Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
Purge

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Purge server cache

Cristy Coors Beasley[edit]

Cristy Coors Beasley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cristy Coors Beasley" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

All sources are primary, the few non-primary sources show no discussion of subject. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric W. Brown[edit]

Eric W. Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Eric W. Brown" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Clearly an autobiography, with all non-primary sources being one off mentions. An interviews are on unknown unreliable sites. Does not meet WP:COMPOSER, delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Jessica Corbin[edit]

Jessica Corbin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jessica Corbin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No substantial coverage in any third-party sources, does not meet WP:BIO WP:GNG, delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Justin Robert Young[edit]

Justin Robert Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Justin Robert Young" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Tagged with notability issue for over 2 years. All sources are primary, no substantial coverage from third-party sources, delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Game Show[edit]

The Game Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Game Show" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article tagged with issue for over 5 years. No third-party sources to show notability, delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Screen Savers[edit]

The Screen Savers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Screen Savers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article tagged with issue for over 2 years. No third-party sources to show notability, delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Isabella Golding[edit]

Isabella Golding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Isabella Golding" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable Australian suffragist, only one source (the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which covers her in a shared entry with her sister, and mostly covering her sister in that entry, giving Isabella a passing mention), and only one other I could find was from the Australian Women's Register, which exclusively used the aforementioned ADB as a source, only restating info found in the ADB. Notability requires multiple sources, and since the Australian Women's Register only rephrased the ADB, it should be treated as the same source.

Also, based on WP:ANYBIO, she would not be notable, as being "the first female inspector of public schools" is not very notable, and the ADB says she was the "first female inspector" (this is under the Early Closing Act of 1899, which moderately expanded the scope of inspectors to cover shops [and no mention of schools]), I would say that is a blatant lie, since Augusta Zadow was the first female government inspector in Australia. Since Isabella Golding's "claim to fame", so to speak, would be being the first female inspector, the fact that she is not the first female inspector pretty much makes her non-notable (as per WP:ANYBIO, because her well-known or significant honor [that of being the first female inspector] or alternately, her widely-recognized [no sources other than the ADB recognize her, and the ADB only recognizes her in conjunction with her sister] contribution, doesn't actually exist). Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Being the first woman in the entire country to achieve the position of inspector of schools - effectively the highest career rung in the education field - is a big deal. It's an obvious claim to notability, which is why it's in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. The Australian Dictionary of Biography is the source on Australian biography - it is authoritative, peer-reviewed, and highly selective - most Wikipedia biographies would not come close to their notability standard. The ADB entry cites their sources, which includes two books, amongst other things. She passes WP:N more than easily, and I find this nomination - 48 hours after a brand new editor created it as part of a specific effort to recruit new editors - abhorrent. This is a flagrant case of biting the newbies for no justifiable purpose. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Domnall mac Brian Ó hÚigínn[edit]

Domnall mac Brian Ó hÚigínn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Domnall mac Brian Ó hÚigínn" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Delete: non-notable per WRITER. Appears to be included solely due to connection to other bardic families. Not even a cursory indication of anything, much less anything notable, which he wrote. Quis separabit? 13:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

KnockDoc[edit]

KnockDoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "KnockDoc" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

advertisement The Banner talk 13:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Money for Lunch[edit]

Money for Lunch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Money for Lunch" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Sourcing issues - PR / primary / affiliate some aren't WP:RS, may fail WP:GNG . (created by COI / allegation of paid writing blocked sock/meat Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amyxcell/Archive ) Widefox; talk 12:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Rahul Rai Gupta[edit]

Rahul Rai Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rahul Rai Gupta" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article is not supported by any reliable independent sources that confirm the notability of the subject. Appears to be a self-written vanispam article to promote the interests of the subject. WWGB (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Pynchon[edit]

Victoria Pynchon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Victoria Pynchon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

