and the subject of the article is not List of successful court cases .... . Drmies (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I reviewed the sources and none directly deal with the subject and therefore the requirements of CORP are not met. SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is only about the cases and not about the firm.Law firms advertise there successful cases to promote themselves as in the case here done by a Paid Editor. Clearly promotional and fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ADVERT and no notability, as notability isn't inherited from their court cases. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 May 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) 07:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Reclaim Brixton protest[edit]

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

This was a pretty run of the mill demonstration with no major long term impact. There is nothing here that distinguishes this demonstration from hundreds just like it that occur all over the world every day. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or news. Subject fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note This AfD was created at the request of IP 146.199.151.33. I fully endorse the request per the above statement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill protest, does not merit its own article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable local protest that lasted barely an afternoon. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N. –146.199.151.33 (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (Creator) Received significant coverage in the UK and overseas. Meets WP:GNG. I feel many editors are misinterpreting WP:NOTNEWS, which states'For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.' This is nothing of the sort, and was a noteworthy protest. WP:NOTNEWS makes crystal clear 'As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events'. I also have a hunch that if this protest had occurred in the United States there would be no dispute about keeping the article AusLondonder (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it has nothing to with it being in the UK. It says in WP:NOTNEWS that not all events are suitable for articles. More specific info is at Wikipedia:Notability (events) which says the the same but also: "However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance." I just don't see how it has had any lasting or historical significance. If you can find some coverage that confirm that is has been of historical significance, I'll be happy to change to keep. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given by the nominator. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't see what distinguishes this as having "lasting historical significance" to the degree of deserving an article. The argument AL puts forth re: WP:NOTNEWS would only apply if this really did have a considerable social impact, aside from being in the papers for a day or two when there's nothing else to report on. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 12:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One window getting broken and someone being arrested sounds like a normal day in Brixton. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What an unhelpful, judgmental comment AusLondonder (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Arbuzov[edit]

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

~~Kind of a uneeded DAB page-only one person while the other page is a link to a Russian wiki Wgolf (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)~~WithdrawnWgolf (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very good at the policies of creation of disambiguation pages in en-wiki — I am more familiar with ru-wiki where such pages are allowed. So, if you decide that it should not exist in such form, it would be OK with me. The only argument is that an en-wiki article about Boris Arbuzov-chemist is highly desirable — he was a renowned chemist, academician of the Academy of Sciences of USSR, so eventually it will be created, and, therefore, you would need to re-create this disambiguation page. Formally, in terms of the "rank", Arbuzov-chemist is higher than Arbuzov-physicist; because of this, redirecting "Boris Arbuzov" → "Boris Arbuzov (physicist)" might not be a very good choice. — Adavyd (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is this page up for deletion because there are only two names on it, and can just be directed toward the other by hatnote? Or because one of them is redlinked? In my view, redlinks are invitations to start an article, not an indication of low notability. I'm happy to make a page for the chemist. He's perfectly deserving. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it was, it wasn't a valid dab. On en wiki, we only allow links to en wiki on disambiguation pages. Redlinks are fine, but need to meet MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION, and this didn't. Therefore, the blue link could have been moved to the primary page. However, I felt that was a shame when we were aware that there was another notable scientist of this name and created an article. Not my area and I don't read Russian, so if anyone could help improve it, that would be great. It is now a valid dab with two valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks @Boleyn:! I'll expand the article in the next couple of days. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-thanks for all that, yeah you can't make a DAB page though with just one link hence why I put this up in the first place. Wgolf (talk) 16:55, 12 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amita Birla[edit]

