Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 May	8 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 Userfy. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egg Returns Home[edit]

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

Not notable. There is no , or not much reliable sources found AdrianGamer (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any sources about it. It does seem like it has just come out, so it can easily be recreated if it gains notability. Elgatodegato (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References on the article are 2 Primaries (steam) and one unreliable (Gaming on Linux allows user generated articles). News comes up with 1 unreliable routine article. Newspaper, books, and jstor, are all empty for this. Per WP:DWD I recommend the content list on List of indie game developers on Wikipedia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to my sandbox. Instead of being deleted, please move it to either User:Anarchyte/Egg so that I can continue to work on it. Anarchyte (talk) 00:58, 9 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) 19:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per user request. Before taking the page live in the future, I'd make sure the article has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) (from a video game reliable sources custom Google search). I'd also ping all of us on the talk page first. czar ⨹ 20:27, 9 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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shunsuke Okubo[edit]

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

Actor in minor roles, mostly in minor movies. Directed short films and web series that are not notable, some of which received awards whose existence is not confirmed by RS or played at unknown festivals. Sources cited are all IMDb or are not independent. Searches of the web in English and Japanese find insufficient RS to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Michitaro (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sourcing is a mix of primary sources, and unreliable sources including IMDB. I am unable to find any significant coverage to establish notability, and the body of work does not give any indication that such coverage would be expected. -- Whpq (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing there in English or Japanese. His Japanese-language article is not tagged for deletion but probably should be, its sources included IMDB and Twitter. Elgatodegato (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:29, 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. Obvious a keep vote from an editor with a paid stake in the existence of the article should be given less weight then disinterested delete votes grounded in policy Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Column Technologies[edit]

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. 1 or 2 good sources, but not sufficiently many. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the paid editor that created this article. Column Technologies is indeed notable for its case management software, which is being used to help countries deal with human trafficking. One reason I believed this company merited notability is because of the recognition it received for its work. At the time I wrote it, I had included a full section explaining what is case management as this page, Case_management, did not explain it nor have any bearing on it. Hence, the "What is Case Management" section that was deleted gave context to the company and its work and thus helped to show its notability. Perhaps we could address this situation on the Talk page versus deleting this article outright. I propose reinstating the deleted section for discussion purposes and then having the article revised based on feedback. Djhuff (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "What is Case Management" section was a general introduction to Case Management, it was not directly linked to the company, and so had little relevance to the article- it should instead be at an article on Case Management. Similarly for the "Timothy Yario" biography in the Company History section- the only relevant facts are those related to the company, and that one fact (the founding date) was using LinkedIn, an unreliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I originally thought so too, but if you read the existing Case Management article and then read up on how Case Management software is being used, they're two totally different things. Which is why I included it in the Column Tech article -- to give context to what the company is doing. Djhuff (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to learn about Case Management, then they'd go to the Case Management article. If they want to learn about Column Technologies, they go to the Column Technologies and don't want it full of things that aren't directly relevant. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. Two types of case management exist and the existing page has absolutely nothing to do with the case management Column Technologies provides -- which is why they're notable. This is why I've proposed not deleting the article and instead, figuring out how best to communicate "what is case management," the section that was deleted. I do believe people should have an understanding of the two different types, yes? Djhuff (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't decide. I did enough editing and trimming-down of this article to have a vested interest, but l will let the WP:Community make the final decision as to whether this outfit is WP:Notable or not. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:56, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing any there there. The sources in the article are all press releases, primary, casual mentions, no mention of the subject at all or broken links. Absent is so much as a single source that would satisfy the GNG, let alone the "significant coverage" the GNG requires. Meets none of the criteria of WP:ORG. Just as well the "case management" stuff was stripped out; that'd be WP:COATRACK. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per NukeThePukes clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:54, 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) 18:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polarion Software[edit]

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

Passing references in sources, therefore not enough notability to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ho[pelessly promotional article on barely notable firm. Essentially all the references are from press releases and mere notices, eg "It has achieved media recognition ... for obtaining venture funding from Siemens Venture Capital. " DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP clearly promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:28, 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. deleteing since the editor has taken a copy. ping me if you need the history Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of human altruism[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY. WP:SYNTHESIS. A similar page created by this user, THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN ALTRUISM, was speedied as A7 in April. Natg 19 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:RHaworth, who speedied the previous version of this page.

Hey guys, this article was an assignment for this class:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ed_Hagen/Anth_562

The author is a graduate student in Anthropology. He is an Ethiopian, and English is a second language. It would be nice if his work could contribute to Wikipedia in some way. None of us are wikipedia experts, to say the least. But we've tried to do things the right way.

Thanks User:Ed_Hagen — Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since it was a student assignment it may be worthwhile to userfy the data if he's still active on here and is interested in trying to clean this up to meet guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy; invite this editor to spend some time working on other articles, so that he can get a feel for what should go into this one. It is a legitimate topic. bd2412 T 14:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a poor article in its current state, but the topic is valid and the text contains enough useful material to form a starting point for a better article. Looie496 (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the article to my sandbox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ed_Hagen/sandbox

The author is editing it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Hagen (talk • contribs) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article, and hope that the sandbox version can be brought to an acceptable state. Maproom (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for improvement, suggest resubmission through Afc or at least peer review. Note: Looking at some of the article drafts listed at the course page, we may run into similar discussions regarding essay-like tones or original synthesis, or at the very least be subject to a substantial amount of redundant content, unless some changes are made. I hope User:Ed Hagen and his students are familiar with the guidelines and expectations of Wikipedia:Student assignments, as collegiate and scholarly writing (e.g. a research paper) does not always align with the policies and guidelines of an encyclopedia, and not all sub-topics may warrant stand-alone articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy (effectively delete since it's been copied to a sandbox already) or Merge to Evolution of morality or Altruism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Mesganaw Andualem: I know it's easy to be discouraged by a nomination for deletion, but try to remember that this doesn't mean you aren't doing good work or that your work isn't welcome here -- it's just a matter of modifying the work to fit with Wikipedia policies. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Ed Hagen: Thanks for including a Wikipedia assignment in your class. Are you familiar with the Wiki Education Foundation? It's a non-profit organization that supports instructors who work with Wikipedia in class. I'll leave a message on your user talk page with some additional information (I work for them, so the message will come from my "official" account, Ryan (Wiki Ed)) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason for deleting it in the current state - it looks relatively acceptable now. It surely needs improvement but it's nothing that can't stay up as a Start-class article. Also I was really astonished how this article apparently didn't already exist up until now (also note that empathy, morality and altruism are all interconnected, yet they shouldn't be lumped together). --Fixuture (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just some further explanation on why I voted for keeping it: I think it's the characteristic of Wikipedia to not bring the burden of an article upon a single person - it's meant to combine the knowledge & skills of many. So if there are too high standards for article-entries they won't get into the mainspace and hence won't get the chance (or at least that chance is way lower) to get improved by others. I think an "under construction"-box (or something alike) on top of the page would be a better solution. --Fixuture (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a solution: if an article has not been edited for 7 days, a bot will remove an under construction tag as "stale", and rightly so. "Under construction" is meant to be temporary, when someone is actively modifying an article. --Randykitty (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was just an example (secondary to my main point). If a box on top of the page is used then maybe there's also another fitting one for it(?). Another suggestion would be to contact the relevant WikiProject (WP:WikiProject Evolutionary biology) (and eventually users that made significant contributions to related articles) and ask them to help out with the article.--Fixuture (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Reads like a school essay, not an encyclopedic article. --Randykitty (talk) 07:09, 11 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) 18:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Walter (Music Executive)[edit]

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

Non-notable person, but speedy tag removed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Joseph2302 (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one refeerence that may justify the removal of the speedy tag is subjects inclusion in a list of 2015 people to watch. Seems like WP:TOOSOON to me. I am also very suspicious of any article with such a large number of freshly-created SPAs defending it.TheLongTone (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. The "one to watch" is interesting but it is a prediction of people who may become notable, not people who are already notable. Elgatodegato (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage as of now, so WP:TOOSOON sounds about right. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Too soon. valereee (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Person in question does appear to have certain activities that may warrant inclusion at this stage. May I suggest a review of the articles contents to make sure it's kept to the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jajjoomonkey (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — Jajjoomonkey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per above (sans one SPA). I reviewed the article. The only award he's gotten (one of 30 under 30) is actually proof that he's merely up and coming, and thus is not yet notable. Producers and managers are almost never notable. In the music industry, 'staff is staff', and are often run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of known JNA fatalities in the 1992 JNA column incident in Tuzla[edit]

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

This is a blatant POV-fork from 1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Tuzla, where an RfC is underway, in which a consensus appears to be forming that this list of names should not be included in the article. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be kept as it shows that there were without doubt +50 deaths suffered by the JNA, amongst numerous other reasons.Citadel48 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, all that is needed for that is a reliably sourced sentence in the parent article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, but there are almost no (if any) reliable & definitive sources that can be trusted. The death on one website will exceed 300, on another it well be less than 50.Citadel48 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - In which case, how can you know this list of names is even right? Just another reason not to have a list of them on WP. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then it should at least be kept for reference, and then, falsifying deaths, etc, is illegal in numerous countries.Citadel48 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you are missing the point. WP isn't for that. Either it can be reliably sourced and is encyclopedic, or it isn't. In my view, this isn't either. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Well there is a rather large list of names, compiled with the incident & laws, I believe it should be kept, as even numerous others have stated it is too large too be included elsewhere.Citadel48 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, per nom and per the result of the many similar AfDs over the years. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 11 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) 18:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withersdane Hall[edit]

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

Some local coverage, but not enough to show notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly notable, but the article was apparently written in connection with the article on the firm that currently operates it, and emphasizes this, rather than the historic aspects. It would need to be redone from scratch by one of the good volunteer editors here who work on UK historic buildings and know how to do it right. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per DGG. No indication the building is notable, as opposed to merely old, the history with Imperial College is minor and the current article is about promoting the current business, not about the building. Some photos here [1] are worth a look, but this article isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wye College, for which it was previously residential accommodation. This paragraph from one of the Pevsner Architectural Guides is, I think, enough to justify a sentence or two there, but it also pretty much contradicts the description of the building as "historic", at least as English people would usually understand the term (although one or two other sources findable on a Google search do suggest that the 1815 house may have been incorporated into, rather than completely replaced by, the hall of residence). The article as it stands seems very much to have been written in the interests (and in part from the publicity materials) of the building's current owner. PWilkinson (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's enough connection with the college for a redirect to be appropriate. We don't redirect from the name of every present or past building. We're not a directory of college buildings, though I will admit it sometimes does appear otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Andy Dingley .The building is old but not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:04, 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. (non-admin closure) GregJackP Boomer! 13:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Hutton Ancker[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet the basic criteria for artists. No major critical works, no permanent collection in major museums. The main source is an obit, but the article omits to give a link or even say what publication. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ran her through a Proquest historic newspaper search (with and without maiden name). Washington Post ran an obit. Articles came up (not a lot, but still) showing that she exhibited in museums. She is in the files (World Cat) of major American museums, I don't even mean that they necessarily own anything she did, only that the have files of material in the research collections. The article appears to have been created by a mourner. I do see why Nom flagged this one. But she does seem to have been an artist of some note in her era.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier in career, while teaching at Cooper Union in the 30s, she was quoted in the papers as an authority on fashion. Of course, most papers form that era are not online. I added WAPo and NYTimes as sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are still a few facts that need references, but recent additions by E.M.Gregory establish notability. (Thanks!) LaMona (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has references that assert notability. --Racklever (talk) 08:10, 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) 18:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CompareXpress[edit]

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

Lots of the sources are either passing mentions, or not in the source. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I mean, it really isn't notable at all in any country but Singapore. Maybe if the article explained its significance... but it does not do that.--Magnus Puer (sermo) 23:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an advert cobbled together from a bombardment of minor mentions, none providing any depth of coverage about this business. Per Wikipedia's five pillars, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, delete this spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the references seem to be focusing on the class of site (comparison sites), not the site itself, which as @5P: is cobbled together to form an [[WP:NOTADVERTISING|advertisement}}Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note the 2nd afd was kept partly on the basis of an opinion of a now blocked sockpuppet. The present article is by a declared paid editor. If the firm is notable, the article needs to be rewritten from scratch by a NPOV editor. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG . While it is a Singapore website and has been there since 2010 could not find any indepth sources about the site itself rather general Price Comparison websites Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm trying to rack on my brain at how the hell I closed the last AFD as Keep ..... Shouldn't of been closed as such .... But anyway Delete as clearly advertising!. –Davey2010^Talk 02:41, 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) 18:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Bring[edit]

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

I can not find any notability for the content of this article which details pure originally researched terminology of the weapons used in a fictional series. KirtZJ (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indépendant notability, long OR list of information that belong on a fansite/wikia and not wikipedia.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, and WP:NOTPLOT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments already made above. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:52, 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) 18:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROMIS Clinics[edit]

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

Some decent sources, but many of the sources are interviews. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly a proper article could be written, but not with such content as "The Promis Clinic in Kent has treated a number of celebrities who have spoken openly about their recovery, including chef Clarissa Dickson Wright[8][9][10] and comedian Marcus Brigstocke.[11] " DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Has this chain of clinics been the subject by Reliable sources on its own? See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_is_inherited. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've searched Factiva and reviewed the cited sources to see whether any directly address the subject as is required to meet WP:CORP but didn't find any that did. Ref 7 was the best, but it's a local paper and discusses the building rather than the company. Everything else is a passing mention. SmartSE (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP and the sources are interviews or passing mention.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:36, 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) 18:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Rights Watch[edit]

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

Only 3 sourced, excluding reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is conceivable that they might be notable, but it can't be determined from the available information--if they are, there should be much more extensive references. This is essential a vanity piece for the participants. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are all reprints of the organizaiton's August 2014 press release [2], duplicated again here and here It's possible they may become notable in the future, but they don't meet WP's notability criteria yet. maclean (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is not notable. Spumuq (talq) 13:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too soon. Not to be confused with the Human Rights Watch. Bearian (talk) 14:21, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wyldsson Elite Nutrition[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP- non-notable company Joseph2302 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of significant in depth coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost A g11. The media attention is promotional nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP lacks indepth coverage and clearly promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:00, 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) 18:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herakut[edit]