The last articles for deletion was a disaster due to an outside group on a crusade against this person. But looking at it, it probably would have been deleted. I don't see any plausible way she can be notable, certainly not her blog. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not WP:LINKEDIN. Pynchon is no doubt a competent professional, but that is not the same thing as meeting WP:GNG. Things like "appearing on The Marketplace's The Morning Report" to comment on an issue shows she is competent, but are not coverage showing notability. There are no substantive claims showing notability supported by sources.--Milowenthasspoken 18:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • My conclusion is the same as last time: weak delete. She has a few passing mentions in Independent Reliable Sources, but most of the rest of the references are self-referential. In a search I found one additional source [1] but "Bizwomen" does not seem like much of a source. Things written by her do not count; we need things written ABOUT her by third parties, and those seem to be lacking. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Insufficient reliable sources referencing or discussing her to pass WP:N. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: In a search, I found three sources not included in the article and added them. One is an interview with Pynchon (about her) in a legal periodical. The second one is an annual conference of the New York Bar Association where she was keynote speaker. The third is a listing by Rasmussen College of the Top 100 Academic Law Twitter Feeds in 2010, which includes Pynchon. These are substantive claims that show notability, per WP:GNG. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: For some reason, my "Keep" appears as "Delete" in the AfD Vote Counter. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently the vote counter doesn't trust your vote!!  :-) Seriously though, those sources are not good indicia of notability. Where are the regional newspaper spreads on her? Typically two in-depth profiles of someone in a national or regional mainstream publication is a good case for notability. One you get below that the Afds go from borderline to worse.--Milowenthasspoken 05:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Good one ref: the vote counter! :-) Is not multiple coverage by reliable national and regional newspapers and news outlets (CNN, Wall Street Journal, NPR, Newsday, San Diego Union Tribune, Parade magazine, etc.) equal to a couple of profiles of a person to show notability? A profile was done by the Los Angeles Daily Journal, which is considered a regional publication, and a periodical did a profile. I have seen that similarly discussed in other AfDs and those articles with multiple coverage without profiles have passed GNG. The nom saying the article "probably would have been deleted" the first time is not a valid reason for deletion. We do not know that, especially given so many of the Delete votes were a result of the outside crusade to have the page deleted. Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Very very weak keep The references in this article need work. Many of them do not link to the article being referenced, but to the Wikipedia page for the journal. (I think there's a misunderstanding about the citation format by some contributor(s)). Without that cleanup it's hard to know what's going on here. In some cases, I was unable to find the article being referenced. I fixed a few, and made notes on another. I would say that this is a notability edge case, but with improvements to the references it could be turned around. LaMona (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I searched and found that her blog postings for her site are included in the Library of Congress' archive of legal blogs so I added it to the article with a source. I also found a Fox Business News segment of The Willis Report, where she was the only person interviewed and I added that, along with two back-to-back appearances on Minnesota Public Radio during the state's 2011 budget hearings to discuss negotiations. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. However, I'm not sure that adds much -- Library of Congress archives whole periods of the full twitter feed, so it's not a huge sign of significance. I'd rather see more references in reliable publications. LaMona (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The Fox Business News segment adds a reliable news outlet to the mix. Will see what else I can find. Thanks. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Off topic: Could someone edit my "Keep" (above) so it does not continue to register as "Delete" on the Stats vote counter? Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - It should be noted that six months ago (two years after the 1st AfD), AutoAdmit wrote on its page about getting Pynchon's Wikipedia article deleted, "lets get this going again!" It is dated April 10, 2014. Here's the link (scroll to bottom). Stumbled on it during a Google search. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Why are you displaying such zeal in this AFD, Author? I think you are demonstrating she is not notable by noting items like a Library of Congress archive of a twitter feed. And that Los Angeles Daily Journal thing is not a regional publication but a local legal newspaper which did a puff biz piece on her which she republished everywhere.--Milowenthasspoken 14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
After the last afd on this article, I remember some of the other contributors voicing a suspicion that this was paid editing on the part of AuthorAuthor, and the behavioral indicators all seem to support this. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I was unaware that by attempting to address the issues raised at AfD, it is considered "zeal." In Wikipedia discussions, I have voiced my opposition to anyone being paid to edit and/or create articles on Wikipedia. I have not received payment for this or any other Wikipedia article. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Whenever someone shows zeal to this extent there is a reason; I know this from participating in at least 1000 AfDs. I don't mean its some bad reason, and surely wasn't thinking of paid editing, I was just wondering. I just assumed you know Victoria, but its no big deal. I often show great zeal in preventing articles from being deleted because I'm an inclusionist, and I've gotten flack for it; but I also agree with the purposes and spirit of WP:GNG.--Milowenthasspoken 02:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Similar questions can arise when there is zeal about an article being deleted in light of a current post from a controversial group soliciting help in getting it done. And I certainly hope I do not get criticized for mentioning the elephant in the room.-AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Kim Taehyung[edit]

