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

Susan Cotter[edit]

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

While looking for sources to confirm or contradict the claims about factual errors given on the talk page, I failed to find a single third-party source that covers Cotter in any detail. Thus there's no indication of notability. Furthermore, the person who disputed those claims (and who, according to the primary source, is right) also said that Cotter was interested in seeing the article gone. For BLPs where the subject is of borderline notability, we should defer to the subject's wishes in favor of privacy. See WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Huon (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Huon: First of all, read the source again:

Susan Cotter O.D., M.S. received her doctor of optometry degree in 1983 from the Illinois College of Optometry, completed a residency in Children’s Vision at the Southern California College of Optometry (SCCO) in 1984, and received a M.S. degree in Clinical and Biomedical Investigations from the University of Southern California (USC) Keck School of Medicine in 2006

Obviously it means master's in optometry. Second, even if Barack Obama will want his article to be deleted we as Wikipedians are not deleting anything simply because one person doesn't like the information on him/her. Third, the primary source indicates that she is a former chair woman of the American Academy of Optometry a notability guideline which is covered by the WP:Academics #6. Fourth, if that's not enough I can speak to user @Randykitty: and maybe he will see if she is notable.--Mishae (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, what? The article currently says, "Cotter got her master's degree from the Illinois College of Optometry in 1983". Unless you say a doctor of optometry is a master's degree, or that she got both in the same year, the article is wrong (but that on its own is not a reason to delete it, of course). Regarding notability, I'm looking forward to seeing third-party sources that cover Cotter in some detail. For Obama we have them; for Cotter I couldn't find any. I'll have to note that the American Academy of Optometry article doesn't cite any, either. Huon (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@Huon: In the current field yes, O.D. M.S. probably means master's degree in optometry, since it is an abriviation for Doctor of Optometry Master of Science. I changed it to Ph.D. since its probably means that. As far as the American Academy of Optometry article goes, maybe the editors forgot to update it. Realize that not every individual is wikified there either.--Mishae (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Huh? O.D. and M.S. are two separate degrees, not a single four-letter degree, one of them means a doctor (not masters) in optometry, and neither of them is the same as a Ph.D. I agree with Huon: this sort of guesswork is not ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
We should have the discussion about content on the article talk page, not here. I still see no third-party coverage of Cotter, but rather WP:OR guesswork unsuitable for a biography of a living person. Huon (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Huon: From where did you got that WP:OR from? I see no original research because its sourced. Either way, we will wait till Randykitty will come and then we will continue this discussion wherever you want. I'm usually dubious in my writing regarding doctors, but I trust him because he knows better.:)--Mishae (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete Strangest thing...The American Academy of Optometry has Presidents, not Chairpersons - and her name ain't on the list. Otherwise, no one really cares about how many degrees she's got, that and a quarter might buy you a song downtown. Not Noteworthy per WP:ACADEMIC Nikto wha? 02:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Then that solves everything, I guess. I wrote the article by the fact that she is a chairperson of a notable organization. Guess I was wrong, thanks for heads up though. Will keep your Presidents of American Academy of Optometry in my mind. :)--Mishae (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm open to changing my mind if someone finds more evidence that she is a notable academic, but at the moment this is a long stretch. Metamagician3000 (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. There are some issues with the article, as noted above (correcting her educational record, for example), but that is rather trivial. She has no GScholar profile, but GS does list some heavily-cited articles. She does have a Scopus profile, which gives citation data that are borderline notable (but Scopus has no good coverage before the mid-90s and Cotter started doing research in the 80S). I went to the (more reliable) Web of Science and found over a 100 publications, cited 2423 times (highest ones: 184, 149, 121) with an h-index of 28. This is beyond the range of what we usually take as meeting WP:ACADEMIC#1. Her profile at USC is not online any more, but she has another one at Marshall B. Ketchum University. There are a few fellowships mentioned, but I would need to do some more research to figure out whether those are selective enough for ACADEMIC#3. She also seems to have written a textbook (which has been translated into Spanish), if that would be used widely, she'd make #4.
Normally I would now !vote "keep", but the wishes of the subject count, too. Mishae is right that we wouldn't delete Barack Obama, but that's not a fair comparison, because Obama obviously is so notable that it would be ridiculous not covering him. Cotter is notable because of her citation record, and I don't think WP would suffer significantly if we didn't cover her. However, before !voting "delete", I'd like to know where and how the subject expressed her wish that this bio be deleted (and that we can be sure that it was the indeed the subject herself) and whether she would still want this bio deleted if the factual errors in the bio are corrected. --Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
A person who said they were an acquaintance of Cotter came into the live help channel #wikipedia-en-help connect, pointed out the factual errors, and insisted that Cotter wanted the article deleted despite our explanations that the inaccuracies could easily be corrected. Josve05a was present during that conversation. We haven't spoken to Cotter herself, but I see no reason to doubt that person's account of her wishes. Huon (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I can imagine her being upset about an article containing mistakes, but would she still object to a corrected bio? I find a person that came on IRC (i.e., not through more formal channels) not really convincing. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
not through more formal channels - People prefer IRC-chat much more than send an email to info-en-q due to it is acctually live, they think it is just the same "support-group". Furthermore, I can confirm that the helpee in the chat was chatting from Los Angeles, California. (tJosve05a (c) 15:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The current source doesn not establish notability in my opinion. Therefor I'm !voting !delete, that does not mean I'm not open to chnage my mind if something else comes up. (tJosve05a (c) 15:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Going to Keep: meets ACADEMIC#1 and possibly other criteria, too (but one is enough). No convincing arguments in favor of deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think people will say that this article is not a part of this AfD but it had the same issue. A user came to my the article talkpage and mine as well and complained that I did some inaccuracies and therefore the subject need to be deleted. Now, that subject was covered by the New York Times which made her automatically notable. In this case, I don't see coverage from New York Times or the like, but user @Enigma: convinced me back then not to delete the article simply because the subject issued an ultimatum. Really, Wikipedia relies heavily on notability and we shouldn't really care about subject's wishes. If we will care about every wish of a subject we will end up writing about dead individuals and looking for reliable sources through archives which is a) pain in the butt and b) some websites get deleted long before they end up in any of the archives. This practice of caring of individual wishes will lead us to 1 million less articles because majority of dead individuals are covered on Wikipedia. Plus, our readers are relying heavily on biographies, majority of them read on the living ones.--Mishae (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Another thing to mention; the nominator didn't read the fine print under the PROD template which said that the previous discussion was closed as keep, that means that we should close this discussion as keep too per WP:SNOW.--Mishae (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep but monitor. BLP issues are usually fixed quickly, when they are on people's radars (watch lists). Bearian (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Off topic comment So what does watch lists do? Like, they never notify me of any changes in the article, so what is their purpose?--Mishae (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakrtalk / 03:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