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

Only a few passing references to them, not necessarily reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Joseph2302 (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see only minor work, discussed only on local papers. They have no article in the deWP. The books are each in less than 30 libraries. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG . Fails WP:GNG has only passing mentions in local newspapers.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:25, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Meyer[edit]

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

Most of the references are primary sources, or unreliable e.g. Amazon. Therefore this clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually an important writer. See the WorldCat listing at [3]. Works translated into several lanugages. Adequate reviews. The article needs rewriting---too much of it is a summary of the contents. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DGG sums it up perfectly, as this is not the only article that the author has written about a writer that has summaries of the work that are longer than the biography portion of the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:56, 11 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 Withdrawn by nominator, according to WP:SNOW. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Lives of Animals[edit]

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

All the sources are primary sources, fails WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article could use some work and additional sources, but any book written by a Nobel Prize winner is worthy of inclusion here. Ormr2014 | Talk

I disagree, notability is not inherited. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that combined with over 300k search results seems to warrant a good degree of notability. Ormr2014 | Talk

Notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) and saying that there are a lot of hits in a Google search (WP:GHITS) is not an argument for notability either. It's generally pretty hard to argue that someone is notable enough that any of their works would be notable by association. That part of WP:NBOOK was written with the idea that it'd be applied to people like Shakespeare and Poe. Trying to apply that to anyone from modern day is pretty difficult- even Stephen King books don't fall within that part of the guideline and he's probably one of the best known horror authors that ever existed. As far as Ghits go, the problem with that is that someone can have a lot of hits, yet the hits will bring back nothing of value. You'll see this a lot with stuff like websites and businesses where people go out and spam as many outlets as possible in order to have a larger amount of hits. In the same vein, some search terms will bring up a lot of false hits. (This isn't even taking into consideration that different search methods can bring up dramatically different amounts of results.) I'd be surprised if there aren't enough sources out there for this book, but we can't judge notability based on the amount of hits that come back in a search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although if the article is kept then this will absolutely need to be cleaned up to take out all of the original research. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources attesting notability exist: [4], [5]. Article needs work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources. I've added a few. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 14:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn Seems like this was a bad nomination by me. I'm withdrawing the nomination and closing it myself, according to WP:SNOW. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 8 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 Withdrawn by nominator, per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. National Tick Collection[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG- some sources, but not enough to show notability Joseph2302 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If not independently notable, this could be merged to Tick, which presently does not mention the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tick - per User:Northamerica1000 Ormr2014 | Talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The American Entomologist source is reliable and in-depth, but may be too closely associated with the collection to provide notability. The Augusta Chronicle source, This Seattle Times article, and this Smithsonian Science piece, however, are independent and I think enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major international resource and very highly notable. There should be a great number of references in entomological sources. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an esoteric subject, but as a unique scholarly collection we should have an article about it. SmartSE (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn Let's not waste any more time debating, per WP:SNOW, I'm withdrawing nomination/it's being kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:54, 11 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 Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Hecht[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Joseph2302 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily notable author. Simon & Schuster profile: "Julie Hecht’s fiction has appeared in The New Yorker and Harper’s, and her books have received spectacular reviews from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, Time, and many other publications. All of the author’s books have been named New York Times Notable Books." I would assume Simon & Schuster is not fabricating this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend keeping based on things posted in the publisher's page. The reason for this is because I've seen several instances where outlets have taken quotes out of context to make them appear like they're reviews. You see this more with independently published books and films, but it can happen sometimes with mainstream publishers as well. I remember one time I found an article where someone tried to quote a website that was just reprinting a press release. Basically, because there are companies and people who have abused the whole quote thing, we have to be able to verify the coverage. It's a moot point in this instance since I'm finding coverage for the author, but I wanted to write this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found quite a bit of coverage for her works, enough to where they would pass WP:NBOOK. I've compiled sources for the books in the bibliography section so if anyone is interested then they can feel free to create them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created them. Offhand I can see where there aren't a whole lot of non-review articles out there about her- she's purposely refrained from doing interviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Covered by a scholarly article, fairly major publications. It's a pity a volunteer didn't do this properly in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough has been said. And although I do see that the page was not persuasive when User:Joseph2302 happened on it, he might now consider withdrawing this AFD so that overtaxed editors can focus on moot cases.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Request withdrawn As long as people are willing to improve it, I'm happy to close this. Will do the official AfD close thing in a minute. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 8 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 G5 –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeenay Ki Saza[edit]

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

Film with questionable notability-the refs I'm finding on google seem to go to user generated sites (or to a film from 1991) (Also I swear this page was deleted already) Wgolf (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per your musing, yes, Ponyo deleted this article on April 15th. Per WP:BEFORE due diligence, I don't see anything at Google Books or Google News and I don't know of another way to adequately establish the notability of the film, other than to learn Urdu. From what I've been able to dig up, Maula Jatt was Sultan Rahi's biggest hit. It's possible that significant coverage exists in other non-English resources, but the user hasn't provided them. It's also possible the title is translated differently from other sources, and I've tried searching Google Books with "'Sultan Rahi' Saza" on the off-chance that I'd catch a reference. Impossible to tell. Since this article was originally created by an unrepentant sock operator, I would've probably just nommed for CSD under {{Db-g5}}, as long as I had my SPI report squared away first, but I don't know if we're past that or not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that the article doesn't attempt in any way to meet WP:NOTFILM and the lack of references doesn't make it easy to verify notability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 9 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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Yi[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable television personality and starlet. Based almost exclusively on non-RS, self-linked sources, such as: Official Natasha Yi's website, Natasha Yi's Secondary website and Natasha Yi on Myspace Quis separabit? 21:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG for BIO. Seems she has many fans (she also has articles in the Finnish and Arabic Wiki), but she only has trivial mentions in news articles. Elgatodegato (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A ton of hits so clearly an entertainer with a fan base. But no hits from reliable sources. valereee (talk) 15:18, 11 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) 18:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Girl (Willy Moon song)[edit]

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

There is essentially no information other than the complete basics. There is no notability claim whatsoever, other than it being recorded by Willy Moon, but it does not inherit his notability. --Magnus Puer (sermo) 20:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined the speedy (A9 did not apply as the artist in question does have an article here, and A1 was not correct as enough context existed to make sense of it.) That being said, not notable enough for its own article. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Here's Willy Moon per WP:NSONG. No reason for a standalone article. Random86 (talk) 21:58, 11 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 and redirect to My-HiME. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My-HiME Project[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability and WP:OR this article appears to be an attempt to compare the two different anime/manga series My-HiME and My-Otome. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content is unencyclopedic, appears to be WP:OR, and does not assert notability, Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I think that a franchise consisting of multiple notable parts is clearly a notable franchise, and that we should probably have an article on the franchise as a whole, or at least a list article covering all the pieces of the franchise. I don't think the franchise fails WP:N as there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources of the various parts of the franchise, and also at least some coverage of the franchise as a whole (e.g., [6]). It is also wrong to describe My-HiME and My-Otome as "two different anime/manga series", as they are clearly pieces of the same franchise. On the other hand though, this article is nearly incomprehensible and almost entirely WP:OR. The content actually in the article seems unusable, so I guess you can take this as a vote to delete per WP:TNT, but with a statement that I think a different article should be written on the franchise with entirely different content. Calathan (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think though that the franchise info would better help the individual articles as it is out of universe info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with TNT per Calathan. The article is a mess, being nothing more than a bunch of unsourced trivia, even containing original research. A new article should be made for the franchise from scratch. That, or some of the information in this page (whatever can be used) could be merged to My-HiME, which is considered to be the original work. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvageable into My-HiME and My-Otome, and then redirect to My-HiME. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:56, 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) 18:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nemanja Majdov[edit]

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

Non-notable judoka. He has never competed at a major tournament except as a junior, which has never been enough to show notability. Receiving some junior awards, and the coverage of that, has the same problem. He is currently ranked 102 in the world in his division [7]. He may become notable, but right now he doesn't have the coverage or accomplishments.Mdtemp (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Clearly non-notable judo competitor.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not the primary focus on any of the sources cited, lacking verifiable notability. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winning a silver medal at the Youth Olympic Games and a gold medal at the Junior European Championships establishes requirements for sport notability. Quite a few sources in Serbian; just needs rewrite. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youth championships and awards have never been considered sufficient to show notability. Competing against "some big names" would imply inherited notability, which is not WP policy. He's not competed at a major event as an adult and is not currently even ranked in the top 100 of his division. At best, this falls under WP:TOOSOON. I'd say he fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Youth Olympic Games is run by the International Olympic Committee every four years. It is not a typical junior event. Additionally, there are sources in Serbian that support notability, including being named Athlete of the Year in Serbia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criteria for athletes requires them to compete at the highest level, which a junior competition is not. Gold medal winners from the youth olympics have been deleted before, and not just in martial arts. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zheng Saisai for a tennis example. He wasn't the "Athlete of the year", he was the "most successful Serbian youth athlete of the year"--there's a big difference. Novak Djoković won the award for adult males. Papaursa (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Junior titles do not support notability claims. Recreate when/if he makes the real Olympics. Coverage is not enough for GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:31, 11 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) 18:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Mohammad Adam Khan XIX[edit]

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

Something about this seems off-says he was born in 1990 yet is a general? Sounds like a hoax article if you ask me. Wgolf (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the creators talk page-he has created this over and over again. Wgolf (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references whatsoever and it's a very sloppy article (template at bottom seems to belong to someone else; it's doubtful he was governor of Punjab at age 2). I don't think it is actually a hoax, but it's far-fetched so much content could be created without a single source (in any language). The age is plausible; it doesn't claim he's a general but a "feudal lord" (which to me implies this is an inherited rather than achieved title). Other articles created by this same user should be examined for a similar pattern. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references as already stated. Additionally, reads like a family tree (e.g. says is related to x a handful of times). Not encyclopedic, and not notable without some strong verifiable references. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Not encyclopedic and not notable, Fails GNG anyway .–Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. --TL22 (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Water Brass Band[edit]

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

I have nominated the article Dirty Water Brass Band for Speedy Deletion three separate times, on the grounds that it is about a small street band with no real significance, written by an individual with a direct connection to the band, which also constitutes as promotional. The first two times, the tag was removed by someone using a proxy IP address (I'm assuming the article's author) and the third time by someone who asserted the addition of references constituted notability.

References alone are not sufficient to make an article encyclopedic in nature and simply including a bunch of references should not be construed as establishing significance or notability.

I was instructed to use AFD to nominate this article. I don't have much experience with this, but this is my attempt to do so. Ormr2014 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note No one [who declined the CSD] asserted that the source constituted notability. WP:A7 was declined by several editors because if any attempt at a claim of notability is made, such as the inclusion of a few reliable sources, then the article cannot be speedily deleted. This is an instance regarding ineligibility for speedy deletion over not whether notability was established. Mkdw ^talk 19:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: My apology. I misread the note when the SD was removed. Ormr2014 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No probkem Ormr2014. It's here at AFD where it belongs. Just wanted to clarify the details for anyone reviewing the timeline. Mkdw ^talk 19:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HONK!, the festival which they play at. The scope of references suggests this is all we could note them for. I removed the WP:G7 tag that the creator placed there just now, since it's being discussed here. Ivanvector (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to HONK!: I passed it over for speedy deletion because they asserted notabliity in the article itself. I did review the references, and most of them mention the band in passing with respect to some festival in which they played. The festival seemed to feature many bands, and they were not the primary/central performer in that festival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislk02 (talk • contribs)
Delete - I initially thought a redirect might work, but reading the comments below, I no longer do... Ormr2014 | Talk
Delete as promotional, notability not sufficiently asserted, do not redirect to HONK. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the references are about the Honk festival, with only at best a passing mention of the band, meaning the article fails even the most basic requirements for establishing notability. Thomas.W ^talk 18:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do NOT leave a redirect. Insufficient coverage to establish notability about the band, which is mentioned in passing with relationship to to different festivals (HONK and PorchFest). Insufficient connection to either of those to justify a redirect being left from here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HONK!#HONK.21_2010. The Honk! article is a not a list article, so there is no requirement that a band mentioned as having played at it be notable (any more that it is a requirement that all songs listed in an notable album's article be notable themselves). WP:CHEAP, and also a reasonable search-term. Pax 21:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pax - question: if a redirect, why to Honk? The article has brief mentions of the band playing two different festivals - both Porchfest and HONK!. The band does not appear to have any direct affiliation to either, just happens to have played at both. Granted HONK! is the larger of the two - is that the reason for choosing one over the other as a redirect target? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to satisfy WP:BAND. That being said, I do not think HONK! is an appropriate redirect. It's a festival they play at regularly but aside from that there doesn't appear to be a strong association. It also sets a precedence I'm not keen on where festivals can create a great many redirects as long as they've had that [band] as part of their programming in a year. Mkdw ^talk 03:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leaning towards no redirect; if the article is indeed an attempt at self-promotion, the guidelines at [{WP:REDIRECT]] would suggest that none is required. On the other hand, if the name of the band is actually a likely search term, then perhaps it may be useful. The article itself fails GNG; I cannot see any significant RS coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 9 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 currently fails the notability guidelines Davewild (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Javi du art[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Duarte has been the subject of some local coverage for having exhibited at a local art festival. But the coverage is all local; nothing beyond his hometown of Palm Beach or his college newspaper. Duarte may become a well-known artist, but not yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I pulled the speedy off, I thought he was the youngest at any Art Palm Beach, which was enough- youngest at 2015 Art Palm Beach isn't so good. Falls under WP:TOOSOON I feel. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Even though coverage is local, artist was the primary subject in at least one of the articles (e.g. not mentioned in passing with the art festival as the primary focus, etc). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, guys. Art Palm Beach is not a 'local art show' as you suggest. Simply because the show is located in du art's hometown it does not equate to a small, local show. As I have stated previously, the show exhibits galleries from around the world ranging from Los Angeles, New York, Berlin, London and Hong Kong, among others. He is in fact the youngest artist in the 18 years that Art Palm Beach has been showing. The media has unfortunately misinformed the audience about his accomplishments. I have emailed Jan Engoren, the writer from the Sun Sentinel, to revise the article so the quotation by Rolando Chang Barrero is corrected. I will come back to this post with the link to the updated article as soon as I have a response. Thank you.