Kim Taehyung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kim Taehyung" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Sources do not refer to a person.References are not valid.A person is not known and A separate source that does not just refer to him.(Sitalima (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC))

Tom Oesch[edit]

Tom Oesch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tom Oesch" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I'm nominating this, Sailing for Madagascar and Echo (2003 film) for deletion. I came across these entries via the speedy deletion process, where User:Tomoesch had requested that each page be deleted as WP:G7, author request. However as he is not the primary author and there is an assertion of notability, I declined the speedy deletions and asked him to file a ticket via ORTS that proves that he is Oesch. (Which will go a long way towards the articles getting deleted.) Now even if it does end up that he isn't who his username implies he is (although I think he is), the problem here is that I don't see where he or his films are particularly notable enough for an article. He did win some awards at the Rochester International Film Festival ([2]) but I don't see where those awards are really enough to show notability to where we'd keep the articles. If anyone can find sources to show notability then I'm open to persuasion, but given the user request and the difficulty I had in finding sources, I'd say that we'd lose nothing by deleting these. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:

Sailing for Madagascar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Echo (2003 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quagmire family[edit]

Quagmire family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Quagmire family" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

The Quagmire family is simply not notable; the series is, but notability is not inherited. Even the triplets are only secondary characters, and each triplet appears in no more than 3 books, along with occasional mentions in a couple more. In addition, the page contains original research such as "Quigley's first name may be a reference to Lillian Fox Quigley", far too much detail in description and completely trivial sections such as "Isadora's couplets". It's best to just delete the page and write a small section about the triplets and smaller section about the parents in List of supporting A Series of Unfortunate Events characters: it's probably not even worth using the current article as a starting point, because it's far too detailed and still gives undue weight to trivial details about characters mentioned off-hand (e.g. "According to Quigley, Mr. Quagmire used to say, "A good meal can cheer one up considerably."").

Additionally, there are too many list articles for the characters: this makes it hard to navigate for readers. In this instance, a person may expect to find the Quagmires when looking at List of supporting A Series of Unfortunate Events characters, but this is even more apparent in articles listed below. For instance, Carmelita Spats should certainly not fall under V.F.D. members and probably not Count Olaf's theater troupe either.

The following articles all follow the same pattern, and I am therefore also nominating them for deletion. For other, slightly more notable articles like Baudelaire family or Beatrice Baudelaire, separate nominations may still be warranted, but I have not nominated them here.

V.F.D. members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): honestly, just look at how much text is written about Carmelita Spats to see how much fancruft is in the article. Better to delete the article and re-write character descriptions.
Snicket family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): I'm not sure Jacob Snicket or Little Snicket are notable enough to deserve a single mention anywhere on Wikipedia; mentions of the Denouements are tangential and possibly WP:OR.
Bald man with the long nose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): no more notable than the white-faced women or any other troupe member.
Hook-handed man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): the most notable of the theater troupe, much more than the bald man, but still just a trivial character. Compare with, for instance, Lucius Malfoy, who doesn't get his own article, despite being a more important character in a more notable series.
Count Olaf's theater troupe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): more notable than both of the above troupe members, obviously, as it contains them both and several more characters. However, there is still too much detail. I would also argue the title is a misnomer; Fiona, Lulu, Ernest or the sinister duo should definitely not be filed under there. The wart-faced man and Orwell probably do not belong there either. Possibly, you could merge some other characters in there and rename the article Antagonists from A Series of Unfortunate Events, but then you've got a problem with Hugo, Kevin and Colette. The article could be used for a starting point when merging wherever it ends up: it's not in as bad shape as some others nominated above. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 13:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 13:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Spelling for Bees[edit]