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

Sources consist of public company records and one small mention on Business Standard that looks rather like a press release. Look like this might fail WP:BASIC Dolescum (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dolescum, This article is created from the current available resources on the internet. Please help me to build this article as per the Wikipedia norms. I am giving my time to this article because she is one of the from very few business women from India. Please remove the it from Articles for deletion and add a tag to get help from other Wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avtarnanrey (talk • contribs) 10:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Avtarnanrey:, if Birla is notable, you should be able to provide better sources. Could you also explain why you made this edit to your user page after I opened this AfD? Dolescum (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolescum:, I have found few more references from Google Books as Birla family is one of the four richest family from the legecy of Indian industries and businesses. And I deleted that because that was against my employment policies. I cannot reveal the client's name in public place. Avtarnanrey (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2015 (IST)

@Avtarnanrey:, I looked at those links, they look like incidental mentions to me. You understand that fact you're employed by Ms Birla's husband raises conflict of interest questions, don't you? Dolescum (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - News found recent news links but the first ones are mostly because someone else joined as CEO and archives finds a few links as well but nothing significant or notable (with a few press releases sprinkled into both searches). C. K. Birla's article is in obvious need of improvement as well. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we improve this article from following references:
1. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=61689109&privcapId=138482615
2. https://www.zaubacorp.com/director/AMITA-BIRLA/00837718
Avtarnanrey (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2015 (IST)

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 Bejoy Nambiar. No objections to SwisterTwister Merging if wanted (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getaway Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDB is not a Reliable Source. Like Wikipedia, anybody can put anything there. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @BeenAroundAWhile: Even stuff listed on IMDB can usually be sourced elsewhere. While IMDB is generally considered "unreliable", it sill offers clues as to where topics my be covered elsewhere in reliable sources with a little due diligence. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Getaway Films" "Bejoy Nambiar, Getaway Films" "Getaway Films Pvt. Ltd"

Redirect to founder Bejoy Nambiar, as most sources mention the film company in relationship with its founder. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - A small bit about this can be merged at his article with News providing a few sources that can be used. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 12 May 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 Shoojit Sircar. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Sun Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Not Notable. You can check it out yourself. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Rising Sun Films Shoojit Sircar, Rising Sun Films Ronnie Lahiri

Redirect to founder Shoojit Sircar where sources mentioning his company in relationship to his career and film makes it sensible for it to be mentioned and sourced there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There are sources talking about the company but it is all through him and this company is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 18:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Do to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination. Davewild (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Świat Nieruchomości[edit]

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

Journal established in 1991. No independent sources. Indexed in some non-notable databases (BezEkon and Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities), in Index Copernicus (onJeffrey Beall's list of questionable companies producing misleading journal metrics), and a relatively obscure list of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (obviously biased towards locally-produced publications). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:05, 12 May 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) 16:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Bruton[edit]

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

Second division team captain, but does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. League is not fully professional and has only played for international youth teams. References are routine mentions. Decided against a PROD in case it gets deleted before someone can find additional info out there. Fuebaey (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Player has NOT only played for international youth teams - check again. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Only three women's leagues (all in US) are included in WP:NFOOTY and list is perpetually "incomplete". Article could use expansion, not deletion. Here are some additional potential citations as a start: 1 2, 3 Hmlarson (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, non-senior international appearances are not eligible for WP:NFOOTY #1. She doesn't meet #2 because neither club leagues she's played in, for Arsenal (WPL/WSL) and Reading (WSL2), are fully professional (see bottom of the FPL list). I was unable to find any other non-routine sources (i.e. not stat pages or match reports) for WP:GNG, hence the !PROD. I was hoping someone could find something tangible, maybe on her captaincy, but that doesn't seem to have materialised. Unless you consider Google Search results as actual reliable references, I'm not sure how that supports your comment on notability. Fuebaey (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. as I mentioned WP:GNG is applicable. WP:NFOOTY is pretty much irrelevant to women's football/soccer leagues. Article could use improvement not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has adequate indicia of notability. Women athletes often have less news coverage and such, it's a systemic bias issue. There also are far fewer pro opportunities for women athletes. Based on her standing vis-a-vis other women in the sport, I'd say GNG is met. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NFOOTY is almost irrelevant for women's soccer, since the list is incomplete. She's a professional player who already played in one of the main teams in the Tier 1 league in England. Perhaps the article needs improvement, but not deletion.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep. She plays in a professional league in a major soccer country. Smallchief (talk 21:31, 17 May 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) 07:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WatsUp TV Africa Music Video Awards[edit]