Jonnyplaxo (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not the comment is corrected, the significance of the Art Palm Beach show is not established by any reliable sources so du art's showing there has no verifiable significance. The fact that the show exhibits galleries around the world may simply mean that galleries around the world wish to sell their art to the well-heeled Palm Beach residents. But there is no indication that this show has any particular standard for accepting any particular art. It may well, but we have no way of knowing without a reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even the Sun Sentinel ref headlines with the fact that he has only just sold his first piece of art - dated 2015 and presumably from other clues, that is April 2015 - not yet a month old! Sorry but this is way too soon Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan, I say this with all due respect, but your unknown assumptions toward events that do not have an internet presence is quite skewed, particularly on Wikipedia, which relies solely on factual information. At first, you were saying that javi du art was "not notable enough", after I mentioned that the reliable source would be corrected you attempted to find another method of disallowing for the article to be published. Last year, Art Palm Beach had a film screening of Ai Weiwei’s "Pull of the Moon". Perhaps one of the most renown Asian artists in contemporary art. http://artpalmbeach.com/fair_events/ Please also note that there were countless works by Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, Andy Warhol among many others. http://artpalmbeach.com/modern-masters-at-apb/

Leonardo DiCaprio and Larry Gagosian were also seen at the event. So please understand that this is an event with utmost significance.

Jonnyplaxo (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may also add that as an official dealer and representative of du art, his work was collected by a New York collector - who chooses to remain private - at his "Prodigy and A Master" exhibition on April 23rd, 2015. After this event, there are multiple collectors who are seeking to purchase more of his work. Yes, he is emerging, but he has already accomplished an incredible feat. His accomplishments should be allowed to be shared freely with others. Jonnyplaxo (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue at hand here is wikipedia had notability guidelines. There are many MANY artists that fall below this threshold, and this artist is admittedly new the scene compared to most of the artists that have articles here on Wikipedia (why wikidan cited WP:TOOSOON I suspect). At the end of the day, we need a reliable source to back up notability claims, we are an encyclopedia, not an modern date art collector. Do you have any good references in news papers, interviews, articles, websites, anything that we can use as a citation? That would go a LONG ways. If you have something like that, I would even be willing to try and help clean the article up a bit. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 00:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jonnyplaxo: As an "official dealer and representative of du art" you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Your purpose in creating this article (presumably to promote your client) does not mesh with Wikipedia's purpose of presenting a neutral presentation of notable and verifiable facts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing, WakiDan, you continue to assume without any preconceived and concrete facts. It is evident that these posts illustrate that your 'power' to add and delete articles with ease has overtaken you. I'll just have to wait a few more weeks, no big deal. Please learn from Chrislk02's response on how to properly approach someone online using a neutral point of view rather than being quick to dash out and offend (which i was just a tiny bit) others online.

i just have one question, how does the artist Kadar Brock have a wikipeadia article? I find this quite saddening.

98.211.135.110 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jonnyplaxo: @98.211.135.110: I presume the IP edit reflect a failure to login. The thing is, we don't create Wikipedia article before the sources are available. We wait until the sources are available and then we write the article based on those sources. Since there are no reliable sources for this artist, there is no basis for an article. And for the record, I have no "power" to delete article with ease. I have brought this article to AFD so the community can decide. I'll stand by whatever decision the community comes to. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Jonnyplaxo: P.S. The existence of other bad articles is a bad argument for the retention of this article. But thanks for pointing that article out. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls some way short of notability. Exhibiting at this fair does not go far, nor a news story centred on his age not his art. Creator seems to have WP:COI issues on his own admission. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update The article has been corrected to reflect du art’s accomplishments, the author has apologized for the error. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boynton-beach/fl-bbf-bbad-0506-20150506-story.html

Now, the issue stands with the lack of credibility of Art Palm Beach. Please take a look at the following state and national publications that relate to and praise the fair’s rapid growth. This article by ArtPrice states the attendance record of approximately 28,000 people from around the world who attended in 2012. http://www.artprice.com/events/74077/ArtPalmBeach

In addition, please note the following articles and publications:

ArtForbes http://www.artforbes.com/art-fairsagenda.html
Art&Culture http://104.131.55.21/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/artcultureapb.pdf
MetroCitizen http://www.metrocitizen.net/art-palm-beach-2013/
EYES IN Magazine http://www.eyesin.com/article/art-design/photography/artpalmbeach-featuring-artists-like-drew-tal/
Highlights a gallery exhibiting work by the Lino Tagliapietra, one of the world’s most accomplished glass artist. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/entertainment/artpalmbeach-2013-a-contemporary-showcase/nT2H9/

These are just a few well-established online platforms that exemplify the notability of Art Palm Beach.

I will gladly take the time to update Art Palm Beach to take note of it’s actual credibility. I agree 100% that its Wikipedia Article does not appear to be enough to support the artist’s claim that this is indeed a notable accomplishment. I will gladly contribute to the article to justify.

Thank you

Jonnyplaxo (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jonnyplaxo: This discussion isn't actually about the notability of Art Palm Beach, it's about the notability of javi du art, and nothing has yet been proposed to change that. No coverage of du art in any reliable sources. However, since du art's exhibiting at Art Palm Beach is being used as an argument for his supposed notability, I have to say that none of the sources provided by Jonnyplaxo really bolster the notability of that show. They are all basically event notices: the show exists, and it takes place in Palm Beach. They don't argue for the show's notability, and they don't argue for du art's notability for having exhibited in it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @WikiDan61: Initially you were questioning the artist's notability. As a result, I stated that the Sun-Sentinel's author would correct the article so it expresses the correct information. After this, you questioned Art Palm Beach's notability. I then sent the updated article which clearly states a remarkable feat by the young artist, along with reputable local and national sources that state the caliber of the international fair. Now you are regressing to what you previously stated, questioning the artist's notability. After I have responded to your valid arguments with credible sources, there still seems to be hesitation. You continue to go back and forth with your statements that I have lost your reason for justification for the deletion of this article. I will await other's responses.

Jonnyplaxo (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jonnyplaxo: No, I haven't "gone back and forth". The point of the discussion at hand is whether javi du art is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. There are very clear guidelines as to what should be covered (see WP:ARTIST, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG). du art meets none of these criteria. Artist might be notable if they have exhibited at a major show (something like the Vienna Biennale). So, since du art has exhibited at Art Palm Beach, we need to evaluate whether that is a major show on the order of the Vienna Biennale. The sources provided do not indicate that it is such. So we are left with an artist who doesn't meet the criteria, because the one show he has exhibited at does not meet the criteria. Done and done. I've said enough at this point. I'll leave the discussion to others. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @WikiDan61: There is clearly a great deal of perplexity from your part. Simply read this article. http://www.artnews.com/2015/03/25/heres-the-artist-list-for-the-first-vienna-biennale/ There is zero comparison between the Vienna Biennale and Art Palm Beach: 1 year versus 18 years. I need not say more.

Please read my comment where it states the national sources that indicate Art Palm Beach's caliber. Need not reply. Thank you.

Jonnyplaxo (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonnyplaxy: I misspoke myself: I meant the Venice Biennale. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A textbook case of WP:TOOSOON and trying to build notability with a Wikipedia article. This does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. If and when multiple, non-trivial sources become available the article can be recreated. It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to introduce an artist. freshacconci talk to me 16:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Freshacconci: The artist's intention is not to build notability through Wikipedia. If he had not accomplished anything then I'd agree with your statement. At his young age, it is easy to misinterpret the reasoning for his inclusion on Wikipedia. I have illustrated multiple sources that mention both Art Palm Beach and du art's notability. Wikipedia is certainly not introducing the artist, he has won multiple state and national merit-based awards but unfortunately most art-oriented organizations do not have an online presence. He received a full-tuition scholarship from The Caridad Center http://www.caridad.org/education/ and an additional grand-prize award for artist merit from http://CreateRealimpact.com

It is evident that the artist's participation in this significant exhibition suffices Wikipedia's guidelines for the inclusion of the article. Thank you

Jonnyplaxo (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you have not understood Wikipedia's guidelines. Winning scholarships is wonderful for a student but does not make one notable. None of the awards mentioned are major awards and the sources given are not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Exhibiting at Art Palm Beach is not in itself notable as it is not curated but rather pay-to-display (the application process does not include selection criteria but rather just a deposit). It is likely that in a few years an article can be written but per WP:CRYSTALBALL we can't write articles based on possible future notability. freshacconci talk to me 16:52, 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 No consensus, evenly based arguments between keep and redirect (non-admin closure). GregJackP Boomer! 14:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4086 Podalirius[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but I wasn't confident enough to unilateraly redirect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000 without input as this is a controversial area. It has been in CAT:NN for over 3 years, so hopefully we can now get it resolved, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was hoping you would respect my request to ignore asteroids more than 50km in diameter during your crusade. -- Kheider (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The information in the article is of a very limited scope (was used for an astronomical measurement in 1994?). This belongs in a literature review for a scientists work, not an encyclopedia. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Redirect per WP:DWMP: it's a Trojan, but the two available scholarly references appear to be group studies. Praemonitus (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @90km in diameter, it is one of the fifty largest Jupiter Trojans and the article content has been edited by a human since the ClueBot II created it. -- Kheider (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. If forced to make a decision I would probably go for a redirect on this one, just because there is so little source material, but as a particularly large Trojan I think it should be notable even if it actually isn't, and the fact that this is also not purely a bot-created article is also in its favor. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It makes sense to delete articles for small main-belt asteroids, but for a Jupiter Trojan, 90 kilometers large no less, and with a known rotation period and albedo, it certainly would pass WP:NASTRO. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:46, 11 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) 18:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hobby Products International[edit]

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

A business that does business in its little field. It exists, but is it _notable_? No real indication of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Speedy? is a listing of products/things a company sells, that is written like an advertisement/company bio. Several other things that raise red flags (and may make it speedy worthy) are lines like " Buoyed by the success of the <product>, HPI opened a small office in Japan that same year." and "One of HPI's perennial favorites was introduced in 1989...". Additionally, notability is not obvious, with most references being to notable people who used their products at some point. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply a product catalog. I can't find other sources. Note that this seems to be one of many such company pages that are all linked from "hobby" topics like Radio-controlled_car. Taken together they may present a coherent whole, but most of the company pages are marked as needing citations. LaMona (talk) 04:24, 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 Deleted as A7, no assertion of notability Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Redditch[edit]

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

Non-notable non-broadcasting radio station. uhhlive (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Spectacularly non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and doesn't even claim to be. —HaRvEyWaRbUrN^TaLk 13:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SNOW. Maproom (talk) 18:33, 7 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) 18:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pasan chandrasekara[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Rationale for the prod was that this was a non-notable individual. I agree with this assessment. I have been unable to find any reliable sources. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references point to own site. Reads like a resume, with "list of associations" Not encyclopedic, and notability (based on links to own site) is from recognition by small local/regional groups. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is clearly a non-notable individual (possibly self promotion). I placed the original Prod notice however it was removed several times over the preceding week by anon editor without any changes to the article being made. Dan arndt (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 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 G11 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulties of translation field[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedic article, but a personal essay. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not an encyclopaedia article, but a leader for the article creator's eponymous translation services company. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete When the first line reads "In this day and age with advanced Internet technology and accessible educational materials every person who desires to learn a foreign language can do it without problems....". Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:29, 7 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) 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Carraway[edit]

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

Non notable retired minor league baseball player. Spanneraol (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable career minor leaguer. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not listed at 2009 Major League Baseball Draft#Other players to reach MLB, with majority of content about high school, college, and minor league play. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Retired baseball player who never made it to the majors. Failed WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NBASEBALL. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:06, 11 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) 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Davydov[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable fringe/crackpot writer, full of self-published works and utter nonsense which has apparently not gained traction sufficient to make him a notable fringe writer. So: both shameless advertisement AND non-notable BLP. Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was thinking of nominating this myself, for the reasons above. Clearly WP:PROMO, and most references are to his own books, which are primary sources. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article on a promoter of fringe theories that lacks the quality of sources we require for fringe theorist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it's true he was granted political asylum because of persecution from the FSB that would general signal notability, but this is highly dubious/silly. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - extraordinary claims require especially solid sourcing; no sign of anything of the sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike: Wholly agree; sounds bogus. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FRINGE subjects need in-depth mainstream sources to provide a suitably neutral view of them, and no such sources are in evidence here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am suspicious that everything in English in his list of works seems to be published by HPA Press. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 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) 18:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Cotterell[edit]