Spelling for Bees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Spelling for Bees" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Can't find very much of anything. The only third-party sources are 1 and 2 and then nothing past 2010. None of the acts/individuals that comprise this collective seem to meet WP:BAND either. Cannolis (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - I don't think this is notable. Having said that, if there were enough reliable sources until whatever time span, and not later, it could still be notable. Notability once asserted, I believe, does not disappear with the passage of time. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

ADK Assault Rifle[edit]

ADK Assault Rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "ADK Assault Rifle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

As for now I found absolutely no proof of the weapon in question even existing in real world (not only in Red Alert 3 videogame).
Weird technical specs are also listed, non consistent with how 7,62x54R round usually behave (for example - muzzle velocity is stated to be as high as 1200 m/sec, while it is only 865m/sec even in Mosin-Nagant M91/30 with its barrel lenght of 730mm --RussianTrooper (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This AfD nomination was malformed. I've formatted it properly and am relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deor (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Wichita King Air crash[edit]

2014 Wichita King Air crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2014 Wichita King Air crash" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non notable WP:NOTNEWS - TheChampionMan1234 09:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep: Why is it no news? It has been reported in the news. ( The page is also created in French) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

DCM Sir (Director)[edit]

DCM Sir (Director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "DCM Sir (Director)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Delete as of now it doesn't appear that this person passes WP:CREATIVE Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

List of restaurants in Lagos[edit]

List of restaurants in Lagos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of restaurants in Lagos" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Delete per what wiki is not. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment To the Wikipedia administrator in charge of this list's nomination for deletion: The list: List of restaurants in Lagos was created while editing via a poor internet access. As a result, the list is still in the process of creation and will be improved upon as soon as possible. Eruditescholar (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Not one single notable entry on this list either. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A New Life with Maurice 13[edit]

A New Life with Maurice 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "A New Life with Maurice 13" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I came across this while looking at an article for one of the director's other films and I noticed that this article has the same issues as Praison's Last Chance. The sources are all either WP:PRIMARY, routine database entries, or links to places that host the film. I wish the directors well, but right now this is just WP:TOOSOON for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Logic Supply[edit]

Logic Supply (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Logic Supply" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Another Articles for Creation "special". This was previously deleted (in 2013) for lack of notability after it was created by an editor with an openly declared conflict of interest featuring (almost exclusively) local coverage from the area in which the company is located. The new references aren't much better - passing mentions of specific employees, quotes from other employees and political press releases that mention that particular employees have been appointed to things. None of those allow the company to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. We didn't have that last time and we don't have that now. Those that constitute significant coverage are from local newspapers, those from media further away could not be considered significant coverage. Combining the two doesn't get us much closer to notability than we were a year ago. Stlwart111 05:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Bandar al-Hazmi[edit]

Bandar al-Hazmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bandar al-Hazmi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

WP:GNGThis person does not meet notability guidelines. The article only states he was a roommate and fellow student of a 9/11 hijacker. Petebutt (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A7 --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Friday Night Magic[edit]

Friday Night Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Friday Night Magic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable cultural phenomenon Keilana|Parlez ici 03:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

How Global Warming Works[edit]

How Global Warming Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "How Global Warming Works" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails the notability critera for a website. Website was launched 2013, on December 16, 2013 it had an article in Salon and NPR and that kicked off a few blog posts in the following few days. Other then that we have a mention by the author of the website (not a secondary source), and some passing mentions. Overall very trivial coverage of a website of a website that has almost no web traffic [3] (and only 37 other sites anywhere on the web that link to the website). The current page appears to mostly just be promotional. Obsidi (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don’t expect you to agree as the article creator, but I did want to explain myself. Its true, I was hesitant on including the NPR, as it was marked by NPR as a blog (unlike say the news story here). But the Salon post gets its source from the NPR post, so I thought I would include it. The Scientific America is also a blog post, the very next day, which also sources NPR. The Washington Post piece is again a blog post (not a news story), which also links to the NPR post (and mostly just duplicates what is in the NPR post). The Yahoo News is actually from takepart.com [9] an online blog(and of which the website was at best a passing mention), and posted 2 days after the NPR story. Likewise Phys.org is a blog. At best the Phys.org or takepart.com might be called a WP:NEWSBLOG, but even that would be a stretch as they have no actual publication, but more likely I would classify them a group blog and not a reliable source. The NPR/Salon/Washington Post/Scientific America are all be considered WP:NEWSBLOG, but they are also all at about the same time and derived from (and sourced to) the NPR post. No other reliable source, has picked it up in almost a year. (and how about we WP:AGF as to the “climate change denial accusation?) --Obsidi (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yetisports[edit]