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

WP:Future event with virtually no current coverage. Unknown whether it will be notable even once it occurs; we don't know now that it will even ever occur a second time, despite the representation in the article. Google search: "watsup * music video awards". —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the WatsUp TV article, this isn't a cable channel at all, but merely a show airing on a few TV stations throughout Africa. Basically this can be summed up as 'This show presents a special edition where we'll award whichever acts you stuffed the ballot with the most', but we don't even know the methodology of the voting or how long the awards ceremony is, and the claimed "#WAMVA" hastag on Twitter pretty much has been only pushed by the show themselves, so without popularity or any voting metrics, there's no way to determine this show's true notability. Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 12 May 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) 07:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charly Musonda Jr.[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL.Amitbanerji26 (talk) 17:06, 18 May 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. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brainhell[edit]

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

Unfortunately, neither "Brian Hill" nor "Brainhell" appears to have received the sort of coverage required for an article. One article about one, one article about the other, but I found no reliable, independent sources besides those. In addition, no reliable source has publicly connected "Brian Hill" and "Brainhell". It is not the job of Wikipedia to connect the two. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing aside from the third which found this news article and it confirms some of the article's information but it's not significant or in-depth. So with this, I think it's better to delete the article as it seems he never got much attention but I guess for what it is worth he could be mentioned in the future in a relating article (i.e. ALS). SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SF Chronicle from 2005, SF Chronicle upon his 2008 death, Journal of Media and Culture 11(6), Common Knowledge volume 8 (not a lot in this one), Globe and Mail, profiled in this als-cure.com report. It's on the edge of Weak Keep and Keep for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, there are few references that certainly make subject to meet notability, it needs to be rewritten to actually add more value. However, I am not sure if people will search for the subject in the future.Amitbanerji26 (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Globe and Mail and ALS-Cure sources cited by Rhododendrites make the connection between this person's online and offline identities, and they are WP:RS. Those, the 2005 SF Chronicle coverage, and the obituary combined meet WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:51, 18 May 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) 07:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Bus Services[edit]

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

Non notable bus company fails WP:CORP & WP:GNG I've only found this [44] and everything on GBooks is to do with a South African company. –Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm stunned that a company with so much history and local importance has received so little coverage in reliable sources, but there you go. Fails WP:ORG unless there's a lot of stuff offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.240.243 (talk • contribs)

Delete- I won't be surprised if this page can be recreated once it has reliable sources in the future. For now, it will be delete for me.Amitbanerji26 (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, the nominated version lacks sources... so what? THAT otherwise addressable issue is not a valid deletion rationale.

Per WP:BEFORE:

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

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

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

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

Many more-than-trivial results found with a diligent search... WP:NRVE... and we also have the company and it's work spoken of in sources expected to cover they and their work in that manner... Variety. Rolling Stone, Hollywood Reporter 1, Hollywood Reporter 2, Hollywood Reporter 3, About Entertainment, The New York Sun, San Francisco Chronicle, Denver Post. Does having one and one's works so covered meet WP:GNG and thus WP:CORP ? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In my opinion there should be independent, non-trivial secondary sources about Bold Films as a company per WP:CORPDEPTH, not about the movies they work on. JMHamo (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... not neccessarily. CORPDEATH explains "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." For instance and now sourcing the article, Variety offers more-than-trivial information even if also discussing some films and Cannes. A topic being sourced does not have to be the sole topic discussed in a source. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Could be "here today, gone tomorrow." Maybe we should wait a while before we have an article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- My vote will be in favor, althought sources about their company are not reliable however for their work there are several. I couldn't vote for delete to this page, my final words will be keep.Amitbanerji26 (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. As per this discussion, adding the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis[edit]