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

Not a notable author. He may be published under a Simon and Schuster banner, but pages and pages of Google hits have not yet delivered anything reliable (or even halfway decent) on the subject or his works. In other words, fails the GNG and AUTHOR. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I was able to find nothing about this author beyond his own promotional material and related pages on fringe content. Paul B (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, there's no evidence to support any degree of note per WP:AUTHOR, and indeed far too little in the way of WP:RS for a BLP. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question He is described on the Simon and Schuster site as a "bestselling author" - isn't that title (and I have no idea what it actually means) inherently notable? Regardless of how I feel about the author, wouldn't that automatically confer some notability? (Personally, as the author has publicly supported the idea that the twin towers were felled by a "secret energy weapon" deployed by the government on 9/11... Well, 'nuff said there) Scr★pIron^IV 15:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bestselling" is an ambiguous term, since it doesn't give any sense of scope. "New York Times bestseller" would indicate notability, because it means the author's work has been ranked by the NYT, but somebody who sold the only book sold at an event could arguably call himself best-selling. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what of The Sunday Times? That is apparently where the claim lies, but I do not know of the paper's notability, as I am unfamiliar with UK publications. Scr★pIron^IV 15:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "best-selling author" is likely notable, but if no sources proving such best-selling can be found it's a hollow claim. Note that the article says "His books on Science, Spirituality and Archaeology were published in a series of Sunday Times top-ten bestsellers"--that's not the same as "His books on Science, Spirituality and Archaeology were Sunday Times top-ten bestsellers". In fact, the phrase is so cryptic that it may not mean anything at all. Also, JFK was an inside job. One more thing: if you want a copy of The Lonely Prius, my daughter's best-selling graphic novel, drop me a line. We do "Written on Demand" at my (publishing) house. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt come much more notable - as a newspaper. It's the Sunday wersion of the Times of London, but it's also become rather famous for being a somewhat baggy and populist title. However, the real issue is that we are not given any context for this. It may simply mean that he had a book that was published as part of a series one of which was in a top-ten list in a sub-category of 'conspiracy literature' or something. Paul B (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Paul B., how many copies of The Lonely Prius do you need? Drmies (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. It was channelled to me by the Mahatamas. Paul B (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How I personally view the author can not be written here, for fear of violating WP:BLP or some such. I have been unable to locate a source for the "best-selling" claim, apart from a reference to his co-author's biography on gutenberg.org.[8] Without having access to the actual Sunday Times best seller list, I would agree that without a source it is a hollow claim. I gladly support with a vote to delete. If someone presents a source, or provides indication that he is notable, then I would reconsider. One can be notable for having fringe viewpoints, I guess. Scr★pIron^IV 16:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I have been unable to find any third-party WP:RS write-up about the author that could support notability under WP:AUTHOR. The only borderline claim of notability is "Sunday Times top-ten bestsellers", but the only evidence I can find to verify these claims are the author's own website or advert listings for the books - the lack of verifiability is compounded by the few self-published claims not specifying which Sunday Times, further reducing the value towards meeting notability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I doubt this is going to change anyone's mind, but for the record, HighBeam Research produces three more articles from that renowned scientific publication, the Daily Mail. The titles, for your edification: "God-Man With Golden Touch", 16 February 2001; "Solved: The Warrior's Code, 24 January 2003; "666; According to Legend, Tomorrow Is the Day of the Devil - and Will Trigger the End of the World. Superstitious Hokum? Hollywood Hype? or Should We Really Prepare for the Worst", 5 June 2006. (There's an older Daily Mail piece already listed in the article as a references, sans link.) A GBooks search also suggests that his name pops up as a reference in a variety of what look to be other similarly fringey publications; nothing that looked on its face like a reliable source, though. An author can certainly be notable for his fringe views, but I haven't found any particularly compelling evidence of that here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Daily FMail is considered notable in these parts.--ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh I smell expatriate ressentiment... But yeah, while it's notable, it's not reliable, and don't let John hear that it was mentioned. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I was referring to Wikipedia, not to the USA. I have never cared for the DM even before I moved to the US or became active on Wikipedia. I am a Times man myself.--ukexpat (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Claims to be notable but all sources are primary. —HaRvEyWaRbUrN^TaLk 13:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:AUTHOR, pure and simple. Miniapolis 23:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need reviews in more reliable sources than the Daily Mail to pass WP:AUTHOR, and if they exist they haven't been found here or added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Daily Mail is simply not reliable enough to prove notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 9 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge[edit]

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

Non-notable book; all sourcing is self-published and primary sources. Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and probably move to "Project Management Body of Knowledge". I'm surprised actually. I went to the article expecting it to be about just some random textbook, but it's not. The PMBOK, as it is called, is to project managers, what the accounting standards codification, i.e. set of GAAP accounting rules, are to an accountant or financial analyst. It is the compendium of all "knowledge" accepted by the Project Management Institute (PMI), and is the basis for testing for PMI's certifications. Should it be part of the PMI article? Actually no, I looked, it is appropriate to split this out. But, the focus and the title should be modified slightly to clarify this is about the PMBOK (which links there), not the 5th edition printed book. Note, much/most of the article is narrated as if the article is about the body of knowledge, not about the guidebook to it. Like, there are many editions and collections of GAAP rules, too, and each publication doesn't get a separate article. So it should be moved, IMHO. I don't think this needs a lot of eyeballs reviewing it, either. Orangemike, since no one else has commented, if you agree you could speedily close this AFD and make the move. --do ncr

am 22:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "Project Management Body of Knowledge" per User:doncram. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. See also WorldCat. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to "Project Management Body of Knowledge", for the exact reasons above. Clearly notable, but the title is currently too long. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:20, 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) 18:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Jane Brown[edit]

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

Brown has written and self-published on Amazon a single book, and then published a ton of press releases about said book. Because examiner(dot)com is blacklisted as a Wikipedia source, references to that site have been rewritten as "examine(dot)com". But they're also just more unreliable "reviews" (really ads) for this book. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the above reasons. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Notable per coverage. SarahKrauch (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that the Reuters links (all 3 of them) are copies of the same PR Newswire press release, with the fine print saying "* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." I didn't realize that Reuters did this, so note-to-self to check Reuters links carefully in the future. LaMona (talk) 04:34, 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. There is a rough consensus to delete. However, should any editor at any time want a copy of this article should he become notable, or if anyone wants to incubate it in their userspace, I would be more than happy to oblige, just let me know. Thanks. Go Phightins! 00:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bianucci[edit]

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

Career minor leaguer who is unlikely to ever make it to the bigs. I don't think there's any reason to even merge this to the Royals minor league players page. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another middling career minor leaguer created by Alex for who knows what reason.... Spanneraol (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YOLO Alex (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. None of those sources provided are close to pass.--Yankees10 16:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Kansas City Royals minor league players. He's hitting like .356 right now. If he doesn't make the majors at some point, I'll probably leave Wikipedia forever and ever. Alex (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a promise, Alex? Spanneraol (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He may be hitting .356, but he's doing it at AA. He's also almost 29 years old. His odds aren't as great as you think they are, Alex. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just wait! Alex (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where's the harm in redirecting to the minor league page? If he gets called up, the article can be recreated. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sets a bad precedent. We don't want the minor league players pages to get too large and if we always merge/redirect for every minor leaguer who is not a free agent, the pages will get too long. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:13, 8 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. Fails GNG and the onus is on the keep voter to provide a consensus that Ambassadors are inherently notable (hint, there is no such consensus) Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Adamson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Marked for notability concerns 2 years ago. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. The sources merely confirm she held roles. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see nothing in WP:GNG to state that "Ambassadors are not inherently notable." An ambassadorship is clear evidence of notability. Seriously, we keep articles on football players who played one season of professional sports in 1987. An ambassador, particularly where there are multiple third-party sources, is clearly notable. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ambassadors are not inherently notable , several have been deleted. Your !vote demonstrates no explanation how WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I see NOTHING in either WP:GNG or WP:BIO that discusses notability of ambassadors. If you have an actual guideline you are working from, then please point it out here. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if an ambassador is clear evidence of notability that would be listed in WP:BIO which it isn't, many occupations get inherent notability but ambassadors are not mentioned. Please point out a notability guideline which gives ambassadors inherent notability and I'll withdraw these AfD. Ambassador articles have been deleted which shows community consensus that ambassador are not inherently notable, now please demonstrate how this person actually meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the burden is on you to prove that there IS a guideline. In the meantime, how many ambassador articles HAVE been deleted? List them. Seriously. Community consensus can be wrong. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

similarly I could argue all police sargents are notable. There is no guideline which says that but using your logic the fact it isn't stated gives it inherent notability. Community consensus can be wrong? sorry that's how WP works. Here's a list of some that have been deleted User:LibStar#Apparently_some_people_still_think_ambassadors_are_inherently_notable.3F. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are using a false equivalency. Looks to me like you are just on your own little one-person crusade here. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please point out the guideline that says ambassadors are inherently notable, I'm still waiting. LibStar (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

one person crusade? No one can unilaterally delete articles, we use consensus, not your laughable "community consensus can be wrong", if that was true WP wouldn't exist as it does today. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if someone is arguing inherent notability, the burden is on them to point out the relevant guideline, if you can't then your inherent notability argument is Void. We have inherent notability for state and federal politicians, Olympians and so on but nothing for ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how ambassadors are inherently notable; whilst in some countries they are often political appointees, in others they are usually just civil servants. Regarding the discussion above between LibStar and Montanabw, I do have to say that the burden is on Montanabw to provide positive evidence that ambassadors are inherently notable, rather than just claiming that there's nothing saying they aren't. Number 5 7 09:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to List of Australian Ambassadors to Poland per advice in WP:DIPLOMAT. Ambassadors have no inherent notability. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability, WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. Sources merely confirm appointment and are press releases or simple announcements. Subject seems to have had a mostly undistinguished career. Possibly there is more coverage in the Polish press and I would reconsider my !vote if non-trivial coverage can be found there.
Per request from Montanabw the following Ambassadors, who I know of, have been deleted at AfD in the last month Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Patrick Murphy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Lulashnyk and one is on the fence, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Vashchuk, because he has some good coverage in host country press but even in that case there is a question because much if it relates to coverage of the position rather than him. Jbh ^Talk 11:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Changed !vote to Redirect. Jbh ^Talk 20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment: I see a systemic bias problem here, most of the articles that were on that list were either women or people from small nations. Why the vendetta against such articles when half the characters at Pokemon have articles and many very insignificant sports figures. An ambassadorship is pretty notable. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

now you're trying the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, yet you refuse to admit that. The 2 other !voters here I don't think I've interacted with before and have told you the same. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ermmm.. Of the most recent four, three are male and all are from Canada or Australia I believe. Just because we have atrociously low notability criteria for some things does not mean we should make even more low notability standards. Instead we should be working to raise notability criteria across the board. Since no one has brought it up here you might want to see WP:DIPLOMAT for the current consensus based on discussion at Wikiproject:International Relations and Notibility (People). Jbh ^Talk 20:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One I forgot. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Smart who is a male Ambassador from the UK. There are thousands and thousands of current and former Ambassadors and the composition of the world means most of them are going to be Ambassadors from or to small nations so I see no real indication of systemic bias. Jbh ^Talk 21:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that small and third world nations are unimportant? There's a white, Eurocentric bias right there! More to the point, they are head of mission, which was one GNG criteria discussed in a long debate that had little clear consensus. I read the discussion as being heavily dominated by the same people as here, it was not at the project page, it was at the GNG talk, and frankly, we are taking up more bandwidth jawing about this than the article will ever take. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and you still can't point to the notability guideline which gives inherent notability to ambassadors, perhaps in your next reply you can recycle some OTHERSTUFFEXISTS pokemon character argument or just try to overturn consensus and say community consensus is wrong and you must be unilaterally right in this instance. LibStar (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not pointed to anything other than your own statements elsewhere that say they are not. This is a ridiculous argument. I see no community consensus for wholesale deletion of Ambassador articles, to the contrary, I see some good arguments that Ambasssadors, as "head of diplomatic mission," are in fact notable. I believe the individual trying to be unilaterally right on this is you, as this appears to be mostly your personal crusade. So let's move on. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I am saying nothing of the sort. What I said is that there are more small, poor, second or third world countries in the world than there are first world ones. Because there are more of these countries there are more Ambassadors to or from or to those countries. More countries, more posts to fill, more potential articles, more AfDs. Just numbers. There may be bias in the appointments but not in the AfD nominations.
In the four examples I gave all were from first world countries and three are male and all are white. What is the systemic bias in nominating those articles? The ones that have closed have been closed for lack of notability. That is a pretty strong indication of consensus of lack of inherent notability. As I said before there are many thousands of current and former heads of mission. Most are posted simply to literally "show the flag". In many cases, where an Ambassador is not a senior civil service post, they are prestige postings given to political favorites (Several US Ambassador are not even GS or FS, they are just people who the President owes a favor.) GNG, NPOL and ANYBIO exist to determine which are notable for their work and which are not. Jbh ^Talk 17:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as WP:SYNTH to assess whether a given ambassadorship is notable and which are not - for example, the US ambassador to Kuwait may have been a minor sinecure in 1989, but not in 1992! American ambassadors (and FWIW, I'm American) are a mixed bag, some are hacks, some are not. But again, this "consensus" was not developed in concert with editors who work extensively on foreign policy articles, and a bunch of lay opinions are really poor consensus, if in fact there is one, which, as I read the linked discussions, appears unclear. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that editorial judgement and application of policy by definition can not be SYNTH as there is no source/claim combination. Also the whole point is that no Ambassadorship is notable. The people who are/were Ambassadors may or may not be notable in and of themselves and we apply notability guidelines to them as individuals. Nor do I see this as a "one person crusade". On this page three people have said Ambassadors have no notability. If you go the other recent AfDs you will see others who make the exact same comment. Whether these are "lay opinions" or not really depends on the background of the editors, which you do not know nor, per Wikipedia policy does it make any difference. Finally, I have previously worked with none of these editors. I come to my opinions based solely on my knowledge and experience applied through my understanding of Wikipedia policy.
I suggest that possibly this has hit a nerve with you for some reason. Your last few comments have come, likely unintentionally, rather close to accusations of AfDing articles based on bias, bigotry and sexism. This does not, based on my earlier interactions with you, seem in character. Consensus is not going to change based on this AfD, particularly when only one person is arguing the counter-case. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree on this issue—perhaps take it up on one of the discussion pages—but in any case let die a natural death here. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 20:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the issue and not the personalities. Wikipedia has a known problem of white male Eurocentric bias and other than that, yes, we may have to agree to disagree. Systemic bias is often unconscious and inadvertent. When a cricket player from Leeds who played a single unremarkable season of professional sport gets his own WP article but ambassadors are presumed not notable, something is seriously screwy with the system. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you commenting on Wikipedia's general systemic bias, however, when you comment on/imply my bias, racism, sexism, tin pot little country-ism and what-not I am going to politely call you on it. To be more blunt the issue is that I felt that your comments were starting to focus on my supposed personality so I figured I would let you know you were close to crossing the line in a gentle manner. Your response is not what I expected and a part of me is sad for that. I see no productive end to this conversation here so I wish you an enjoyable weekend and I hope to work with you again. Either on this matter in another venue or on a different topic entirely. Jbh ^Talk 01:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we are going nowhere. I wasn't referring to anyone personally, most people don't think they have biases; most of us have at least a few, sometimes we are not fully conscious of them. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. A very good book on identifying and managing cognitive bias and incomplete information is Psychology of Intelligence Analysis by Richard Heuer [9]. There is a whole body of literature but this book is both free and very good. Over the years I have developed a mental tool set to manage internal and external bias when looking at information sources but that discipline does not always carry over to Wikipedia since I edit as a hobby and to relax. Maybe you will find Heuer's book of interest, maybe not. I simply offer it as a take on cognitive bias which is different from what even those few here who look at the matter formally are likely to have been exposed to. Again, have a great weekend! Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 20:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