Yetisports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Yetisports" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't seem to have any reliable sources to back up its notability. As well as parts of the article fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. GamerPro64 03:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Book of Nullification[edit]

The Book of Nullification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Book of Nullification" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't appear to meath WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. Even using the looser criteria for non-contemporary books, I cannot find any indication that the 28 page pamphlet has been widely cited or written about nor that it has a significant place in the history of literature. In looking for significant coverage of the book in both gbooks and gscholars, 99% of the hits are simple trivial mentions of usually one or two sentences. FyzixFighter (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be widely written about. The criteria speak of the fame the book enjoyed in the past. It would be famous if it was widely read or talked about. We have multiple sources claiming that the book "attracted much attention" etc from its publication onwards. That clearly satisfies the criteria. There was much less publishing going on in the 1830s than there is today, so it is unreasonable to expect as much of this discussion to be committed to print as would be today. James500 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rewrite I agree the topic seems trivial and not needed on Wikipedia. If kept however it needs a complete rewrite because after reading it I still have no idea what it is about... EoRdE6 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to its author, Christopher Memminger, who is indisputably notable as a South Carolina state legislator and Treasury Secretary of the Confederate States of America. The political pamphlet is already described in his biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree good idea, redirect it EoRdE6 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. In my view this satisfies GNG, which does not define "trivial" in terms precise enough to exclude the sources available. There are what appear to be strong indications of historical importance. The pamphlet "contributed largely to the overthrow of" the doctrine of nullification: Representative Men of the South, p 33 [10]. "The sarcasm of the paper is said to have excited much attention": Meigs, The Life of John Caldwell Calhoun, v 1, p 443: [11]. And so forth. James500 (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect From the sources I have found, the book is only notable in the historical/political context of Christopher Memminger. The book is adequately covered in his article. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(1) It is notable in the context of the doctrine of nullification. (2) It is manifestly not adequately covered in Memminger's article, which only says that he wrote it and says nothing about its effect. James500 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I searched Newspapers.com and there were only a few newspaper articles all focusing on Christopher Memminger and providing at best a one-sentence description of the book. I was hoping to find something of substance, but I couldn't. I am One of Many (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Minimum control speeds[edit]

Minimum control speeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Minimum control speeds" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Per WP:OR and WP:NOTMANUAL. To see what I mean, read what was removed from the article here[12] when the PROD was taken down. ...William 13:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep The article simply needs a few more sources... I think it is a fairly well written article other than that EoRdE6 (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This article seems to be well-written and sourced, and covers one of the important distinguishing concepts common to most multiengine aircraft. The content here is exactly what I was expecting to find on wikipedia when I searched for this concept. -- Bovineone (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

University and College Crowdfunding Platforms[edit]

University and College Crowdfunding Platforms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "University and College Crowdfunding Platforms" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Runs into problems with WP:LINKFARM and WP:GNG as well as EL/list standards. None of the items on the list have a Wikipedia article (other than the universities themselves, of course) or even a source. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Elton Dharry[edit]

Elton Dharry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Elton Dharry" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable boxer - does not meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. There is an IBF title in the future apparently but this is not referenced and in any case would make this WP:TOOSOON. The references in the article are just titles with no indication where they are from. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I think you could argue he technically meets WP:NBOX with his Caribbean title, but I'm having a hard time voting to keep this article. He defended his title against a fighter with a 2-2 record which tells me it's not much of a title (the WBC hands them out like candy). His Guyanaese title was won against a fighter who'd won 5 of his 20 fights. Added to the lack of coverage to meet WP:GNG, this determined my vote. Additional info could change my mind.Mdtemp (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Cookson[edit]