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

This WP:FRINGE journal published a number of papers related to Immanuel Velikovsky and has only been mentioned in sources that are devoted to them (thus not independent as we would require). The single reliable source used in the article is Donald Goldsmith's Scientists Confront Velikovsky, but the mention in that book of this particular fringe journal is off-handed and doesn't speak to the question of notability that we would generally like to see. Moreover, there does not seem to be much in the way of discussion of this subject as a subject in the books and papers that are written about the notable subject from which it sprung: the Velikovsky affair. Henry H. Bauer's book on the the Velikovsky Affair, which does mention this fringe journal, should be considered with a severe grain of salt considering his WP:FRINGE status. I am hesitant to use him as evidence for notability. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott (4th nomination). jps (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The journal is discussed in some reliable, non-fringe sources: see this book, for example. I'm open to being convinced otherwise but to me that suggests that it's notable, even if it is FRINGE. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Gordon's book is excellent, but this is the only mention of the fringe journal in the book, and, as far as I know, that's it as far as independent sources go. I would consider this a trivial mention. If that is the sum total of the sources we have on this topic that are reliable, it's frankly not possible to write a decent article on the subject. jps (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon moi, but when Gordin's book is searched simply for "Kronos," 16 mentions are shown, considerably more prominent than supposed by jps. The journal is notable for the number of mainstream scholars/scientists who contributed to the discussions, such as Richard Parker in Egyptology and David Morrison in astronomy; but its incorporation in the entry would constitute OR. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify -- This was potentially a significant journal, though I have never seen it and it may be concerned with FRINGE issues. Nevertheless, even if it was only concerend with FRINGE views, it might be significant in convering them. A subscription of 1500 is quite respectible for an academic journal. The problem is that the article is currently almost entirely about criticism of Velikovsky and is being used as a COATHANGER for that, but this merely concerns a couple of articles in early issues. It is often difficult to find independent sources about a journal, so that I am not concerned about that. I tried a google scholar search, but I am getting so many false positives that this is little help. Kronos appears also be a software programme and "Kronos: Journal of Cape History". I would like to see us cut this down to what this narticle says about the jounral, with a couple of sentences on its discussion of Velikovshy. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some trimming. Not sure it needs to be totally stubified, but in general I agree with Peterkingiron here - even if the journal's content was FRINGE, it is still notable. If nothing else, it's of significant historical interest. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep noting that Henry Bauer's coverage of the subject in his Beyond Velikovsky is very much of RS quality by virtue of its being published by University of Illinois Press and the large number of very favorable reviews in prestigious scientific journals including Science and Nature. Just because Bauer holds unorthodox views on other subjects does not automatically condemn his reporting on Kronos as FRINGE. As an example of the nefarious tactics used in Wikipedia to denigrate Bauer, one editor once accused this chemistry professor with a PhD in Chemistry of never having performed any scientific research, which is required as preparation for the degree's dissertation, in an attack on Bauer's published criticism of HIV/AIDS research. Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I cannot tell if this meets WP:GNG. The sources cited seem to meet WP:RS but I am not sure if there is enough depth of coverage in them - possibly not. No one seems to be examining WP:NJOURNAL. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I agree with Peterkingiron and Fyddlestix, the page can be kept with some trimming and removing claims that aren't well sourced.Amitbanerji26 (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ynna Asistio[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable actress, mostly consigned to guest roles on reality and game shows. Quis separabit? 23:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage by reliable sources. http://entertainment.inquirer.net/164561/derek-ramsay-finds-new-love http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/08/15/13/ynna-asistio-moves-abs-cbn http://www.abante.com.ph/ent/other-stories/16222/ynna-asistio-di-takot-madamay-sa-kaso-ni-derek.html http://archive.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/lifestyle/2013/08/26/lesson-heartbreak-299847 Ross-c (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of the above are gossip tabloids, describing the love life and rumours thereof, of Ms. Asistio (one is in Tagalog but I can tell by the reference to "Derek" that it is in this category); the other details how the thespian "recently took up her first project as a Kapamilya contract artist." Quis separabit? 00:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. However, I refer you to WP:NOTABLE and WP:NACTOR. Particularly for the latter, we have "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." as a qualification of notability. Ms Asistio's popularity in the gossip tabloids shows her popularity, and establishes notability. I'm no fan of gossip tabloids myself, but am attempting to objectively apply Wikipedia's guidelines. In WP:BASIC, we have "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.". The sum total of multiple sources IMHO satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and hence the article should not be deleted. Ross-c (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of all the sources in the article or mentioned above, only ABS-CBN provides more than trivial coverage. It's about her moving to ABS-CBN however, so it is not an independent source and does not count towards notability - they have a vested interest in publicizing her. The purpose of the significant coverage criteria is to ensure that enough reliable third-party material exists to write a full and balanced biography. Adding up all the other passing mentions of her does not, in my judgement, yield significant coverage, so the subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous references such as here and here and here and here and here and here, lots of attention, easily meets WP:ACTOR and the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1829 Dawson[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. Should be deleted and redirected to the list article, List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I found a pair of light curve studies and a few mentions in other journal articles, so this seems like a borderline keep. Praemonitus (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. I see the same thing [45] [46] but I don't think it's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I can't see that there is consensus to say that the added source is outweighing the previous deletion criteria. The keep vote added after the relist reinforces that the sourcing doesn't pass muster and I'm afraid that we don't yet a consensus that a volume of poor sources can be substituted for a couple of decent ones. Close enough I'm happy engage on my talk page if better sourcing emerges. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester Rivers[edit]