List of f(x) endorsements[edit]

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

This article is clearly unencyclopedic and does not have any notable information to remain on Wikipedia. It also does not contain any reliable sources. "List of Endorsements" violates WP:PROMO and is just a means of advertising. If Michael Phelps earns $45 million a year from appearances and endorsements 1and he does not have such a list on here, then this article should not either. TerryAlex (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Girls' Generation endorsements[edit]

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

This article is clearly unencyclopedic and does not have any notable information to remain on Wikipedia. It also is missing many reliable sources. "List of Endorsements" violates WP:PROMO and is just a means of advertising. If Michael Phelps earns $45 million a year from appearances and endorsements 1and he does not have such a list on here, then this article should not either.--TerryAlex (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Brittney Skye[edit]

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

Delete: - Brittney Skye fails WP:Pornbio. She has no major award wins, no mainstream popularity, no unique contributions to porn.Redban (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: She has won an AVN award, so for me she passes WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 11 December 2014, 19:00 CET
WP:Pornbio says, "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." Redban (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. She passes WP:PORNBIO criteria #2, which states "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature". Skye was the lead in Grub Girl and also appeared in Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz: Diary of a Pimp. Making it onto Maxim's list of the top 12 most popular porn stars is also evidence of notability. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:Pornbio #2 uses the word, "starred," which means she needs to be the principal performer in that "iconic, groundbreaking, blockbuster feature." That word eliminates the Snoop Dogg movie. Skye did star in Grub Girl, but was that flick truly an "iconic, groundbreaking, blockbuster feature"? If we apply the WP:Pornbio standards to "Grub Girl," we must note that it was only nominated at the AVN for "Best Video"; it did not win the award (or any others. In fact, I don't think it was nominated at XBiz or Fame). As for the point about Maxim, WP:Pornbio #3 uses the word "multiple," meaning more than once, so one appearance in Maxim is insufficient. Furthermore, that Maxim list was in their (now defunct) UK version according to http://business.avn.com/articles/video/Maxim-U-K-Names-Top-12-Porn-Stars-400571.html Does Maxim UK have much credibility? Brittney Skye shot all her pornography in America, after all. Redban (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per everyone above - passes WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG. –Davey2010(talk) 17:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - win, so meets the requirements. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)
    21:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I suggest Davey2010 and Subtropical-man's votes should be disregarded for lack of explanation. Redban (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I suggest Redban suffers from bad loser syndrome and his comment should be ignored. For the record they did give a reason. -- fdewaele, 15 December 2014, 11:00 CET
Comment - I suggest Redban should be blocked for the poorly-nominated afds, I'll admit my reason isn't brilliant but I cited 2 policies which she passes so isn't that bad either.... –Davey2010(talk) 15:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Please note that I have recently edited the article in question here. Skye has starred "in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" (Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz: Diary of a Pimp), and she has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media."
As an aside, she, in fact, did not shoot all of her films in the USA alone, as she was previously under contract with a company called "Sineplex", which apparently has shot some films in Russia.[1] Guy1890 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This was originally closed as a clear Keep by myself, however, the NAC closure was contested as "too early". I've reverted myself and this AfD is again open for discussion. Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. There;s a lot of heat generated over other behavior by the nominator, but looking at the relevant SNG makes matters quite clear:
    • Skye fails criterion #1 of PORNBIO. While she has a single AVN Award, it is in a scene-related category, and therefore does not satisfy PORNBIO.
    • Skye fails criterion #3 of PORNBIO. While she has credits in two apparently notable films, her roles were minor and unbilled, which therefore by consensus fails the criterion.
    • Skye fails criterion #2 of PORNBIO. While she appeared in Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz: Diary of a Pimp, she definitely did not "star" in that release. She is, instead one of 40 performers in a party/orgy scene. The same claim was made for another porn performer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Smiles, and was rejected by consensus. As several editors noted in that discussion, the primary element of notability here is "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre", and simply being in a particular film is mot enough to satisfy that. Moreover, as Morbidthoughts (hardly an anti-porn editor) noted in that discussion, "This criteria is meant to be construed strictly with support from reliable sources (not just the usual puffing press releases) that acknowledge the contributions." There are no reliable sources acknowledging the purported contributions here, or even indicating what they might be. The case for "Grub Girl" is no better. Nothing evidences that this film is actually "an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature"; it appears to be no more than borderline notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Rhomberg, which is the paradigm for evaluating PORNBIO #2 claims. The discussion was, quite properly, not closed as keep until reliable third-party sourcing was produced which clearly established the film's significance.
    • Skye fails the GNG. There is no significant reliable sourcing regarding the subject herself, beyond the trivial coverage of a casino publicity stunt -- nowhere near enough for a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - As I have previously stated in this more recent discussion, "I personally do not believe that (the Mia Smiles) AfD settled these types of issues properly & permanently, since not that many people actually participated in that old AfD." In addition, Skye does not appear to me to appear "unbilled" in Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz: Diary of a Pimp, and she apparently appeared in "Scene #7 along with 7 other performers. She has also received at least some mainstream media coverage in at least ESPN.com, The Daily Telegraph, the book Sport and Violence: A Critical Examination of Sport, Maxim UK, Playboy, Penthouse, and the Howard Stern Show. Finally, besides some current issues with dead links in the article in question here, I see no real issues with unreliable sourcing in this article. Guy1890 (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • IMDB doesn't list her among the billed performers. The official site from the film's production company doesn't list her as a "star" of the film. [2](very NSFW link). Why do you think we should invent something not to be found in reliable sources? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
"IMDB doesn't list her among the billed performers"...but IAFD & the Adult Film Database, which are usually much more comphrehensive databases for this genre of films, do list her as being a performer in the film in question here. I'm not "inventing" anything here Mr. Wolfowitz. Guy1890 (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
What you've invented is a unique definition of "starred in", defining it down to "appeared in". That's not a good faith argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - I feel that she passes GNG and feel that Guy1890's comment above reinforces that. Dismas|(talk) 01:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete fails the notability requirements for this occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakrtalk / 03:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-procedurally relisted due to prior reverted close --slakrtalk / 03:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy Brassell[edit]