Sophie Cookson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sophie Cookson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, actress is not notable. Article lacks the sources to proves her notability, not a single of her films have been released yet. Captain Assassin! «TCG» 10:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Unref'd BLP. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I added a couple of sources to eliminate the unreferenced BLP issue, so this AfD can run its full course. This is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, but there is coverage about her, e.g. [13][14][15]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • keep I can appreciate the TOOSOON viewpoint, but the female lead in Kingsman is established and likely her breakthrough role. Deleting this now, only to have to re-write it again when the film generates public interest is just pointless make-work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Added refs are ok. Szzuk (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep There are not now enough sources to establish WP:BASIC. I am One of Many (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. I agree that this article was created too soon, but there's just enough coverage to at least make her notability debatable. I don't like "crystal ball" arguments that depend on upcoming sources of notability, but reliable sources have taken note of her casting. Plus, Screen International profiled her as a "star of tomorrow", which is something. Even if every film is canceled and her career never materializes, she's still got that, which is more of a claim to notability than many new articles make. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Seeing the many keep votes (or opinions?) I will adventure to say delete per WP:TOOSOON. It looks like she is going to b famous in 2015 but for what? For leading roles as an actress or maybe -I hope and pray not- because she had a car accident or something like that? I wouldn't hurry to make articles for "future notables". --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Cristian Favela[edit]

Cristian Favela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cristian Favela" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
  • This page was prodded, but the prodding process got messed up. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The original PROD was for Not notable. WP:BLP1E.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Another case of someone technically meeting NBOX by winning one of the many non-world titles of the WBC, but there's no significant independent coverage and a career record of 38 wins in 75 fights doesn't make a good case for notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Great Lakes Institute of Management[edit]

Great Lakes Institute of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Great Lakes Institute of Management" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

How is it that in eight years nobody has managed to turn this into a decent article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - I guess the alumni are too busy to write something about their alma mater. If we delete this, somebody will think of writing a decent article. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - Deletion to force improvement is not a valid reason for deletion. Yes, the article needs extensive work. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hillcrest Primary School[edit]

Hillcrest Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hillcrest Primary School" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Primary schools are not normally notable as per WP:OUTCOMES. Unreferenced with no indication of notability. Gbawden (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kudpung: I would have redirected it but the chances are high that the page creator would simply undo the redirect. Gbawden (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@Gbawden:. In my experience, having processed many hundreds of school AfDs and redirects, the likelihood is rare. If it does happen, I full protect the redirect, which at the same time also prevents a new article with the same name being created. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

William Morrison "The Bard of Mallusk"[edit]

William Morrison "The Bard of Mallusk" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "William Morrison "The Bard of Mallusk"" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable poet. A local hero, to be sure, but notability does not seem to extend beyond the Mallusk area where he lived. No indications that his poems were ever published except by the people of Mallusk as part of a memorial. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Oliver Walker[edit]

Oliver Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Oliver Walker" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non notable actor with small appearance in movies. Ireneshih (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Actor has had several notable roles in several television series. RowanWood839 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Crumbs[edit]

The Crumbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Crumbs" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Unable to find reliable sources for this band, though it may be due to the commonality of their name with leftover food. However, article itself does not give indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
*Keep. The Article certainly needs fixing up, but I did find an Miami New Times article in 2014, Broward/Palm Beach New Times in 2011, coverage in CMJ New Music Report way back in 1998, an article in Punk Magazine here in 2001, Record Review in Razorcake. Some coverage in Summit Daily, a Colorado publication. There name does make it hard to find references though. JTdale Talk 05:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep I added a couple of sources JTdale listed above and added another from HighBeam. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Fitzgerald Auto Malls[edit]

Fitzgerald Auto Malls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Fitzgerald Auto Malls" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Can a car dealership be notable by fact of being a car dealership? I mean omitting possible qualities as being the largest dealership (employees, volume of sales), a newsworthy innovation, or notoriety (e.g., a dealership whose owner was notorious for hiring teenage boys who responsibilities included unsavory activities). I honestly don't know.

I came across this article, originally written 19 September, while working thru the New Pages backlog. By inclination, I'm an inclusionist (although I'm not interested in marking reviewed articles on sports people or record albums; if you don't like it, help drain the backlog yourself), but I'm interested in keeping obvious vanity entries & advertising. And here I honestly don't know the answer.