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

Article which only contains primary or non reliable sources, preliminary searches bring up no sources. Therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Not to mention the articles looks to be a poorly cut and pasted of a previous version perhap deleted from before. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Practically no reliable sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find a few mentions on Google books but nothing significant enough to meet WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some of the included "refereces" in the article don't even mention the artist. There is not enough in depth independent coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been edited to satisfy reliable sources and therefore satisfy WP:NMUSIC. I am the subject of the article and new to Wikipedia. Any help would be much appreciated. Riversco (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read reliable sources as almost all sources in the article are not reliable as per Wikipedia standards. All the references in the article are either social media type pages or simple listing pages. One of the references only leads to a search engine. We generally require that the media or scholars have written about the subject before we consider it notable.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bearing with me as I am a newcomer. Sylvester Rivers is mentioned several times in existing Wikipedia articles and several Sylvester Rivers works have their own separate Wikipedia articles. Knowing that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source for itself, I referenced original sources that were already accepted by Wikipedia, thinking that was safe. The main source used for both credits and chart positions was allmusic.com, which is one of the most commonly used and authoritative sources for articles on people in the recording industry and a recognized source by the U.S. Library of Congress. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the American organization that certifies Gold and Platinum sales and is therefore the most reliable authority on the subject. The RIAA link referenced was used to verify claims of Gold or Platinum status and should have linked directly to the song in question, not the search main page. This can be corrected. Billboard.com, which was referenced, is considered the recording industry bible in charting and the New York Times was referenced, as well. Discogs.com is considered an industry authority and the largest online database of electronic music releases, and of releases on vinyl media. None of the references were to social media. I read reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability (music) and the article seems to conform, e.g., there are many Gold records that can be verified, but I may have missed something. I am the subject of the article and new to Wikipedia. Any help would be much appreciated. Riversco (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