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

Unnotable football journalist. Only references are to work he has written and an interview with himself. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment - Does he pass that? One of the criteria is "Independent of the subject". The entirety of the first ten pages are either journalist index pages or articles he has wrote. There's no disputing he is a journalist, but how is he notable? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Quotes from a subject and articles by a subject (short of the Prof Test) are explicitly debarred from supporting the notability of the subject. Anyone got any reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail? Haven't found any. Nha Trang Allons! 20:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 03:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Peppa Pig: The Movie[edit]

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

Likely a hoax, quick search found only a notation on a wikia. The popularity of this series would undoubtedly show some form of online footprint for this movie. Only wiki presence are edits by the original article author or IPs that have edited both. ☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete given the popularity of the series, there's no way such a film could fly under the radar so this appears to be a hoax. Pichpich (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom, also feel I should point out this was tagged for speedy delete several times, and it appears that the admin rejecting the speedy delete may have a COI as they often edit the article Peppa Pig. War wizard90 (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Rick Lavoie[edit]

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

Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Google and Proquest searches only come up with sources that have an interest in the written topic (i.e. press releases for speaking engagements). – Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

El Uali Mustapha Sayed Special School[edit]

El Uali Mustapha Sayed Special School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "El Uali Mustapha Sayed Special School" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable school. Most sources are either blatantly unreliable or non-independent Mr. Guye (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

James Edwin Powell[edit]

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

There was no consensus in 2010 AfD, mainly because of poor participation. I cannot see that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mid-ranking officer. No special achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: this is a tough one. Plenty of issues with the article, sourcing, and may be of dubious notability...but this is an example of what makes an internet encyclopedia cool, that people can upload this kind of thing. Allowing for the era he comes from he could be considered notable. I would keep unless someone can discredit the sources. Vrac (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have to agree with Vrac in that I also find the whole era thing amazing - I wouldn't know the first thing about writing about someone who was born & died in 1800s so personally I find it amazing that someone this year did!, Anyway waffling on! - I'll admit the sources aren't great but IMHO it'll be beneficial to keep the article than to delete it (Yes I know I'm keeping in essence per WP:ILIKEIT but its extremely rare I do.), –Davey2010(talk) 02:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ransack-Raid the Rostrum[edit]

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

Non-notable organized event. Fails WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - well, the formatting took me all of 2 minutes to fix and now we can actually see what is being discussed. It would seem the name of the organisation is "Auxesis" and the event they run is titled "Ransack-Raid the Rostrum". In some sources, the latter is listed as the theme for 2014 in particular. So I wonder if a move to Auxesis (something) might not be a better solution? Stlwart111 03:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Gavy NJ[edit]

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

This group may be notable, but there is nothing here to indicate that. Random86 (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Younique Unit[edit]

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

This is a temporary S.M. Entertainment unit group that does not appear to have any notability. Random86 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Jerome Katz[edit]

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

This article was written for pay by User:FergusM1970 per [3]. The question is where does the community stand on the paid undisclosed paid writing of articles? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's notable, NPOV and not in a prohibited category of paid editing.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and I haven't actually been paid yet. Go have another rummage on Elance, Doc, and I think you'll find that this is not yet a paid article.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes but you are hoping to be paid Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Not... exactly. But I assume you've confirmed that I haven't been.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
That shouldn't be a problem. SLU's site is down at the moment, but I should be able to find an RS in a couple of minutes.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
SLU site still down, but I can do his CV for now. It's hosted on the SLU business school site. Any good?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
CV added. I have the link to the SLU faculty site, which I will add as soon as the site's working again. If I'm not around to do so I'm sure someone else can verify and add it. For reference here it is: http://www.slu.edu/x19132.xml --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
And added.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep—Per google scholar: h-index is ~28, 10 publications with >100 cites. That's a pretty clear evidence for WP:NACADEMIC #1: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The person is notable, any problems caused by paid editing can be fixed with edits. link1link2link3link4 AlbinoFerret 03:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Five Girls (band)[edit]

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

The group never debuted and is not notable. Random86 (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete. As stated above. The agency doesn't even exist anymore. All proposed group members went on to do other stuff, so this failed project can be discussed in their individual biographies. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Altai[edit]

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

A complete subset of the Altay disambiguation page—it does not meet the double disambiguation guidelines but does violate the practices for combining terms on disambiguation pages (particularly the third bullet, "Variant spellings"). The "Altay" page already contains all entries which may be referred as either "Altay" or "Altai" (and often as both).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 15, 2014; 18:22 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I see you looked to redirect this page to Altay, but it was reverted by Inwind with the reason given: 'Turkish and Chinese Altay is not the same as Russian Altai.' I have no idea if this is correct or not.Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    To the best of my knowledge, it is correct; from the content point of view. The problem here, however, is that disambiguation pages are not content, they are simply navigational tools. We don't have a disambiguation page at Altay and a related article at Altai; what we have is two disambiguation pages, one of which (Altai) contains only one specific spelling variation and is a complete subset of another. That's the exact situation WP:DPAGE addresses.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 16, 2014; 16:16 (UTC)
  • Comment to provide a bit of background for the discussion I would like to give a little explanation to the spelling variants:
Both
  • The Altai Mountains which are the source of the majority of subjects can be romanized either as Altai or as Altay. This seems to be true for all languages involved (Russian, Kazakh, Mongolian and Chinese)
only Altay
  • The Turkish name
only Altai