again referring to established guidelines for sportspeople is clearly another OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You are fighting a losing battle here. I never said ambassadors should never have articles, indeed many, meet WP:BIO. But your whole premise that they are inherently notable has never been established, and you seem to think blindly this is the case. You now introduce a red herring of WP being white eurocentric biased as somehow a reason to establish inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear, LibStar, that you will argue forever with anyone who disagrees with your agenda. Indeed, you have no room for compromise, and so clearly there is no middle ground. I think your position is ridiculous and founded in ignorance of the nature of international relations, (consensus ≠ right) but it's obvious from the previous debates you have been in that you will not be swayed by anyone, least of all me. I have to choose my battles and preserving articles about notable women will never end. Might I suggest that an article, List of ambassadors from foo might be a better solution than your wholesale deletion of major work performed by other users? Montanabw ^(talk) 19:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wholesale deletion? There are still hundreds of ambassador articles out there which I support retention. Again I ask , please point to the actual notability guideline which gives inherent notability to ambassadors, or do you concede this is now not true, and your illogical reasoning of since it's not mentioned anywhere therefore ambassadors are notable logic is just nonsensical. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with this article being redirected to List of Australian Ambassadors to Poland and I have changed my !vote above to reflect that. Jbh ^Talk 20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect works as she was also ambassador to Cambodia, montanabw will just accuse you of being biased against 3rd world countries If we direct to ambassadors to Poland. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, Libstar. A redirect with the relevant information merged would be fine with me as a compromise solution. Frankly, merges and merge tags are often a far better solution than an AfD, as, for one thing, a redlink is an open invitation for the article to be recreated. Preserving content via a redirect also allows the article to be resurrected later should the individual's notability increase. I can, in a spirit of meeting people halfway. support a redirect and merge.Montanabw ^(talk) 18:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what happened to all ambassadors being inherently notable? You used various failed arguments to argue this including pokemon characters, first grade cricketers, bias against women and third world countries, the illogical since it's not mentioned in WP:GNG it therefore is inherently notable. This ambassador is known for at least 2 ambassadorships. Why are we promoting the richer Poland over Cambodia? Sounds like bias against third world and non whites. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 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. Sandstein 11:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good-night Kiss[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Would redirect to artiste, but imo article title not suitable for a redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Top Secret (EP), as the content is exactly the same. The song does not need a standalone article. Random86 (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at this page and the Top Secret (EP) and what Random86 said is correct. This page had it's info all taken from the previous page so there is no need for it to exist if it is just there to repeat what can be found on the other page. I also don't see it as likely an individual article will ever be needed in the future for this. Peachywink (talk) 13:45, 9 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. Overall consensus herein is for retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Chapel International[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. All I can see is the evidence that the church exist and not an evidence of notability. The article was fortified with own website and other non-reliable sources apart from Ghana News Agency with a passing mention of the church describing the burgled of a lady Pastor of the church and that is not an assertion of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no prior knowledge of the Ghana News Agency or of Lighthouse Chapel, but I got curios and found 25 results for Lighthouse at ghananewsagency.org [10], they include 4 reports on the murder of a Lighthouse pastor mentioned by Nom [11]. The folllowing form websites that I know nothing about: can assemble a "mass choir" of 5,000 [12]. It is the "fastest growing" churchi in Ghana, and Qodesh is "undoubtedly" the largest church in the country [13] Also "Wives of pastors urged to satisfy husbands in bed" [http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/artikel.php?ID=343037}.

Googling onward, The Swazi Observer covered the Bishop's evangelizing visit to Swaziland [14] another story headlined "Thousands cascade to Mavuso" to hear him speak [15] 23 articles in the Swazi Observer in a search on [Heward-Mills], 5 hits in the Times of Swaziland, all seemed to be about that tour, reporting the 5,000 attended one sermon; other details [16].

The Bishop has published several books, came up in simple books google search [17].

I know very little about the church in Ghana, and perhaps that it the point. This church doesn't get covered on the BBC, but it seems to be a big deal in Ghana.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provided above discussed the church itself in detail. About 80% of the sources provided is about the church pastor and not the church. The church cannot inherit its notability from its pastor or founder. 15% is about the pastor's wife and the remaining 5% are non-reliable sources discussing the pastor's book and tours. Notability cannot be inherited from either the pastor' wife or any members of the church. There is certainly no big deal in 5000 persons attending one sermon and this fall under WP:INSIGNIFICANT, certain minor details are considered to be insignificant. In fact it does not translate into notability. There are hundreads of churches in which over 60,000 people attends sermon every sunday, that itself does not confers notability. The fact that the church pastor's wife was burgled does not translate into notability either. Lastly, A high number of Google hits does not make an article notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a big fan of WP:BEFORE. I like to do rudimentary searches before commenting on an AFD. Type "Lighthouse Chapel" into a google books search, skip the books written by the pastor, look instead at books by other authors, such as Ghana's New Christianity: Pentecostalism in a Globalizing African Economy By Paul Gifford. (This Paul Gifford: [18]) Substantive coverage. Paltry article. Notable topic. KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a validating source [19]. Added it to the page. Haven't actually read any of the books I refer to above, but relevant passages are accessible on books google.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you said "Haven't actually read any of the books I refer to above. That is why I told you that the books and those sources never discussed the Church in detail. I usually read the contents of sources before posting them to validate claims on AfDs. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read 3 long sections of Gifford's book in which he covered Lighthouse Chapel in detail before posting on this yesterday. I did not read the whole book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly stated above that "Haven't actually read any of the books I refer to above.. It's so sad that your comments seemed to be contradictory. I'm sorry I won't engage in any further argument with you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources that discuss the subject, or aspects, in some depth. Clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an International church with branches in over 70 countries across different continents.I don't know if that in itself not notable --Rberchie (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I looked and per WP:ORGDEPTH there is not enough in-depth coverage. By depth it means there is coverage beyond the normal non-notable mentions (eg times for services, mention of programs/events in passing, etc). There are a lot of mentions but I didn't find any where the church is the subject of the article. There are many mentions of it having an impressive number of churches around the world, but I don't know if that is verified information or what they count as a church (I could open the Orthodox Church of St. Wikimandia in my living room, and you cannot say it's not a church). This article here about Ghana's richest pastors (of which the Lighthouse Chapel pastor is one) is .... weird. Once again I don't see any links where the church itself is the subject of the article. Here is an example of that kind of article, in which the article is about the church itself. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced of its notability, so if you can link to sources like that, I will re-evaluate. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:GNG does not required that whole articles be "about" the topic, but rather that "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail". Unsources (original) material can be removed from the page, or tagged for sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is in depth coverage in scholarly and non scholarly sources now on the page. Paul Giffords covers this church in considerable depth, as do the authors added by User:Aymatth2.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: The "Further reading" section at the end of the article identifies two scholarly papers about LCI:

Nterful, Emmanuel Louis (2013). Church Expansion Through Church Planting in Ghana: A Case Study of the Lighthouse Chapel International Model. North-West University (South Africa). Potchefstroom Campus.
Michael Perry Kweku Okyerefo (2014). "African Churches in Europe. Transnational Dynamics in African Christianity: How Global Is The Lighthouse Chapel International Missionary Mandate?". Journal of African Religions. 2 (1). Penn State University Press: 95–124. JSTOR 10.5325/jafrireli.2.1.0095.

The article draws on Quampah (2014) and Englund (2011), which devote several pages to discussing LCI in terms of ethical standards and social engagement. Many other sources describe aspects of LCI and its activities, some of which are cited by the article. LCI is a large and rapidly growing church with presence in many different countries. It would be extraordinary if it were not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY Kudos to User:Aymatth2 for sourcing this megachurch to the growing literature on the contemporary Church in Africa.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following massive improvements by User:Aymatth2. My first reaction to this was slight surprise that LCI should be considered non-notable - I don't exactly keep an eye out for pentecostal churches, but I'd definitely heard of this one. However, when nominated, the article certainly did not demonstrate notability - but it definitely does now. PWilkinson (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And trout slap to Wikicology♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- AS a church with multiple brnaches in a variety of countries it is more like a denomination than a lcoal church. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 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. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Little (sports administrator)[edit]

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

Seems to lack notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Only thing that he was "Niue Chef de Mission to the 1996 Atlanta Olympics". Is Niue's (population 1161) Chef de Mission inhirently notable? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On general notability grounds. Not sure why this is even listed under martial arts - a bit of boxing while in school and a boxing administrator later on does not really cut it.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and SIGCOV. I note that the creator has a long history of creating articles about people from one particular school many of which have also been deleted. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable as a martial artist. More importantly, I don't see any claims that show he's done anything significant or received the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more work on the Larsen incident in respect of which Little played an important role. Being head of a the Olympic Games effort of an independent sovereign country certainly makes him notableDome1000 (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re: Olympics he fails WP:NSPORTS/WP:NOLYMPICS.

Delete My search found no significant coverage to support a claim of meeting WP:GNG. There's no evidence he was head of a country's Olympic Games effort (and I'm not sure that's grounds for automatic notability even if it was true). According to his autobiography he was VP of the Cook Islands Olympic Committee, but that's insufficient to claim notability. Being a clerk to someone who was assassinated would fall under WP:NOTINHERITED and the only other source is his alma mater's magazine. There's no significant independent coverage and no accomplishments that meet any notability criteria I'm aware of. Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His political and constitutional role is described in the standard histories of the country of Niue. These are referenced fully in the notes to the article.Dome1000 (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming he's a notable politician although he wasn't elected to any office? Please tell us what notability criteria he meets as a politician and provide references. It might also be worth noting the Niue has a population of less than 1200 people. I don't see how being an official's clerk is an indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What a naive and ignorant comment. There are wikipedia categories for public servants. You are objecting to his title. He was an important official in the colonial administration. Chief clerk was his title. look up Chief Clerk (United States Department of State) or Clerk of the House for example. I did not claim that he was a politician.Dome1000 (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the delete comments above. I see nothing to show he meets any notability criteria or has the coverage to meet GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One contributor above introduces, as an argument affecting notability, the smallness of Niue. That is a most discriminatory position. By that criteria the wikipedia coverage of the UK (for example) is greatly exaggerated when compared with that of China a country at least 20 times UK's population (and probably its size too). On a world scale, using the concept of "smallness", many UK (for example) articles would be totally unnotable. Dome1000 (talk) 21:48, 11 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) 18:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg[edit]

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

Not notable enough, Asian Championship is a 3rd tier tournament (behind World Champs, Olympics and even Asian Games), teams do not even participate with their best athletes. having separate articles for every single event doesn't look like necessary. I made this nomination to know wikipedians opinion about this. Mohsen1248 (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all A case could be made for these detail pages for top level competitions since in those cases the majority of athletes listed would be notable in their own right. In this case the vast majority of names are and will remain non-notable. It is enough that the main article lists the winners with a reference for the details. This is just cruft.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is not a wrestling web site (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). Nothing shows these individual events should have their own pages or received any coverage other than routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in the same league as the Olympics, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, etc. I suspect that most of the individuals will not WP notability standards too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's fine to have an article on the overall event that includes a list of medal winners in each division, but a separate article on each division seems a bit much to me. I don't see anything but routine sports coverage as sources. There's no evidence that these pass WP:NEVENT or have the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:24, 10 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 Wright Gemini 2. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VDL DB300[edit]

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

Previously a redirect to Wright Gemini, created by an IP. Rather stagnant subject with no chance of expansion as the model is obsolete. Nordic Dragon^talk Formerly known as Aycliffe. 10:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom.Charles (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wright Gemini 2 per Charles. –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 7 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) 17:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Heiser[edit]

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

Concern was that the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by author without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:53, 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) 17:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inflationary wave theory[edit]

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

This article was written by Pete Comley, author of a self-published ebook about this topic [20] (Monkey with a Pin is his company). Outside of primary sources, the topic has no coverage. Thus, this is WP:OR. Agtx (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject has created interest in the economics world. I am holding a discussion about it the Economic Research Council in London next week. This is not a commercial project - Monkey with a Pin is a non profit. Pete Comley — Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable coverage. Whether or not a discussion is being held is not relevant if there are no good sources. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing good aside from primary links. SwisterTwister talk 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON (generously). I can't find good secondary sources on this subject. --Sammy1339 (talk) 12:09, 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 redirect to New Bedford, Massachusetts#Government. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Bedford Police Department[edit]