all of those links you have supplied only serve to prove that you have some credits, nothing you have linked talks about YOU which what we need to have an article meet inclusion criteria. We need published media coverage on you as a person, not just a list of your works. The New York Times listing is just that a listing it does nothing towards the WP:GNG threshold.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Mcmatter, for your help. In response to your comments, I added published book references to the article. Also, Sylvester Rivers is the composer and co-writer of the title song of the Michael Henderson album, “In the Night Time,” certified Gold by the RIAA and in the top 10 in two of the Billboard Charts plus in the top 40 in two other Billboard Charts. This should conform to the WP:NMUSIC notable composition guidelines for composers and lyricists. Again, thanks for bearing with me, the new fellow. Riversco (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised that no one has mentioned conflict of interest since the subject of the article is the one editing it, and that user only came onto WP on April 26, presumably in response to the AfD. User also has solicited help [47], which in itself isn't necessarily bad but does increase the conflict of interest appearance. LaMona (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Conflict of interest is of no concern in this discussion, which should center on WP:Notability. I applaud the editors who did not bring up this matter but who attempted to instruct this new editor. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: can we have a more detailed analysis of the purported reliable sourced added after the AFD please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on volume of work listed at AllMusic. The other references are poor at best. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 16 May 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) Esquivalience ^t 23:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Liedtke[edit]

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

Another Zapata founder/Friend Of A Bush, but he seems to be a pretty minor player. It's possible that he is being confused with his brother J. Hugh Liedtke, who has significant notability as a major oil executive. Mangoe (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but both brothers were notable in their own right as oil men. The NYT obituary states "co-founded the Pennzoil Company and helped turn it into one of the nation's largest oil companies". Also had blurb in news related to Watergate scandal. As a friend and oil associate of H.W. Bush, article needs to be monitored for Big Oil conspiracy theories. - Location (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. this article does not meet Wikipedia Notability GuidelinesSamat lib (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obituaries in the New York and Los Angeles Times[48] are pretty convincing GNG, not to mention being the head of Pennzoil. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After three relists I can't see any consensus here on whether the notability guidelines are met. Davewild (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbi Garcia[edit]

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

BLP that has been around for 3 months with no substantive refs. Fails all relevant notability criteria Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of sources on the web. [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56], No reason for deletion. –Davey2010^Talk 01:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure why I !voted Keep and not really sure how I came to post those sources as they're piss poor!, I can't find anything to suggest notability, Sure she's been in a few movies but it's the notability we're judging here not how many movies she's in/been in. –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one reference on this article is a blog post on an individual's blog, so it really should be removed. The gmanetwork links appear to be promotional by the TV company. The Manila Standard articles contain mentions in their entertainment pages, but at least one didn't name her at all. LaMona (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice for recreating if and when she achieves greater recognition. Renata (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gabbi has appeared on the The Ryzza Mae Show as a featured guest, as well as playing a major character on Let the Love Begin. There has been other coverage in papers such as The Daily Tribune. http://www.tribune.net.ph/life-style/summer-shows-sizzle-on-gma-7 Ross-c (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Currently has a major role in InstaDad and presumably in Let the Love Begin (not the one linked above as that was a movie), passing the threshold for WP:NACTOR #1: "Has had significant roles in multiple... television shows." –H T D 16:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per reasoning given by Howard the Duck, subject clearly passes criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR. However, if NACTOR was not a notability guideline, it would be a tough sell IMHO. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, but those sources are primarily GMA News and Philippine Entertainment Portal ( a joint venture between GMA & Summit Media), both with connections to the media company which airs the shows which the subject of this AfD stars in. Therefore, it could be argued that those sources are not independent sources. Either way, cannot support deletion due to NACTOR, and deletion is not a substitution for article improvement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Inother (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 02:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, barely. Right now she's one of GMA Network's bigger artists (which isn't saying much: GMA Network has been struggling in recent years, and generally the fame of their artists is a lot less than those of its main rival ABS-CBN; the only reason I know Garcia is because I do research on that network), and it shows through this search which shows coverage from independent sources such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer. She's also been the lead or otherwise had a major role in several GMA shows, which would also be enough to establish notability. She's only 16? Younger than me? Wow. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let the Love Begin (TV series), of which she's the lead actress, is now airing on its 1st week, so this certainly puts her over the threshold, even though, let's say all of the references are associated with GMA. –H T D 20:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Boardman[edit]