Inwind (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • The legal case, as it's currently presented, does not really belong in the main section, since it's a partial title match, although it would of course be fine under "See also". That leaves exactly one entry on the "Altai" page (the novel) which may not be referred to as "Altay"; the bulk of other entries can be referred to using either spelling. In other words, if both disambigs were to be kept, the only entries not present on both would be the novel (only on "Altai") and the people with the Turkish names (only on "Altay"), resulting in overwhelming duplication of entries. This can easier be resolved by leaving just one page (Altay, to which "Altai" redirects) with three main sections ("can be referred to using the 'Altai' spelling only, the 'Altay' spelling only, or using either spelling"). Would you see that as an acceptable compromise? The alternative is maintaining two nearly identical pages, and that tends to be confusing to both readers and editors.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 17, 2014; 16:09 (UTC)
    Regarding the legal case, it is common in copyright circles to refer to it as just Altai (here, for example). bd2412 T 16:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Good to know; thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 18, 2014; 16:31 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dana & Sunday[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Random86 (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Dana & Sunday are the two remaining members of The Grace (band). They are still The Grace, not a new group. The Grace itself is notable and were quite popular in the mid-2000s, before the onslaught of 1000s of new idol groups began. Any information in this article should be incorporated into The Grace, if it hasn't already been. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I somehow missed the fact that they are a subgroup. I second merging this into The Grace (band). --Random86 (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Aircharter[edit]

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

Article was written by User:Adamecho, who is either an employee or owner of this 46-employee company. Please delete because it fails WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. (I suspect it also fails WP:AUD.) —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Illridewithyou[edit]

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

the hashtag was a response to a specific event, and is appropriately covered in the article about that event. It is not sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Redirect and Merge content. I created this page title as a redirect to the event which spawned this hashtag. I believe the topic is worthy of discussion within the concept of that article, but that it has no "independent" merit. The content of this article should be merged back in to the main article and this title redirected - as it was before. I suspect this article was created to push a POV as there are differing political interpretations about this hashtag in Australian media at the moment. Wittylama 01:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep - although an apparent peripheral event surrounding an event that was over-covered by media, and social media, the actual context of a twitter controversy about ethnic relations in Australia is sufficiently stand alone as a subject, in view of the phenomenon of the political and social tensions that surround inter-religious and inter-ethnic relations in the larger cities. satusuro 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Merge and redirect - in view of various comments on this page satusuro 03:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
comment - this is nothing to do with the response below... satusuro 03:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing preventing the inclusion of the hashtag in relevant articles, though it is not necessarily appropriate to do so as generic unsourced social commentary. Controversy about ethnic relations in Australia may indeed warrant its own article, but this article should not be used as a coatrack for that purpose. Feel free to improve articles such as racism in Australia and racial violence in Australia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Quick google news search brings up multiple articles about the hashtag itself, including an Al Jazeera article. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 01:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and unblock article creator - Given the inaccurate reporting of the chocolate shop hostage situation, it is important to include this hashtag, which proves that it was not generally regarded as terrorism. The creator of this article, TheAlmighteyDrill, did nothing wrong here, and if he did accidentally break the BLP, it was certainly not done maliciously, as it was quoting an accurate newspaper source. All he was doing was trying to make this as accurate as possible. KrampusC (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not necessary to keep this article merely because it is believed that another article is inaccurately reporting something (which would make this a POV fork). There are currently concerns with the main article regarding breaches of WP:LABEL with respect to calling the event 'terrorism' in the absence of strong expert sources calling it such, but that is not a basis for independent notability of the subject of this article. (I wasn't aware the editor who substantially edited this article had been blocked, but it is completely irrelevant here. An AfD discussion cannot make a judgement on unblocking an editor. If the editor wishes to be unblocked, they will need to follow the separate request process.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The editor was blocked for an edit on this article, so I would think it was relevant. I am sure that there is some policy somewhere about blocking someone for creating an article then putting that article up for AFD straight afterwards. KrampusC (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
As I've told you twice, the editor was blocked primarily for another, more serious, BLP violation. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
If you told me twice, there is no need to tell me a third time. It comes across as rather aggressive and heavy handed. And since you are referring to something that I can't see, I am only going to refer to things that I can see, and that this does not seem to be a BLP violation. KrampusC (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I was not aware the editor (who technically was not the creator of the article, but who I later learned was the substantial contributor) had been blocked when I submitted the AfD. The fact that the editor was blocked has no bearing on the reasons already indicated for recommending deletion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into 2014 Sydney Hostage Crisis as was its original state, or Delete fails WP:NEWS but sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in that article for the positive responses. Gnangarra 02:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Sydney siege page Are there any other individually significant hashtags? It's not yet Take Back the Night. This could be useful as a pointer to the main Sydney siege page, as part of the community response, but I don't know that it's significant in its own right. Time will tell. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've included discussion of this article, of the article's creator being blocked, and this AFD, in the BLP noticeboard here: [4] Please look at the discussion there, as it relates to this AFD nomination, and whether the AFD nomination was made in good faith. KrampusC (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • since this discussion started at Talk:2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis#Illridewithyou a couple of hours earlier and some suggestions there by other editors warranted a formal discussion. If you going to throw AGF around please at least include the whole timeline of events. Gnangarra 03:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No, he is to immediately withdraw his false accusation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - (I'd almost be inclined to delete). The fact that the original creator is blocked is irrelevant. The article shouldn't have been created and it doesn't look like any amount of argument on his part would convince editors otherwise. Like everyone, he would only get one !vote. Of course the nomination was in good faith and if there is some suggestion it wasn't, I'd be happy to close this and restart a second for the sake of bureaucracy (which will undoubtedly produce the same result). This was a minor (made up) part of a broader news story and can easily be covered with a line or two there. If it's kept, the fact that the genesis story was (at least in part) invented should be included, but "fabricated" is a clear misreading of the sources and (in the context) a BLP violation. Stlwart111 03:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - No independent notability on its own without standing on the notability of the Sydney siege event, this is better off as a subsection within the siege article. --benlisquareTCE 03:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Republic of South Carolina[edit]

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

This is, at most, an "informal" name. Content here is duplicated with South Carolina in the American Civil War. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete subjective content with no significant sources, perhaps some of the content might be suitable for incorporation in South Carolina--Mevagiss (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The South Carolina in the American Civil War article is in need of secession specific information found in this article regardless of the end result of proposed deletion or merger. I have created a section in that (SC in ACW) article using the most relevant information and sources from this one and augmenting with other parts of the timeline and additional cites. Please edit as needed. Red Harvest (talk) 10:00, 11 December 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 20:22, 15 December 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 00:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code[edit]

Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I can find no substantial coverage of this article (or book?) in reliable sources. The article appears to have been primarily created as an attack page, and I can't find sufficient reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • There's several RSes listed right there on the page (Linux Today, LinuxInsider, NewsForge, CommsWorld AU, IT Pro UK, academic source First Monday). You're literally claiming none of these are RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment from creator: I wrote the original content that was moved from another article for this one. I didn't create it as an "attack page", and that comes across as a personal attack on me. Is that what you meant to do? If not, please withdraw the accusation - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Response: There are two inline citations in the whole article. As I brought up on the article's talk page, I'm not sure Linux Insider is a WP:RS. It looks like a niche online publication, and it's not apparently notable enough itself for a Wikipedia article. The IT Pro source doesn't mention the Samizdat article, so it's not sufficient to establish notability, and is probably WP:COATRACK to include since it doesn't specifically mention the subject of the article. There are a number of external links (I trimmed quite a few, including some that were links to emails). However, as I said in nominating this article, there aren't currently sufficient reliable sources in the article to establish notability. If you are aware of such WP:RS, please add them to the article as inline citations. The original article appeared to me to be very biased and in violation of WP:NPOV. That's why I sought to clean it up, and in so doing, I've had difficulty establishing notability, which is why I ultimately nominated this article for deletion. Sentences like "The book was greeted with almost universal derision by the technical world and was repudiated by many of its claimed sources," especially with no sourcing, are unencyclopedic and do give the impression of an attack page. I'm not saying it was your intention to create an attack page, but the original article was in violation of quite a few of Wikipedia's guidelines. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • There are three inline citations, not two. The reference to the Wall Street Journal in the section headed "Reactions to Samizdat" hasn't been formatted as a footnote, but that isn't required by our guidelines, as far as I am aware. For the avoidance of doubt, NRVE requires the existence of reliable sources, not their immediate citation, inline or otherwise. James500 (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think "(WSJ, 14 June 2004)" really counts as a reference, since it's not verifiable. The WSJ undoubtedly published many things on that day, so we'd need an article title. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
        • That is total nonsense. All you have to do is search for the quote in Google, and it immediately comes up with this WSJ article (which is obviously what is being cited) and other reliable sources such as Ars Technica. And, yes, you do have to actually look for these sources yourself (WP:BEFORE). James500 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding the article. However, it doesn't mention the subject of this article, so I don't see how we can use it as a source here. The topic of this article is a book called Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code. The WSJ article mentions a report by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, but it doesn't give a title. How can we know it is referring to Samizdat? I don't see how the Samizdat book (or article/report) meets our notability guidelines. I think any reliably sourced content about it can be included in the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute's page, but why does it needs its own page? Champaign Supernova (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The WSJ's description of the contents of the report is far more detailed than you suggest. If the description of the contents is sufficiently detailed that it could not plausibly refer to any other report by the institute, it does not need to mention the title of the report. James500 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 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) 01:10, 16 December 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 00:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

JoonYong Park[edit]

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

References are his bio or interviews about his life. References does not meet Wikipedia's notability standard. CerealKillerYum (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:21, 16 December 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 00:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

21C Media Group[edit]

21C Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "21C Media Group" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article relies heavily on primary sources and a brief mention in the Financial Times. This agency is absent from the well-known O'Dwyer's list of largest PR agencies, suggesting notability is not earned from its size. There is a paragraph about it in a New York Times piece, but it is not close to enough to pass WP:ORG, which requires two profile stories where the agency is the subject of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:18, 16 December 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 00:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Audible Treats[edit]

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

Article pieced together with blogs, brief mentions, interviews and non-RS sources written by crowd-sourced "contributors". Article consists primarily of name-dropping. There is no indication this org is of historical significance. CorporateM (Talk) 22:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:17, 16 December 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 00:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Edwin F. Guth Memorial Award for Interior Lighting Design[edit]

Edwin F. Guth Memorial Award for Interior Lighting Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Edwin F. Guth Memorial Award for Interior Lighting Design" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This is a non-notable award. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentSLPalmer55 hasn't commented yet, but he wrote on the Talk page: "I'm not sure what kind of evidence you need to support the fact that this is a notable award, but I'd like to make a case for it. I know that this is a subjective statement, but this really is the most highly sought-after award in the world of lighting design." From his editing history he seems to know what he's talking about, so I'm inclined to believe that. It's a long-standing award. If we have this article, we can link to it from articles on lighting designers to show that they have won the most notable award in their field. Just to give a similar example, I've been looking for a long time for evidence on the Internet to back up what we say in our article, that El Croquis is the world's most prestigious architecture magazine. It's just something that everyone knows. Not to say that proof for this award doesn't exist. SLPalmer55 might be able to tell us more. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:29, 22 December 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 00:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If it's as notable as he claims, it should be fairly easy to find some news articles on the subject to establish notability. Maybe some interior decorating publication. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 01:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Forum for Equality[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG, a lot of dead references. Pishcal 00:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

1PS[edit]

1PS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1PS" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No evidence of notability, and article has no third-party reliable sources. Random86 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Laura Owen[edit]

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

This article has had copyright issues for some time now; while those issues have apparently been worked out enough that the csd and corhen search bot tagging have stopped the article still appears to be iffy on the notability front, specifically the General Notability Guidelines. While the article asserts that a governmental position in Kansas there is little else in the article suggest that GNG guidelines are unconditionally met. I am therefore nominating the article for deletion to seek greater community input on whether or not it should remain here on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 9 December 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 00:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Based on my first look at this, some clarifications are in order:
(1) Her name was Laura Nicholl when she became Kansas Commerce Secretary in 1991 [5] and when the governor removed her from office in 1992, officially because of unauthorized overseas travel but also possibly due to a political dispute between them. [6][7][8][9] She became Laura Owen when she married former Kansas Lieutenant Governor Dave Owen after he served a short prison sentence for tax evasion in 1994 (President Clinton later pardoned him). [10]
(2) She was not "elected" as Commerce Secretary: if she had been, it would be a strong argument for her notability under WP:POLITICIAN as the holder of a statewide elected office, but in Kansas this position (head of the Kansas Department of Commerce) is an appointed post.
(3) There is at least some significant coverage of her tenure and controversial departure from that position. In addition to the sources noted previously, see also [11][12]. Is this enough to establish notability under our customary standards for state officials? At the moment I'd say it's marginal. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep we normally keep members of any state legislature. I see no reason not to extend that same notability standard to the state Secretary of Commerce.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:27, 21 December 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 00:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Akbar (Tamil militant)[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines under WP:MILPEOPLE as he was not a member of a state military. Cossde (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete None of the sources appear to be both independent and reliable. This is a puff piece based on propaganda press. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:08, 21 December 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 00:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge University Law Society[edit]