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

Non-notable police department in a relatively small city. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Preposterous nomination. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin due to the very large number of detailed sources in GBooks and elsewhere. Being "small" (which is an expression of the nominator's subjective personal opinion: it is actually relatively large with budget of $15m) doesn't make it non-notable. Not even theoretically eligible for deletion as a plausible redirect (and merge) to the area it polices (WP:R). James500 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500. Nonsensical nomination as the subjective opinion of the city size in which the topic serves in irrelevant to notability. Plenty of sources indicate passing GNG abound. --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete + redirect - first, article is just a skeleton and a bad one at that - there is no intro, not even a link to the actual town, and poorly formatted. One of the only two sections is the address of the police stations. And the article is three years old, so it's not like it's under construction. In no way does the article even attempt to satisfy WP:GNG; there is one primary source (PD website) and one to a memorial database of officers who have been killed in the line of duty, as a source on the officer killed in 1955 (which does not establish notability for the PD itself). I agree that the size of the town is totally irrelevant; it's about whether it meets the requirements for GNG. My search does not result in "very large number of detailed sources" (of which none are referenced in the article). Most are related to various officers who worked there, which does not establish notability for the police department itself, or your typical budget allocations, etc. Basic WP:MILL. James500 and Oakshade, you both make mention of extensive coverage, but you have not put them in the article nor even linked them here to prove they exist. As far as I can tell, everything can be perfectly well covered at New Bedford, Massachusetts#Government (which already contains an adequate section about the police and fire departments). —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy is out of the question at this point as SNOW is not existing here and there are no slanderous BLP violations. The current state of the article has nothing to do with GNG. WP:GNG states, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." --Oakshade (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade: It qualifies for speedy delete under WP:A7. There's just nothing there to support a claim of notability. The only real content of the article is the 1955 death of an officer; which fails to establish notability for the department. Infobox is entirely WP:MILL. And as I said, I bothered to search and found nothing. It's not sufficient to claim the existence of reliable sources; if they do in fact exist, why don't you cite them? —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL is only an essay, and it happens to be a load of nonsense that bears no relation to the actual notability guidelines. Coverage of police officers attached to the department, acting in that capacity, is coverage of the department, which is its members. To treat them as a separate topic would be bizarre, because they are obviously not. It is the officers who can't inherit notability from the department. In any event, there are plenty of sources about the department as a whole. And they are not just budget allocations either, though those would be fine as long as they are not published by the department itself. Such as the sources relating to the famous and significant case concerning their minimum height requirement. And I don't need to prove the existence of sources that come up immediately with a search engine. The links are at the top of the page, following the words "find sources". If you don't like the sources that come up, for example, in GBooks, you should go through all fifty of them one at time, and tell me what is wrong with them individually. Or I can return the favour by saying that you haven't offered links to the individual sources to prove the generalisations that you are making. It goes without saying that none of the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD) are met. No sizeable paramilitary organisation is going to fail A7, and certainly not a police department. A7 is for articles about editor's pet cats, postman, or local corner shop. It is for topics that have zero chance of being considered notable by any established editor. Fifty sources in GBooks is a clear giveaway that A7 is out of the question. A much smaller number would suffice for that. James500 (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC) As for the criticism that I haven't added sources to the article, not only is that irrelevant to notability, but I'm afraid that the size of the WP:MASSNOM is so large that, so far, I have actually barely managed to even !vote in all the AfDs, never mind expand umpteen different articles at once, because the size of the nomination makes that impossible. It would take weeks to expand all those properly, even if I was doing nothing else. James500 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A7 wouldn't apply as being the police department of the city of New Bedford is a claim to notability.--Oakshade (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A7 applies as nowhere in the page is there an assertion of significance. Regardless of whether it qualifies for speedy delete or just delete, it still fails GNG. No organizations are inherently notable (WP:ORGSIG). Being the police department of the city does not in any way establish notability (WP:NRV: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists). Notability is not inherited nor is it achieved by relationship to a notable organization/event/person etc. On its own, the police department would not be any more notable than the town's post office, its city council, its railroad station or the red fire hydrant on Main Street. Having an officer killed in the line of duty does not in any way establish notability for the police department itself (WP:INHERITORG). I'm not going through every link and analyze why it fails. This is not how Wikipedia works. Once content has been challenged or deleted, the burden falls solely on the people who want to keep it/reinsert the information to prove it belongs: WP:PROVEIT. We're all here willing to be convinced, so please provide the references to support your claim that the police department has received long-term, non-trivial, significant coverage in secondary sources as required. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The New Bedford Police Department is a law enforcement agency serving the city of New Bedford, MA". That's the claim to notability. Whether you think it passes GNG or not is a different matter, but it's definitely not a A7 candidate.--Oakshade (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade - That's not correct at all. Simply because something exists does not make it notable. WP:NRV —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's more than "something exists." I guess we differ on what is a claim of significance. I think being the police department in New Bedford is significant and already A7 doesn't apply. You do not. Speedy deletion is not going to happen here nonetheless. --Oakshade (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade: As I said, I don't care if it's deleted or speedy deleted. In fact I changed my comment to a regular delete. Now please explain to others why it should not be deleted at all. You claim it is significant because it exists; even though over and over and over in the guidelines it says this is not an acceptable reason. Please reread WP:GNG: You must supply proof that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not quite sure why both you and James500 refuse to do this. If this is your first time participating in an AfD discussion, please familiarize yourself with the general guidelines at WP:WHYN. Unless you can supply the required sources, this article will simply be redirected to the city article, where there is already a paragraph for the police department. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those words, that you give in italics, do not appear anywhere in WP:GNG. Nor does it contain any words that could be interpreted as having that meaning, even if one was to use techniques of interpretation to twist the meaning of the words to breaking point and then to some considerable distance far beyond. WP:NRVE says the exact opposite. I see nothing in WP:WHYN that could possibly impugn the notability of this department. (I think it is also worth pointing out that WHYN is at most describing GNG, not creating additional restrictions. What it says would not be, for example, an accurate description of the various SNG. Not that that is a factor here). Please read WP:N more carefully. I don't need to supply anything else to prevent redirection. For your information, this is not, as you suggest, my first AfD; I have participated in 384 AfDs to date, which is a lot more than you have, and I am (unfortunately) so familiar with the relevant guidelines that I can recite them backwards. Oakshade has participated in 2233 AfDs, which is also more than you have. James500 (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above: WP:PROVEIT only applies to "content" in articles. The topic of an article is not content. That is why we have a CSD that classifies blank pages as "no content", notwithstanding that they have a page name that identifies a topic. When we deal with notability of a topic, which is not content, the burden of proof is reversed by NRVE and BEFORE, which say that sources need not be cited to prove notability, and those arguing for deletion must look for sources and confirm their non-existence (which means providing a satisfactory explanation of what is allegedly wrong with any apparent sources). The reason for this is partly to prevent mass nominators demanding a webliography as a time wasting tactic, with the object of making it impossible to !vote to keep more than a small fraction of the articles so nominated. A police department is more likely to be notable than a 'peaceful' organisation. The town post office, railroad station etc are less likely to be notable in that they don't run around the streets with guns, forcing people to do things they don't want to do at pistol point. Violence, whether lawful or not, is more notable than peaceful activities. A paramilitary organisation that exceeds a certain size and/or level of activity will be notable. INHERITORG is not applicable because coverage of the activities of member of the department acting in their capacity as members is reporting activities of the organisation. The coverage is not inherited at all, just because the officers are mentioned by name. It is coverage of the department. What cannot be inherited is coverage of activities of members of the department acting otherwise than in their capacity as members of the department (eg if one of them was to get coverage for winning the lottery). But that is not what we have here, as far as I can see. A7 is not applicable because being a police department is a credible claim of significance and importance. As for inherent notability, NRVE, after saying it doesn't exist, immediately allows a form of inherent notability, namely, the nature of the topic is such that adequate coverage is likely to exist, possibly offline. (Did I mention that town police departments are likely to receive 'significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources' and therefore can never be deleted per NRVE?). And the words "merely because it exists" do not include inherent notability for some reason other than existence, such as size. Many SNG have criteria for forms of inherent notability, even if they don't call it "inherent". ORG itself is a mess, has been under discussion for some time, and appears not to reflect consensus. And the main policy of the project WP:IAR, has always allowed inherent notability where necessary to avoid absurd deletions, and, being a policy, trumps the notability guidelines. So we do allow inherent notability. And all this discussion of inherited and inherent notability is completely academic because ... this department clearly satisfies GNG anyway. James500 (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Articles count as content. Again I am asking you to please post the references you claim exist. There is no inherent notability in a police department. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pages (including articles) are not content. A blank page is not content. The page name is not content. The topic of an article is not content. "Content" means, at most, the text inside the page that can be accessed with the "edit" and "view source" user rights. I have discussed this extensively with many others at the talk page of WP:V and the consensus was that the correct interpretation is as I describe it. (The discussion arose, IIRC, partly from the AfD of SUBST). I am not going to post a link to every single source in Google Books that comes up on a search for "New Bedford Police Department" or "New Bedford Police". You are quite capable of finding those yourself. James500 (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect fails WP:GNG. Elgatodegato (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to New Bedford, Massachusetts#Government. No independent basis for notability other than as part of New Bedford. Insufficient content to justify splitting it out. TJRC (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TJRC. This department is not so notable in southeastern Massachusetts, or the nation for that matter, to be notable in itself. On the other hand, it's bigger than some other peace officer agencies that we have kept. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Bedford, Massachusetts § Government. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In July 2010, New Bedford Police Department (Massachusetts) was created by User:JITIC, and was redirected to New Bedford, Massachusetts a month later. In 2012, the same user recreated the page with a slightly different name, and there we are again... Kraxler (talk) 21:45, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstable Police Department[edit]

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

I don't really see how a police department in a small city can merit a Wikipedia article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and no sources. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fire districts in Barnstable, Massachusetts... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackmann08 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Serving a city of 45,000 is significant (The Ferguson Police Department (Missouri) serves a population of half that). If the topic is the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources, then it passes WP:GNG. [21][22][23][24] These are just from the last couple of months. --Oakshade (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The size of the population is not relevant here. The difference is that the Ferguson Police Department (Missouri) is obviously notable due to recent news events. Also the page actually has context with sources. There is not a single source on the page for the Barnstable Police Department. --Zackmann08 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your only deletion rationale is "I don't really see how a police department in a small city can merit a Wikipedia article." Now you're saying "The size of the population is not relevant here." Which is it? WP:GNG makes it very clear that it requires the existence of sources and not that they already be place din the article. --Oakshade (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article for deletion, not Zackmann08. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got confused with the indenting. Sorry. The point about WP:GNG is standing though. --Oakshade (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of notability and sources. The only actual link to the police department is its official site. Wikih101 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more. --Oakshade (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: All you did was add a single source (which you didn't even properly format) to fit in to content that was already there. Content should be based on a source, you don't just get a random source to support a statement already made. Plus, the page still fails notability. --Zackmann08 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I added two sources, added content and added sources to that content. Additionally added a source to the existing content in which there was a "citation needed" tag.[25] You were the editor who placed that "citation needed" tag there. [26] You're welcome. This editor !voted "delete" solely because there were no secondary sources. Now there are two. Adding sources to articles in AfD should always be encouraged (see WP:HEY). A formatting error (which now no longer exists) of a source is completely irrelevant to WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. "Small" and "unreferenced" are not valid arguments for deletion. Clearly satisfies GNG due to the many sources in GBooks and elsewhere. Even if it wasn't notable it would, like all police forces, be ineligible for deletion as a plausible redirect to the area it polices (WP:R), and with content worth merging. At least some of the participants here should read NRVE (sources need not be cited if they are readily findable with search engine) and BEFORE (you have to look for them). James500 (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like you stopped reading NRVE before the sentence "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." Ravenswing 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I did specify sources, namely all the sources in GBooks. The link is at the top of the page and there are not so many sources that you couldn't look at all of them. James500 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't specify sources; an airy "Go look at GBooks" is nothing of the sort. Have you any specific sources you claim meet the standards?" Ravenswing 23:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is nonsense. I did not invoke some of the sources in GBooks. I invoked all of them. I invoked every single one, together, as a unit. I said that the total combined coverage contained in all these sources (there are on the order of thirty) is, taken together, as a whole, significant. I'm not going to provide a list of thirty odd links to those sources individually, as that would serve no purpose. It would be unduly burdensome to provide a blow by blow account. Remember, significant coverage doesn't have to consist of a massive spiel in each of a few sources. It can consist of much shorter passages in a much larger number of sources. If you feel that the total combined coverage in those sources is not significant, because you want more sources and lengthier passages, you are entitled to that opinion, but you can't say that I haven't produced any sources, just because I haven't provided a list of thirty odd links. To say that would be nonsense. James500 (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fire districts that are the subject of the other AfD mentioned above are also notable. James500 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Quite aside from that the Keep proponents haven't found it worth their bother to add the reliable sources providing the significant coverage they infer exist ("capecodwave.com" and the town's weekly newspaper aren't the sort to be in that category), there's just plain nothing here that can't fit in a couple sentences in the town government section at the Barnstable article. I do agree with James500 that this is a plausible redirect. Ravenswing 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale is self-contradictory. First keep proponents didn't "bother to add the reliable sources", but then there's a put down of one of the reliable sources that a keep proponent bothered to add. Not sure what to respond to. Anyway, regarding Cape Code Wave, as long as there's editorial control over its content and it's independent of the topic, it is an acceptable source per WP:Reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: Do you realise that the sheer number of simultaneous nominations has so far made it impossible for me to add sources to the article? This line of reasoning would encourage mass nominations with the express object of making it impossible to improve more than a small fraction of the articles within the AfD deadline. James500 (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'sheer number of simultaneous nominations...' I've only AfD'd four of these department articles. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four nominations is far more than I personally can handle when they are as active as these ones, and there two or three other similar nominations brought by other users (so many that I am actually losing count). And I am trying to find time to create new articles, and maintain other articles, as well. In my opinion, editors should never nominate more than one article at a time, unless it is an emergency, because that is all the system can handle, due to a severe lack of manpower. James500 (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding first to Oakshade, what I put down was the non-reliable source that was added. As far as capecodwave.com goes, I agree with you. What evidence do you proffer that it does have editorial control over its content and that it has a proven reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?