In this case, let me lay out the reasons to keep & the reasons to delete:

To keep --
  • A passing reference that the owner played a role in the 2008-2010 Automotive industry crisis,
  • Based on number of employees, it appears to be a sizable company,
To delete --
  • WP:NOTADVERTISING (This article reads very much like an advertisement, & if kept would need to be rewritten.)
  • Article was created with the edit summary, "Putting up a legitimate Wikipedia article for Fitzgerald Auto Malls, an auto dealership in with its headquarters located in Maryland" -- not a promising sign.

As an additional point, even if I reviewed this article, I know this article will eventually find its way to AfD. So we might as decide this issue now. -- llywrch (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

To Keep I am the user who put the article up in the first place and here's why I believe the article should NOT be deleted. Fitzgerald Auto Malls employs well over 1,000 persons and is one of the largest employers in Montgomery County, Maryland as well as the state of Maryland. Fitzgerald Auto Malls comprises over 20 locations in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Florida and therefore has some national recognition. Also, as you mentioned in your reasons "to keep" this article, Fitzgerald Auto Malls played an integral role in passing legislation that saved numerous dealerships and thousands of jobs across the U.S. following the auto industry crisis of 2008-2010. Fitzgerald Auto Malls plays a key role in supporting child car safety in Maryland through its monthly Car Seat inspection events, in which trained technicians install car seats for families in need of assistance. I understand that this article may read to some like an advertisement and I would be happy to partake in the rewriting process to make it more neutral. However, the fact that I put up a lackluster edit summary is listed as a reason "to delete" is completely unfair and does not take into account the validity or importance of the article. If I had to resubmit the article my edit summary would read as follows: "I am adding a legitimate article for Fitzgerald Auto Malls: one of the largest employers in Maryland, a leader in child safety and recycling, and a key player in the U.S. Auto Crisis of 2008-2010." Please take my reasoning into consideration before deleting this article. I would be happy to discuss this further and accept anyone's input as to how to improve this page so it may avoid deletion. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC) It is also worth mentioning that Fitzgerald Auto Malls is the only car dealer group in North America to achieve ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certifications. HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC) I recently made several significant edits to the Fitzgerald Auto Malls article and added a few new sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13jlsilver (talkcontribs) 14:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. As I look at the guidelines on company notability, I think this is a near miss. There's just not significant, in-depth coverage of the company in non-local sources. It seems as if the man is more notable than the company (and notability isn't inherited). Indeed, it's possible the man could have an article, but I did insufficient checking to say for sure; others might wish to comment on that.
    • To me, the size of the company doesn't matter; I subscribe to essay WP:BIG.
    • The creator has done a good job ferreting out references, but they're a little weak. The best one are about the man, not the company (e.g. [16][17][18]).
    • Others are local (they're easy to spot). I couldn't find any references that were at least regional, and also had in depth coverage of the company (not just a couple of sentences, or about a single event). Subsection WP:AUD seems worth quoting: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."
    • There was some non-local coverage, such as Outraged: How Detroit and the Wall Street Car Czars Killed the American Dream [19]. Fitzgerald Mall was named several times. However, the coverage wasn't extensive; it was mentioned in context of a single event, and lacked depth.
    • For what it's worth, I looked at the essay on outcomes; this has no formal weight, but is sometimes helpful. Some of the items were interesting (e.g., reference to WP:BIG), but nothing was exactly on point.
    • As a side note, the nominator was correct to say that the article was highly promotional. It's since been toned down. I still see significant issues, but not enough to blow up the article. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hopefully now a Weak Keep Larry/Traveling_Man[I have removed the bolding, and struck through this, as it makes it appear that I have changed my vote.--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)] I would like to start by thanking you for taking such a vested interest in this Wiki page. I now understand more of the process required to keep a Wiki page up and running as well as the process for deletion. Just now, I added a national source from Reuters to the article, which I had not been able to locate previously. This reference should qualify as being one of the "best" references that you listed above in addition to preventing the article from violating Subsection WP:AUD since this is a nationally published source. I appreciate you noting that the article has since been toned down with regards to advertising and that it's issues are not enough to blow up the article. I am still in the process of toning down the article's apparent advertising and will continue to work to improve this article and stave off deletion. Any suggestions as to how I could do this would be truly appreciated. Thanks again, best HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • [I edited your text, above, as it put a bolded !vote next to my user name, possibly giving the impression that I had changed my !vote. Each person should really !vote just once -- so just one bolded item.] Unfortunately, the reference to Reuters [20] might sound promising, but it's just a press release. Indeed, the reference includes the text "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." If you could find an article that Reuters wrote, where it talks about the company in depth, that would be different. Hopefully more people will comment on this deletion request; it's quite possible they'll disagree with me. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for responding, I did not realize that this source was a press release. I am still working on finding more reliable, nationally published sources and will continue to update the Fitzgerald Auto Malls page as I am able to locate them. I agree that one vote per person makes sense and I apologize for making it appear as though you had changed your vote. I do hope that more people weigh in on this page so that I may continue to improve it and avoid deletion. -- HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I was just able to replace the Reuters press release with two other sources I found. Still in the process of improving the page and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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) 21:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. I lean to keep. A few new references for you; [21], [22], [23], [24]. Also here is a digital copy of the book already referenced in the article; [25], an award they won [26]. JTdale Talk 05:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • User:JTdale - Thanks so much for providing these references, I really appreciate it. A few of them have already been added to the article, but I added one you provided to bolster the Wiki page's intro section. Great that you fond a copy of the book, I had been looking for that! Thanks again! Any more help you can provide would be awesome. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