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

I've searched for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources but I'm not finding anything so it fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from Cambridge University. It was nominated for deletion way back in 2006 but none of the arguments for keeping the article demonstrated notability and the standards for inclusion have improved significantly since then. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 20:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)*

Delete - They haven't done anything.Conyemenam (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: No press releases or valid evidence of attained notability, nor are multiple searches (Guardian, Highbeam, Questia, Google) locating anything that is. This article fails the WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. Conyemenam (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Struck a duplicate !vote above. NorthAmerica1000 00:06, 23 December 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 00:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Lanner Inc.[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:CORP. Search on Google News turns up only one result. Darylgolden(talk) 06:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (confabulate) @ 21:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

LGBT+ Liberal Democrats[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion because it seems non-notable. There is lack of interest from third-party sources. 86.158.182.11 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh666 07:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep – like the Sarah Brown AfD, I should point out a conflict of interest; I am a member of the group up for deletion. However, the group is directly notable on two occasions, both relating to anti-LGBT censorship: [13][14]. The group is also notable for proposing an equal marriage to the party in the first place, which eventually became government policy and then legislation. Sceptre (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google News search reveals LGBTory (116) and LGBT Labour (136) are not gaining significantly more coverage than LGBT+ Liberal Democrats (75). Deleting the pages of all LGBT groups for major parties in the UK doesn't seem like the sort of thing Wikipedia would want to do. ~Excesses~ (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. BenLinus1214talk 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article appears to fail WP:NOTABILITY, and lacks multiple independent sources. As for Excesses, you haven't made an argument you've just stated that it "doesn't seem like the sort of thing Wikipedia would want to do." I'd appreciate if you could cite a policy, guideline or essay as to why you think the article should be kept. Thanks, Pishcal 02:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Exercise Saffron Bandit[edit]

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

Non-notable military exercise, these sort of things happens all the time and a rarely notable and we have no indication this is anything special - prod removed with accusation of drive-by-tagging MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is satisfied if there are sufficient sources for the subject and I can find a range of sources for this. It's a vague nomination and it hasn't been explained what makes a military exercise "non-notable". Mar4d (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment sources are not an indication of being notable, the military do exercises all the time it is part of the routine of military training and hardly encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment clearly nothing like the multi-national red flag and as a recurring exercise is still not notable just part of the day job of being an air force. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 11 December 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 11:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (gas) @ 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Academic Superstore[edit]

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

No references presences although the not referenced tag was placed in 2010. May also be merged to JourneyEd if has something of importance. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Merge into parent company as usual in such cases, and as suggested by the nom; there was no need to bring this here . DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (proclaim) @ 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Noor Muhammad Maharvi[edit]

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

Poorly Sourced Duplicate of Muhammad Maharvi Bosstopher (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Auction Co.[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No references provided. Google search did not provide anything substantial. Please add references if notable. May also be merged to eBay. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll add some references and text. This company has leaked +10M(iirc) S.Korean people's private data (such as Phone no., Social Security Number (of Korea), Home address, etc few years ago. (not sure if independant page exists or not)  Revi 16:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Updated a bit. Has references now, Keep.  Revi 13:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Good work Revi but someone who knows korean only can verify whether they truly signify something about the company or not. Moreover there is nothing much about the company in the article. It just says about being acquired by ebay and an Information security breach which was turned down by a court. But these things are referenced in korean. Can you source some articles in English if possible? Moreover this is not WP:NEWSRELEASE so this article might need cleanup and major rewrite to comply with wikipedia standards.Lakun.patra (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (yarn) @ 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Carvana[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines or may be WP:TOOSOON. No references provided. Google search did not provide anything substantial. Please add references if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Certance[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No substantial references provided.Please add references if notable Lakun.patra (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep – This was a historically notable company, as the final form of Seagate's tape drive business. Seagate was one of 3 creators of the major tape format (LTO) and for 3 years this company was the worldwide market leader in shipments of tape drives. That is from an archive of the company's About page, which I just added. There was also one cite on the acquisition by Quantum. Unfortunately Certance's history-of-the-company page was never archived and is now gone. But that information may still be available elsewhere. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Survivor of major company. WP covers this area exhaustively. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (drone) @ 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Redbridge International Academy[edit]

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

Unreffed article on a school only established last year. Notability very questionable - almost A7 material. Also some suspicion of creation by a paid editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (indicate) @ 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Jayme Amatnecks[edit]

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

Self-biography of a musician with no indication of notability as a composer or a conductor, fails WP:NMG and does not present enough coverage by reliable sources. The article was entirely written based on press releases, media articles which cite him only trivilly if at all and unknown website called www.arschorus.com. On the top of that, the article has lots of original reserch. Lechatjaune (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Chelsea Fine[edit]

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

Does not appear to have met the notability threshold outlined at WP:AUTHOR, as her most notable work (Anew novel) itself does not appear notable, and most press received is from her website or from non-notable blogs. —Eustress 17:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Price[edit]

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

So...he's a radio host and likes to write autobiographies. Sourcing is primary and weak for a BLP, looks like it falls short of WP:GNG (note this has had longstanding COI issues since creation, as noted on the talk) Widefox; talk 21:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (soliloquize) @ 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Revivalry – A Tribute to Running Wild[edit]

The Revivalry – A Tribute to Running Wild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Revivalry – A Tribute to Running Wild" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable album. No refs, no claim of notability. Doesn't appear to have charted. Conversion to redirect twice reverted. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (announce) @ 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sail Training International[edit]