Responding to James500, that's nonsense I've seen a lot from certain Keep proponents at AfD over the years. AfDs are open for seven days, but I've found valid sources for many an article threatened at AfD in seven seconds -- if they existed at all. You've had, and have, ample time to do so yourself ... quite aside from that this article was created five years ago. While I don't agree that the sources Oakshade is turning up are good, he's working to find sources. What's stopping you? Ravenswing 23:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the rate at which I write, it would probably take me at least a week to expand and improve one of these articles properly. To do six or seven would likely take months. If anyone is capable of properly and fully expanding and improving six or seven stub articles in about a day, whilst participating in all those AfDs, in which the discussion is proceeding so quickly that he can barely get a word in edgeways, he must be some kind of robot or superhuman. What you ask is simply too much for a mere mortal like me. Seven days is a very short length of time to conduct an AfD for a non-BLP (and, as a result, most AfDs seem to be repeatedly relisted). At Wikiversity, for example, the duration of a PROD is ninety days, and RFD appear to be of indeterminate duration, and with good reason. James500 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure how you conflate four of these active AfDs into six or seven, and I'm frankly baffled at how slowly you claim to write and research (although you're the best judge of your own speed), but I've a few thoughts for your consideration. First off, there are many other editors on Wikipedia, and saving articles doesn't live or die on your personal participation. Secondly, I'm not sure what about AfD discussions requires you or anyone else to respond to every statement anyone makes -- what prevents setting out your position and leaving it to that? Thirdly, while you claim not to have the time to improve so much as a single article under threat, in the month to date you've found the time to participate in nearly two dozen different AfDs and DRVs, contributing nearly 100 edits and 60,000+ bytes of text; that's formidable output from someone so strapped for time.

Finally, I wonder if you're under the impression that I'm asking for you to improve articles to GA status before I'll deign to agree they're worthy of being kept. If so, that's nonsense. You are -- or should be, by now -- well aware that it's not necessary in the least degree to "expand and improve" an article "properly" to save it at AfD. You need only find a couple qualifying reliable, independent, third-party sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Hell, NRVE doesn't even require that you add those sources to the article -- you need only cite them in the AfD discussion. I can't imagine that being so horribly onerous a task that you'd advocate tossing in more delays into the system to avoid wasting the five goddamn minutes that takes. Ravenswing 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to town article; fails WP:GNG. The "Cape Cod Wave" article (I agree it is questionable, it appears like a blog) was entirely about the "citizen" police academy program (not about the department), which even the author admits the "academy" is a PR tool. The other was the usual small-town "a day in the life of a police officer" article that again was not about the department itself. @Oakshade: and @James500: I have seen you using the same argument in several of the AfDs for Mass. police departments, and I think you do not understand what WP:GNG are. There is no "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time" for these police departments, but you say things like "it clearly meets GNG." So something is not right. Elgatodegato (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In truth, GNG is an entirely subjective test as it does not supply a meaningful definition of "significant". Your opinion that the coverage is not significant is exactly that: your opinion (which I consider a wholly implausible interpretation that is unlikely to shared by more than a very small number editors, assuming you've looked at the sources in GBooks). You might be suprised by other opinions such as that in WP:100W. And there are other sources beside the two you mention. Look in Google Books if you have not done so already. The link is right at the top of the AfD next to "find sources". James500 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I love when editors add on their own subjective wording. I'm extremely familiar with WP:GNG and have been editing here and working with GNG for almost ten years thank you. I see you just created your account 3 days ago. (Either you're a complete novice or a sock. - I'm guessing sock due to your extremely well executed AfD establishing on your first day of editing) That Cape Cod Wave article (that is a reliable source per WP:RS) is very in-depth and is about a major function of the department. Byt stipulating "even the author admits the "academy" is a PR tool," you're actually demonstrating the in-depth coverage demonstrating passing WP:GNG. The "other" article, which I suppose you mean the The Barnstable Patriot one, is a very in-depth article about a Barnstable Police Department unit. Just by saying "fails WP:GNG" doesn't make it so. Sorry, it passes WP:GNG and so far that has been demonstrated.--Oakshade (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: I'm not "a sock" (rude accusation). I have been on and off Wikipedia for many years, and in the English wikipedia I always try to help people to fight to keep pages from deletion because they need translation. If you have proof I am a sock then go to the administration and demand an investigation. Your comment (that because the blog wrote that the academy is a PR tool confirms that the department is notable) only confirms that you don't understand what GNG is and are trying to create a distraction by accusing me. @James500: Yes, of course I looked for sources. They do support that there is such a thing as the Barnstable Police Department. There are references to people who worked there, references to where it is located, that you can call their phone number if you have an issue with your boat and need to reach the Harbormaster. These references are quite suitable if someone challenges that there is a Barnstable Police Department by putting a "Citation needed" tag on the Barnstable, Massachusetts article. There is not a single source that supports the notion that the police department is significant enough to have its own article. Do you understand this difference? Please take some time to review WP:ORG: It very clearly states that trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. You have been asked many times to supply the links to these sources you claim meets the GNG, but you have not done this. Elgatodegato (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you created your account just 3 days ago, yet you're now claiming you've "been on and off Wikipedia for many years." So what is this other account? Per WP:SOCK, you need to disclose your other account. --Oakshade (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now noticing a remarkable similarity in style and interests with another user (who coincidentally helps articles of a certain region and language "because they need translation") in just the first 3 days of your account's existence.--Oakshade (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to edit on Wikipedia without having a registered account. (How do you not know this?) It's also possible to commit wikicide because you've burned out, or forget your username because you haven't logged on in two years or decide to register because you are tired of the CAPTCHAs. None of this effects your job of prove the Barnstable Police Department in Massachusetts is notable enough to have its own article. If you are seeing a pattern than per haps it is because multiple are telling you the same thing. If you think I am "a sock" then please go contact the administration to complain. I am sure they can research it fast. Elgatodegato (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to disclose your other account(s) as required by WP:SOCK? --Oakshade (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Elgatodegato: I am familiar with ORG. In my opinion these sources (there are on the order of thirty) are, taken together, not "trivial or incidental coverage". That is my opinion. I appreciate that you have a different opinion, I just don't agree with it. James500 (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: Stop accusing me of being a sock, or go file a official complaint if you really believe it so much. These are you two choices so pick one. If you continue to accuse me I will report you for harrassment. You are not helping your cause. @James500: that link is broken (it says "Your search - https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Barnstable+Police+Department%22 - did not match any documents.") Please just paste the exact URL like you would to use in a reference in an article - You must know that "the results I found when I googled it" is not acceptable as a "reference". It's 3 seconds to paste the links here. Elgatodegato (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've admitted you've had other accounts and you're supposed to report that as such. Feel free to "report" me (remarkable that someone with a 3 day old account would know exactly how to do that) and I will be happy to describe to whoever you "report" this to the clear evidence you're not a new editor and not disclosing who your other user names are as required. You're also not helping your case countering how this topic passes WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Elgatodegato: The link works fine for me. I can't understand why it wouldn't work for you, unless Google Books is badly broken. (I have myself been getting a lot of "500, server error" error messages in recent days when I click on individual results). How many hits do you get when you search for "Barnstable Police Department" in Google Books? I get 33 results where that expression comes up highlighted in the snippets of text in the search results (though that includes a few works of fiction). If you get the same number, I'll infer that we are looking at the same results. Pasting about thirty links takes more than 3 seconds. The way I do it, which may not be the most efficient way, it might take more than half an hour (including collecting all the links, and formatting them to remove unnecessary parts of the URL). Whilst articles need to be "referenced" eventually, an AfD isn't an article, and I wouldn't expect individual links to be posted unless there was something clearly wrong with the search engine. I've never encountered a problem like this before. Does this link work any better for you? James500 (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. The "Cape Cod Wave" and "Barnstable Patriot" just don't cut it. As for the suggestion that the Google Books search can show "significant coverage", and not just some of the books, but all of the books, let's actually take a look at some of them. First up, "Fred Cusick: Voice of the Bruins" [27]. In 1967, my good friend Dick Rougeau was a summer policeman on the staff of the Barnstable Police Department on Cape Cod while attending Boston College Law School. That's the only mention in a 200+ page book, that one sentence. Next, "Atlantic Boating Almanacs: Cape Cod, Ma To Sandy Hook" [28]. The harbormaster can be contacted by telephone ([number redacted]), thorough the Barnstable police department ([number redacted]), or VHF-FM channels 16 and 9. That, again, is the only mention in 170+ pages. How about "A Life Revisited" [29]? All he knew, for sure, was that, if he did want to get a job with the Barnstable Police Department, or the Massachusetts State Police, or his dream job, the FBI, he had to get back into his fighting trim. Again, only mention, 500+ pages, and this one's a novel. There's also "Police Officer Exam 1st Edition" [30]. IF LOCATED: Call Barnstable Police Department, Barnstable, Massachusetts, at [number redacted]. This sentence is part of a fictitious missing persons report created for a police officer exam. It is the only mention in 350+ pages. "Introduction to Law and the Legal System" [31] mentions them twice, but both in the same paragraph: On March 29, 1983, about 8:28 PM, Patrolman Michael Aselton of the Barnstable police department was on radar duty at Old Stage Road in Centerville. ... The Barnstable police department determined that patrolman Aselton died in the line of duty. That's the only mention in 550+ pages. Those are all from the first page. I trust I do not need to go on. If this is to be our standard "significant coverage", we may as well just shut down AfD now. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively examining the weakest sources doesn't disprove notability. It can't be disproved by a few counter-examples, because that says nothing about the other sources. And it especially can't be disproved by quotes that are taken out of context. So let's examine some relevant results on the first page of results. On the first page of results, this history book looks like perfectly good coverage to me. I can't imagine any objection being taken to that by anyone. This appears relevant, as a law report of a case examining in detail the relationship between the town, the department, and its officers, viz some kind of industrial dispute. "Introduction to Law and the Legal System" is not just a police officer from the department dying in the line of duty (and in his capacity as a member of the department). There is more context that is being ignored in the !vote above. His death, and the circumstances of it and the accident that caused it, was the material facts, the precusor, the cause, the raison d'etre, of a case decided by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts (Commonwealth v Beggren) that would appear to be some kind of precedent. And did I mention that it is in the Supreme Court? The most important court in the state! So it must be ever so important. In any event it was reported and discussed at great length in a law book, and not just any, but an introductory work (implication is that the case is of utmost importance). So the department's embroilment in that case is good coverage. The material in Atlantic Boating Almanacs is not just "how to contact the harbourmaster" (admittedly excluded under "not a phonebook"). It also discusses the police department's boat's patrolling of the Hyannis harbour in summer. And that's good coverage as well. And of course there several more pages of results. I urge anyone !voting to actually look at them. James500 (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And since you mentioned it, AfD is in need of root and branch reform, though I'm not invoking that as an argument. James500 (talk) 06:53, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by style of national flags[edit]

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

Completely arbitrary classification of flags by numbers of stars, triangles and other squiggles. I bet not a single reliable source does such classification. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we have some organic growth between List of countries by style of national flags and List of flags by design there needs to be some consolidation, but I think merges will be better than deletion in this particular scenario. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WOW. Who categorizes flags by, for example, "one four-pointed star in upper left corner"? Maybe Sheldon Cooper, but nobody else of note. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sheldon, er I mean, Clarityfiend. Bazinga. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List are not bound by the same standards as articles, do not need references. -- IamM1rv (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists do not need references, but the classification does. I can invent thousands of random criteria, like, List countries by the number of wars waged, List of cities by the number of letters in their names, etc. WP:NOT. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consult needed - I suggest that WP:VEX be consulted about whether this is truly significant. This seems random to some people, but for the vexillologists, I think this it could be significant. I notice this kind of very specific sorting at Commons. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This debate has been relisted for further input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like a typical Wikipedia list. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - atypical, but interesting.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like a normal standard article, I admit it's long but then again it's better than a one liner. –Davey2010^Talk 13:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Current state appearss to be of rather poor style and technically constitutes WP:OR: does anyone actually formally classify flags like that? But with vexillology expert attention, using more recognized vexillology terms like the "canton" and adding more sources discussing in vexillology contexts might help the case. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic trivia. Zero sources on this "topic" out there, which is what we need to see for a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether any consensus at all exists. Please specifically address the notability (WP:GNG) issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. With list articles, the question is the criteria for inclusion in the list. Looks to me like this is a collaborative Original Research effort by Wikipedia editors. Are there any secondary sources on this at all? (The same goes for List of flags by design, and all the other articles proposed for merging into that article. If there was a website about national flag designs... ) – Margin1522 (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certain styles are undeniably notable, such as Tricolour (flag), and this page contains the only list of nations with tricolours. Likewise non-rectangular flags and maybe suns or others. Maybe some of the more tenuous descriptions could be removed. If it is deleted, then notable flag-shapes should be separated into their own lists. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that bet The nay-sayers claim that there are no sources but provide no evidence. A quick browse soon turns up typologies and analyses including:

Flag, Nation and Symbolism
Identity Designs
Applying Sebeok's Typology of Signs to the Study of Flags

There seems to be plenty of vexillologists out there writing about such stuff and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Whether our typology is the right one is another question but that's not really a matter for AFD. Andrew D. (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Several of the keep !votes do not provide a guideline- or policy-based rationale for article retention, stating notions such as that it's “interesting”, “typical”, “atypical” and a “normal standard article”. Some of the delete !votes, and the nomination, suggest that no sources cover this topic, but do not directly state that source searches did not provide any coverage. Without directly stating such, it comes across as the notion being posited, rather than confirmed. Of note is that some delete !votes do state directly that no coverage exists. This has been refuted by a recent !vote to the contrary that provides three book sources. The notion about potentially merging content has also been presented in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interesting. Vexillology is a thing, with notable institutions such as the Flag Institute, so to say there's no study or sourcing to be found out there seems a bit unbelievable. At the same time, much of this is already found at the Commons, commons:Gallery of flags by design. How about a soft redirect there? Tarc (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it must be renamed. It is a list of FLAGS, not countries. And like List of flags by design it should be open to inclusion of state, province, other entities' flags. So "List of flags by style"??? The article is really about star points, etc., the symbols on the flags. So List of flags by symbols included would be much more descriptive. --do ncr am 23:04, 7 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 merge to North Korea in 2013. Other targets may also be suitable. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Korean crisis[edit]