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

Non-notable individual who fails WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was not aware of rule Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASE/N by playing in the National Association Penale52 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by Penale52, he passes WP:BASE/N as he played at least one game in Major League Baseball. Sources are hard to find for 1874, but the SNG creates a presumption of notability that should not be rebutted absent compelling evidence that hard copy newspapers of the era have been searched with no significant coverage having been found. I did find some treatment of Boardman in the 19th century baseball omnibus by the noted baseball historian David Nemec, and have included some of that in the article. Cbl62 (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:GNG supersedes BASE/N, little to no evidence of this article passing GNG has been presented. One brief mention in one book isn't enough. Alex (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you follow other baseball AfDs, you will see that this is a POINTy nom. Alex is sarcastically imitating the 'GNG trumps BASE/N' philosophy that I have been applying to modern-day career minor leaguers. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alex being Alex. Spanneraol (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since he played in a notable major league.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For all of the above reasons. The National Association was the highest professional baseball league a player could achieve from 1871-1875.Neonblak ^talk - 15:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in a major professional sports league. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for historical accuracy, many experts do not consider the National Association a major league. Many consider the dawn of "major league baseball" 1876, when the National League came about. Alex (talk) 18:06, 12 May 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) 07:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Marrion[edit]

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

Non-notable associate head coach at a community college. No significant media coverage, no head coaching experience. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORTS. —C.Fred (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, Clark college is a community college- I assumed by college they meant proper college (e.g. university in UK). Definitely not notable then. There would have been some notability if they were a college coach, but not a junior college coach. Delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not been a head coach at any level. He's an associate head coach for a junior college currently, and previously held some lesser assistant coaching jobs at a few D1 programs. No notable playing career either, as he has absolutely no record at Basketballreference.com, which is quite comprehensive. --Jayron 32 01:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing GNG, the test of notability regardless of subtopic. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of coverage on reliable sources. Elassint ^Hi 03:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable coach who fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant head coach at a community college? Are you kidding me? Not even close to notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant hoax. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bari Suzuki[edit]

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

I have tagged this as a likely hoax but have not nominated this for speedy deletion because there is an IMDb page of this person--though with a bio written by a user of the same name as the one who started this page. Otherwise, most that appears in this article is incredible. It has him debuting with a single at age 9 and having a platinum hit at age 13. It lists some 12 ethnicities, and other facts that stretch the realm of possibility. I can find no record in Japanese of him or his record career (the song that's cited is just Rick Astley's "Never Going to Give You Up"). All that appears in English is the suspect IMDb page and other mostly user generated pages. There are pictures on the net that seem to be of the same person, but again no record of these supposed achievements. What seems to be his Tumblr page [57] says nothing about his Japanese career. Even if this is not a hoax, I don't think there is enough to pass WP:GNG. I'd like other opinions on this. Michitaro (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hoax, an elaborate rickroll. His supposed album, "Akirameru Tsumori Wa Arimasen", is just a translation of "Never Gonna Give You Up". Cckerberos (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. No evidence of any actual third-party coverage or notability on the web outside the self-created IMDB page. --DAJF (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:07, 12 May 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) 07:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeejayDj[edit]

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

This article's factual accuracy is disputed and if not found to be a hoax, it may fail WP:NMG. The Snowager-is awake 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything out there except social media and ads for wedding music services. And everything in the article is either a dead link or a non-reliable source. The ones that are not don't even mention the subject at all. Coupled with the very fancruft promotional language and the fact that this is very essentially an unsourced BLP in the end, I'd say delete. We can't have a bio where we're not even sure if the person exists, nevermind meeting WP:MUSICBIO at least. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax but certainly not notable. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "English Translation of First Citation".

[2] "English Translation for second citation".

[3] "English Translation of third Citation".

[1]

[2]

[3]