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

Doubtfull notability and a smell of advertising The Banner talk 01:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:NGO - I have added more sources and rewrote the intro. International non-profit organisation with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. - Taketa (talk) 19:36, 2 December 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 19:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: Long-standing charity whose work has been noted internationally. I note also that its chairperson received an OBE in 2013, summarised as "President and chairman, Sail Training International. For services to charitable services."[15] which I think goes beyond WP:NOTINHERITED in indicating a fundamental link to this organisation. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 21:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yosi Sergant[edit]

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

The article is devoted in bulk to one episode in this person's life that reflects negatively upon him. Without that the subject is simply not notable, so it warrants deletion under WP:BLP1E. Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - While I agree that this article is a piece of shit, placing undue emphasis on a single moment in the subject's biography, it does not follow that this is a non-notable subject. See, for example "Yoshi Sergant and the Art of Change" (LA Weekly); "No Longer at the NEA, Yoshi Sergant is Back Among the Artists" (Fast Company); and evidence of importance in the artistic community as a speaker at Convergence 2014. Passes GNG, this aside from the fact that his targeting by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and removal from the NEA was national news in the United States. The fact that an article sucks is not a valid reason for deletion. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (shout) @ 21:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Joffe-Walt[edit]

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

Despite having 62 citations, I have not found any in the article that are actually acceptable/verify notability. Primary sources, YouTube videos, his LinkedIn profile, brief mentions/quotes in the media, etc. do not impart notability. Promotion of Change.org and of the BLP's awards suggests a poorly-sourced vanity page on a successful, but not historically significant professional. CorporateM (Talk) 14:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's not unreasonable to say that Joffe-Walt achieved some notability as a result of his false reporting in the UK Guardian newspaper: the UK Independent and Hong Kong SCMP both had articles about him on this subject. In which case, I believe the policy is that there should be a stub article only regarding this subject.I should add that from my experience of this article, the nature and timing of edits would appear consistent with one being use for promotional purposes.Tpaine99 (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose the article is amended to something along the lines of this: [16] Tpaine99 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (orate) @ 21:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Mostly support/done I reviewed the sources you provided above. They are in fact reliable sources and do cover his false reporting in-depth. I added a couple sentences to your draft on un-related topics and stubbed the article of all the promotion, primary sources and other junk. However, if that really is his only claim to notability, I wonder if the article should be named after this one event, as oppose to having an article that purports to be a complete biography, but is only actually about one aspect of his life. I think more discussion would be worthwhile and I hope this AfD attracts it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Mark Banjavich[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he has significant enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable due to no significant coverage. Patents and book mentioned are evidence of notability to other people not MB. Just reads like anyone's LinkedIn profile--Mevagiss (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: There is this [17] which has significant coverage of the subject. There are other mentions of him in Google Books. Granted the article is in a sad state, but for his era the coverage is significant. Vrac (talk) 15:17, 14 December 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) 08:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (natter) @ 21:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Illinois Online High School[edit]

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

No indications of notability, no references other than a primary source. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (soliloquize) @ 21:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Charles Lucas Anthony[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT - this person's only claim to fame is that he was a suicid bomber who killed him self and 13 others. Also fails notability guidelines under WP:MILPEOPLE as he was not a member of a state military. The incident itself might pass notability (14 deaths) and warrant an article in which case this individual's biographical info could be included in that article. Cossde (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (proclaim) @ 21:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Stoicheia[edit]

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

Does not seem to satisfy WP:PRODUCT. Article furthermore does not assert notability. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (talk) @ 21:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris Cape[edit]

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

This guy is completely unknown and it seems like he has written his own biography for PR purposes. Simpythegimpy (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Weak Keep many of the references are poor quality blogs, some refs don't even mention cape, but I found two refs that appear to be legit reviews. Wayne Jayes (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 21:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Howell Park Uptown Dallas[edit]

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

Previously nominated for deletion as non-notable as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howell Park, Uptown. More sources are present, but as AfD was active when I accepted, I'll raise this for AfD again. (@AMLNet49, Bearian:) --Mdann52talk to me! 16:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Howell Park is the most well documented historic district in Dallas. I have provided historic reference points over the course of more than 100 years via the sources I've cited. Howellparkuptown (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - This looks like a good start to a biography of J. M. Howell, but doesn't appear to say anythign about the neighborhood. Suggest the page be moved to J. M. Howell. If Howell Park is truely "the most well documented historic district in Dallas" it shouldn't be hard to find some references about the district itself. As near as I can tell, it isn't even designated a Landmark District by the city, unlike nearby State Thomas, Dallas, for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article describes Howell Park's location, history, ties to the development of the City of Dallas and includes references to the 100+ year old trees that were planted by Howell and still present today. The area is designated the Howell tract by Dallas County, a formal legal description which is a reflection of the long standing recognition of Howell Park. (Dallas Central Appraisal District) State Thomas is a Landmark District where all the "landmarks" have been torn down and replaced with apartments, hardly a fair comparison though it has made for good marketing. You will not find historic references to "State Thomas" as it didn't exist prior to the real estate development of the 1990's. However, the references provided show period maps depicting Howell's original settlement of the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howellparkuptown (talkcontribs) 17:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    You do not seem to understand the point. Every reference you have provided is about Mr. Howell. This is, in theory, an article about a location not a person. The references go towards establishing the notability of the person, but do nothing to establish the notability of the place. That the area is legally defined is hardly proof of its notability. If there is nothing else to say about the area other than its boundary and that it is named after Mr. Howell (who once planted a tree there), there is no reason for a standalone article. Those two sentences can easily be covered in the Uptown article. That said, you haven't even provided a reference to show the area "is designated the Howell tract by Dallas County, a formal legal description". If you have one, please provide it, as it would help determine of the area does indeed have notability.
Everything else you wrote is about State Thomas, and utterly irrelevant to this discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to J. M. Howell per the suggestion of ThaddeusB. However, the article will need some serious improvement to avoid deletion altogether (which would be my second choice). Primefac (talk) 23:27, 14 December 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 20:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Castle[edit]