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

This article is purely a recording of the news of 2013. It was obviously created in the expectation that something momentous was about to happen. However, nothing significant eventuated. The article remains inconclusive, consisting mainly of a timeline that peters out as tensions subside. The Korean conflict is an ongoing topic, and what happened in 2013 was relatively minor. Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you provide a valid criteria for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON? It certainly looks well sourced, and your reasoning seems to fall under WP:PPOV. Praemonitus (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . looks well sourced to me, but anyone can check whether original research is done.I don't have time to check the references. Thanks.--C E (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: The Korean crisis of 2013 lead to their third nuclear test and the closing of Kaesong. Do you not remember all of this developing? Thats like saying we should delete the Cuban Missile Crisis because nothing came out of it. 24.44.176.72 (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: My criterion is notability as expressed in WP:NOTNEWS,WP:EVENTS. I am not questioning the sources. The nuclear test is covered in its own article, and Kaesong Industrial Region article has ample discussion of its temporary closure. (Note: the city of Kaesong was not closed.) As it is, this article mainly consists of a timeline garnered from the news as it happened, including some very minor incidents. Such incidents are routine in the ongoing Korean conflict. The Wikipedia article on the Cuban Missile Crisis was obviously written long after the event. I don't think anyone would write this article today.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:10, 22 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) 00:36, 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 02:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete a chronology of incidents. The actual noteworthy incidents already have their own article. LibStar (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2013 in North Korea. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + Comment - It's important that an article about the Korean crisis in general be kept to give a broader context to things such as the nuclear tests and closing of Kaesong, but maybe it should be rewritten so that it can be, well, not a list of dates and events? Maybe if the page was written more like an actual article, rather than a list, it might be taken more seriously as an article? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 14:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2013 in North Korea (for anything that can be merged). That's basically what the article is, though only a small section of the year. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:01, 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) 17:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightology[edit]

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

Not notable. It won an award in 2005, and it built a new, pretty large showroom. That's about it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - considering its presentation along with Tech Lighting, this appears to be advertising. The references appear to be glorified press releases.--Rpclod (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current WP:RS indicate is passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused (me). I don't understand Tony's conclusion that this article passes WP:GNG. There are no independent, reliable sources indicating this firm's Notability. Which are they? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be part of an aggrandising network of articles with self-created sources in violation of WP:PROMOTION Bdbdd (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gregory Kay - between the three subjects (Lightology, Tech Lighting, and Gregory Kay) there does appear to be some notability, but not enough for three articles. Normally when we discount "local" sources, we are talking about small-town newspapers, not something like the Chicago Tribune. The reason is that such papers are indiscriminate - they literally cover all businesses within the town at some point. The Tribune (and other Chicago-based sources) is a different story entirely. It most certainly does not cover every business and in depth coverage by the publication of a Chicago business carries implication of notability as in depth coverage of any other subject would. Additionally, there are multiple trade publications covering some combination of Lightology/Tech Lighting/Gregory Kay in depth, and trade publications that meet the RS guidelines (e.g. have editorial control) are perfectly valid reliable, secondary sources. Thus, notability has been established by indepth coverage both locally and in trade publications. However 3 articles are overkill. The most natural place to cover all 3 subjects in one article is Gregory Kay. Thus, I am suggesting all three be merged together at that title and will volunteer to do so (and clean up promotional language) if the AfD consensus accepts the idea. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thre is no ref from Chicago Tribune". In fact there is only a single ref. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:11, 7 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No effort was made during two weeks to fix the problem with sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If someone wants to find marketing material for this firm, I'm sure they'll have no trouble doing so without Wikipedia's help. - Richfife (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG 53 news sources come up but of them 17 are press releases, 1 is an advert blog, 5 are Routine coverage of sales, 3 were Trivial mentions with lightology not even being an important part of the article. Low standards might save this article but it isn't note worthy in an encyclopedic sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:17, 8 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 The Goldbergs (TV series). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Alyn Lind[edit]

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

Delete: does not reach threshold for notability per WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 01:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Goldbergs (TV series). WP:TOOSOON for her own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Clarityfiend - TOOSOON. –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - News and Books searches found mostly for The Goldbergs which, for 14 episodes, is the longest role she's had so that's her best known. SwisterTwister talk 18:06, 8 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) 17:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chiang Rayleigh Ping-Ying[edit]

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

Non-notable physician. The sourcing is not WP:INDEPENDENT. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party sources (and none that I could find). As it stands, it is original research. There may be sources in Taiwanese publications, but in that case it would be best to create an article in the Chinese WP. LaMona (talk) 05:16, 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) 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Robertson (artist)[edit]

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

Fails notability. No 3rd party references, only a few self-references. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - News searches only found a link where he is credited for a photo and Books found a few results, nothing exactly significant or notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references only show one gallery that provides any focus. Another lists the subject among many. The third is a primary source and not authoritative.--Rpclod (talk) 01:39, 7 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) 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riad Bajić[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, the Bosnian Premier League is not a "fully professional league" and the article does not show notability per WP:NFOOTBALL.--Rpclod (talk) 01:34, 7 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.

Visa support to Russia[edit]

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 (G12) by Fuhghettaboutit. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unreferenced how-to guide per WP:NOTHOWTO, with sales links for visa service companies inline, which the WP:SPA creator re-added when I tried to remove them [32]. There's very little else here that can be merged to Visa policy of Russia. Article was prodded on the same grounds on 21 April, and the following day article creator de-prodded after removing one sentence [33]. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it, the article is not unreferenced. It cites a government decree, an order of the ministry of foreign affairs, and an order of the federal migration service. I'm not sure this is "how to" content either. I am wondering if it is an attempt to describe rules of law or government policy. James500 (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@James500:- examples of how-to content include:

The agency will give you a telex (digitally transmitted directly to the consulate)
As a usual, visa support documents is an extra paid service, but some services are free. Some hotels provide it free of charge, if you book a room and make a deposit.
Agencies which provides invitation for tourist visa will give a scanned copy (per e-mail) both of the original Reservation confirmation and the Tourist voucher.
Originals can be sent by post when required by the consulate (normally the copies are sufficient).

etc., like an entry from Wikitravel, not Wikipedia. But I agree that the last section, "Legislative and regulatory framework", describes govt policy and could be merged to Visa policy of Russia. There's no need for a separate article on this document, though. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three examples of "how to" content don't make the entire article "how to" content. I was primarily thinking of the section headed "Description of visa support document." It seems to me that, in legal writing, rules of law are often expressed as imperatives (eg writing "A must do X" when we really mean "A has a duty to do X under enactment B, and certain legal consequences, Y, follow if he doesn't"). I am wondering if that is what the author of this article was doing. The lack of in-line citations makes this difficult for me to assess, but I imagine the content of the section might reflect the content of the decree and orders listed at the end of the article. Are you sufficiently familiar with this subject that you can tell me that the content of that section does not consist of propositions of law or government policy (ie a description of mandatory requirements imposed by the Russian government)? James500 (talk) 10:06, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references at all, let alone any reliable sources. Searching via Google does not show that "Visa support to Russia" is a particular term of art. Perhaps there is an article regarding Russian visas to which this can be merged and redirected?--Rpclod (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is manifest nonsense. You know perfectly well that legislation is the best possible reliable source (because the law is what the legislator says it is) and a search for "visa support"+ Russia does return sources for the document called "visa support" (though I'm not sure if "visa support to Russia" is grammatically correct). James500 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also worth pointing out that "visa support" is a obviously a translation into English. Most of the sources for this will be in the Russian language. What is this document called in Russian? You can't assess notability without knowing that. You can't assess it by looking for "visa support to Russia", because that is English. James500 (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep, mainly to balance out the manifest nonsense in the !vote immediately above. James500 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam I speak Russian and this is not notable. A visa support document is just some of the paperwork you need to submit that explains why you are going there. There is nothing particularly notable about this one. It can be summarized in one sentence in the visa policy article. In Russian it is "визовая поддержка" (literally "visa support" - they translated it directly): there are hundreds or thousands of businesses that offer their services for these if you use their services. This article was created as a way to advertise one of these businesses: it was created by an account with no other edits and the first draft included a link to one of these businesses. And then they stuck the link back in after it was removed. FYI James500 please don't vote to keep things unless you have an actual reason to do so - you voted "provisional keep" for WP:ARTSPAM for no reason except you thought the others (who were correct) were espousing "manifest nonsense." —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G12 as copyright infringement of this website. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:-- I remind the nominator to always check for possible copyvio before bringing articles to AfD. The article is actually an obvious candidate for speedy deletion per G11 and G12, I really don't expect to see it here. @Wikimandia: I flagged the article for speedy deletion per G11 and G12. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology - I didn't even think to check for copyvio - that's the site they are advertising so I'm not surprised! Thank you, and thanks also to Dai Pritchard for PROD this page in the first place. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:21, 9 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 merge to Social Media Examiner. Davewild (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stelzner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Not many references, and 2 are just to books, and one is Huffington post. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article created by user who is paid to promote folks WP:COIN, thing is, the company Stalzner founded has a WP page Social Media Examiner and it doesn't take much searching to establish that he has notability : [34], [35], [36], [37].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference that is remotely authoritative is the Huffington Post article and one article is insufficient to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Social Media Examiner - Stelzner seems to be mentioned frequently in Google Books and Google News, although mostly in relation to the company he founded. Neelix (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge changing my suggestion, redirect into Social Media Examiner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Social Media Examiner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Macmann Willoughby[edit]

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

Appears not to be sufficiently notable for an article here, fails WP:AUTHOR. I find no indication of in-depth coverage. The COI does not help, but is not in itself a reason to delete. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one may just need sourcing. I searched her first book "Risky Business" Found a blog post that says she was at Breadloaf.[38] It was reviewed in Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly , Horn Book, and The Journal of Library Work with Children. Sources seem to be out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP What perhaps misled the Nom is the fact that an author who was well-reviewed and widely read in the 50s, but whose work was perhaps not timeless, will not show well in a simple search. Even if she had only published under one, consistent name. You need to use news archive searches to find authors form other eras; I added a couple of sources after looking up only the first (maiden) name she wrote under and her first book. There are more. WP:NOTTEMPORARY. An author who was notable (as per reviews, inclusion in best books lists) n the 1950s through 1980s continues to be WP:N. The article continues to need expansion, sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:25, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She also had two books selected for publication by Weekly Reader,[39][40] indicating that her works were textbook quality. I also found another review, which I cannot access from outside the US. [41]
Keep: Per new expansion and sourcing. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 7 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. Seems consensus is to keep, No point in letting this drag on. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hormones and Brain Differentiation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Clearly non-notable work by non-notable author. WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE also a concern. Prod contested by article author. AusLondonder (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination seems to be motivated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerns: the nominator simply doesn't like the book in question. He left a message on my talk page describing it as a "poor" work. The nominator is entitled to his personal view of the book, but it isn't a relevant reason for deleting the article. The nominator provides no evidence that the work is "fringe". Günter Dörner happens to be a notorious figure because of his views on homosexuality; the claim that he is not notable is uninformed and suggests lack of familiarity with this topic. As for the book's individual notability, I'm sure more sources can be found. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's poor because of its very almost unknown existence and is a poor quality work. User:FreeKnowledgeCreator has devoted a significant amount of time to articles and categories related to the anti-homosexuality cause. This nomination has nothing to do with my views, which I have not expressed. Mr Dorner does not have an article AusLondonder (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Unknown existence? Unknown to whom? Those familiar with scientific literature on homosexuality would be well familiar with this book. Calling it a "poor quality work" is opinion, and just proves my point that you want the article deleted essentially because you don't like it. You're obviously confused in assuming that Dorner isn't notable simply because he doesn't have an article; there are plenty of topics that would be notable that simply have not had articles created about them yet. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless. I'm arguing it fails the above policies. It is not scientific literature. AusLondonder (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that it isn't "scientific literature"? What would be your qualifications for deeming it non-scientific? This is about the clearest case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT one could hope to find. For what it's worth, I've just gone through the books on my shelves and found several (Louis A. Berman's The Puzzle: Exploring the Evolutionary Puzzle of Male Homosexuality, Edward Stein's The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation, Vernon A. Rosario's Science and Homosexualities, William Paul et al's Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, and Simon LeVay's The Sexual Brain and Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation) that discuss Dörner's work without specifically citing Hormones and Brain Differentation, and several others (John Money's Gay, Straight, and In-between: The Sexology of Erotic Orientation, John C. Gonsiorek et al's Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, Simon LeVay's Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality, Micheal Ruse's Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry, Timothy F. Murphy's Gay Science: The Ethics of Sexual Orientation Research, and Jim McKnight's Straight Science: Homosexuality, Evolution and Adaptation) that do cite it. The last two of these sources I have added to the article; I will try to add others. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does meet WP:NBOOK, since it has "been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Other concerns seem trumped-up. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep books passes GNG, nominator has a clear agenda here. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would ask you to strike that comment User:Mellowed Fillmore and review WP:AGF and WP:NPA. How dare you come to a discussion and simply start abusing another editor. When I nominated the book, it did not meet WP:GNG and it likely still does notAusLondonder (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. You have already exhausted AGF and my comment is not an NPA. Who do you think you are to say 'How dare you...' to another editor? Furthermore, I am beginning to consider taking you to ANI. It is pretty clear you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a book is mentioned in another book does not make it notable by the way. AusLondonder (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you had better explain what you would accept as evidence of notability. Five criteria are listed at WP:BKCRIT, and I believe the article meets the first. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep The nominator is correct that this book has become WP:FRINGE and it certainly fits WP:IDONTLIKEIT for me. But, unfortunately, it was mainstream when it was originally published. As a historical work, it passes WP:BKCRIT criteria #1.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rest. Pax 19:09, 7 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) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chamsonyeo[edit]

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

This is a temporary project group put together for six episodes of a TV show. Only one of the sources used is reliable, and my search didn't uncover anything other than short press release type articles. I don't believe this group meets WP:GNG. Random86 (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge if 참소녀 is a subunit of a band with an article we either keep or merge, not delete. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @In ictu oculi: Chamsonyeo is not a subunit of a band with an article. Random86 (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Ko.wp article says it is. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not. Random86 (talk)

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) 00:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two of the references don't even mention the subject and the other two are very short, quasi press releases that do not indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirecting to the show it's from seems to be the obvious choice, but as far as I can tell the show doesn't have an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 7 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) 17:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic Chowk[edit]

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

Non-notable roadway, fails WP:GEOROAD, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:GEOROAD & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A Books search only found a few results including one from a Nepal guide saying this road has several cheap hotels. Other searches found nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 8 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.