David Longoria[edit]

David Longoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "David Longoria" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

For such an important musician (according to the article), you should expect more than 267 unique hits (including namesakes). In my opinion, fails WP:GNG. Looks like selfpromo. The Banner talk 16:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - You made a comment about 267 unique hits...what is that in reference to?
I don't even follow this type of music and I'd heard of him, so I'm leaning toward notability, but I'd like to compare this to the music guidelines and hear what others have to say before I make a solid vote. Bali88 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Bud4music (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)I have contributed several parts of this page over the past few years as I am a Latin Jazz lover and have followed this artist and many others. He is certainly notable in music. He has a US national tv special (PBS) and many Billboard charted songs.I have deleted recent additions I made to the page that did not have citations, yet I know to be true from several others I have interviewed. I do not have any affiliation to the artist other than a fan of his work and the genre.Bud4music (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Chrisdunbar2007 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)I made changes in edits to awards section that seemed poorly setup- not in AP or wiki style- but content is sound in my opinion. As I read comments here- subject Longoria is certainly a notable musician in this genre. I noted that some recent content is overly wordy and in too much detail for Wikipedia and may need even further editing. Chrisdunbar2007 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)ChrisDunbar2007


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) 01:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Monique Calvo-Dahlborg[edit]

Monique Calvo-Dahlborg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Monique Calvo-Dahlborg" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Insufficient claims of notability to meet WP:PROF RadioFan (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Disney University[edit]

Disney University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Disney University" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Unencyclopedic, does not meet notability guidelines, lacks references, search for sufficient references found only primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I only looked for a few seconds but http://www.cnbc.com/id/100619276# and http://www.trainingmag.com/content/inside-disney-u.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

{[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Reynolds (manager/lawyer)}}

Madison McKinley Garton[edit]

Madison McKinley Garton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Madison McKinley Garton" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Most of the references in the article fail WP:RS and the others do not establish notability. A similar article about the same subject was deleted in July (article was previously titled "Madison McKinley") and there does not seem to be any significant new reason in the article or in the WP:RS that indicates more notability than before. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_McKinley. A speedy delete G4 was declined. Jersey92 (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • keep This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON with her acting career, but it is close. What pushes it over the top for me is that she was on The Bachelor because she was a model an actress and then received substantial coverage when she walked off. So, being at the tipping point in her acting career, the wide-spread coverage with the The Bachelor incident tips the article to notability as I see it. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment The Bachelor episode was true in the last AfD as well but being on the show and walking off does not establish notability and the obvious consensus was to Delete. WP:TOOSOON is a reason to Delete, not to Keep. Please also see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)