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

WP:BLP, with heavy overtones of promotional rather than encyclopedic presentation, of a writer and activist with no particularly strong claim of notability, as opposed to mere existence, for either endeavour. As written, the article relies entirely on primary sources for anything that's actually about her — the few appropriately reliable sources are not about her, but instead are supporting a coatracked section about other things that an organization she was involved with happened to get involved in. In addition, I've done a ProQuest search and found that there aren't sufficient sources about her to salvage this article with — her name gets just six hits across 20 years, and she wasn't the subject of any of those hits, but was the author of two of them and merely a quote-provider about other things in the other four. That simply isn't enough coverage to claim WP:GNG, and nothing in this article gets her over any of our subject-specific inclusion rules either. Neither writers nor activists are entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can point to primary sources to prove that they exist; it's coverage in reliable sources that gets a person in here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) @ 21:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Cliff Arnesen[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an activist, relying almost entirely on primary (self-penned content and/or the websites of organizations he's directly involved in) and unreliable (WordPress blogs) sources; the only publication that can possibly count as an acceptable source here is Huffington Post, and even that reference is to a blurb. No prejudice against recreation in the future if good sources can be provided, but primary and blog sourcing is never the way to get somebody into an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I added a couple more sources. I will try to find more, and encourage others to. He's an important figure in bisexual activism, so it would be nice to be able to have an article on him. 173.49.70.61 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You may need to learn about the difference between a reliable source and a primary source if you think you "added" anything that improves the quality of sourcing at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (intone) @ 21:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wasantha Abeywardena[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT - this person's only claim to fame is that he was killed in an air crash. Also fails notability guidelines under WP:MILPEOPLE as he was only a squadron leader. The crash itself might pass notability and warrant an article n which case this individual's biographical info could be included in that article. obi2canibetalk contr 18:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete if the article fails the aviation guideline for notable crashes (which I believe it does); military crashes have a higher standard than civilian. Fails MILPEOPLE. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the person in question as gain much attention in the local media, [18], [19], [20]. Cossde (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Those are just routine announcements of a crash investigation and a line or two about the president paying last respects to the officer. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this event has no lasting impact. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mid-ranking officer. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 21:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

ATTRAQT[edit]

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

Company with trivial importance. It is not on the main market of the London Stock Exchange, so that doesn't give notability. Refs are PR, some in disguise, or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recent AIM-listed company providing search/recommendation functionality to websites. As it is a recent rebrand, it is probably fairer to search on its previous name, Locayta. Highbeam returns various items, though they are routine announcements of firms adopting the software and then the rebranding. Overall, I am not finding the independent in-depth coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per coverage such as [21][22][23][24] (there are more). These are all reliable sources, and all the coverage is what I would classify as in depth. Most cover the basic details of the company in addition to whatever event triggered the coverage. (Events being covered is itself significant enough to warrant notability as long as the coverage is in depth, incidentally.) Pinging @Lixxx235: who accepted this at AfC for further input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep- thanks for the ping. I normally hate to !vote per ___, but I don't have time to do a proper investigation right now and ThaddeusB looks like he has it covered. Please ping me on further developments. --L235-Talk Ping when replying 04:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (confabulate) @ 21:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Angelina Valentine[edit]

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

Uncelebrated pornstar who fails WP:Pornbio. Her only awards were XRCO's one-time "Deep-Throat Award" and Tranny Award's "Best Non-Transexual Performer," which has no competition because few straight performers have sex with trannies. She has no mainstream appearances. She has not appeared in any breakthrough blockbuster flicks. Her one unique contribution was being the first cisgender to have sex with Kimber James, but that distinction is hardly worth recognizing. Finally, the lack of reliable sources makes her fail WP:GNG Redban (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Redban (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete No reason to keep an article like this.--TMD Talk Page. 15:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @TMDrew: Could you be more descriptive about what "an article like this" means? Could you give WP guideline related reasons? Dismas|(talk) 06:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I doubt that it's fair to say that the Tranny Awards "Best Non-Transexual Performer" has "no competition because few straight performers have sex with trannies"...that sounds merely like a personal opinion. I'm not enough of an expert on transgender adult films to know whether or not those specific award ceremonies (or that specific award category) are "well-known and significant industry awards" though. I'm also not aware of any truly unreliable sources that are currently in this article as of this posting here. Guy1890 (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO; she won an XRCO award & a Tranny award, which are well-known and significant and not scene-related/ensemble categories. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)
    20:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Her awards = The Tranny Awards is relatively new (2008 inception), and the "Non-TS Performer" has gone to the same person (Christian XXX) 3 out of 6 times, making me believe that the competition is tepid, or Christian XXX just really knows how to work with a Tranny on-screen. Look here: http://www.theteashow.com/tranny-awards-2009-winners/, The Tranny Awards picks its winner using a panel of 6-judges of questionable credentials, such as bloggers, forum users, and interviewers. They use fans to decide the winners, in other words. Thus, I do not find it reasonable to consider a Tranny award as "well-known and significant." As for XRCO's award, this award-ceremony may be significant, but "Best Deep-Throat" is not. If she had won for "Female Performer of the Year" or "Best Actress," for example, then you would have a case. But we cannot legitimately vote "Keep" on the basis of her deepthroating prowess. Again, for the sake of Wikipedia's legitimacy, let us not keep pages based on someone's "Deep-Throat" prowess. Redban (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO, since the "Tranny Award" doesn't contribute to notability per prior discussions (it's given by a production company to promote its own business), and the "Deep Throat Award" is insignificant, just one of a number of awards from XRCO like "Superslut" and "Cream Dream" with no discernible selection criteria. No reliably sourced biographical content -- in fact, no biographical content at all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The Tranny Awards are organized by Grooby Productions. According to Angelina Valentine's IAFD page, she has never worked for Grooby Productions, so they're obviously not promoting their own business in any way by giving her this award. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Bogus awards like this should not protect BLPs that lack the required standard of sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 19:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments above Rebecca1990 --Hillary Scott`love (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete fails notability standards for this occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Rebecca1990. Dismas|(talk) 07:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the deletion rationale is basically a not particularly brilliant example of wikilawyering. No particular feelings about Tranny Award, but the XRCO Award is definitely both well-known and significant. Cavarrone 09:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (express) @ 21:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)