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

Sophy Gardner[edit]

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

Too soon - candidates in elections are not notable. She will be if she is elected. Fails WP:SOLDIER as well. No other indication of notability Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election (yes, that's really the name of the article). That is the usual practice at WP:POLITICIAN for a candidate who is otherwise not notable. It preserves the name and the article history, and makes it easy to expand the redirect back into an article if they should win. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Numerous sources can be found here suggesting she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Political candidate who served as a mid-ranking officer in the RAF. Where is the notability? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Sources include this one, this one, this one, plus check this out. Also here and here and here and mention here in the BBC, plus the numerous other articles above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Also here; plenty of in-depth sources means she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia, so media coverage of the candidacy does not contribute to getting the candidate over WP:GNG. The media are legally and ethically required to give coverage to all candidates in any election in their coverage area, so the existence of said coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE — short of an unusual case on the order of the international media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell, if you cannot properly source that she was already notable enough for an article before she became a candidate, then she has to win the election to become notable enough and coverage of the candidacy itself cannot boost her notability in the meantime. Further, [1] and [2] are both primary sources that cannot contribute to her notability at all. Update: Should have added [3] as well; that's an article that she wrote herself, making it yet another invalid PRIMARYSOURCE. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Where is there a Wikipedia guideline that says "Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia"? And when is a RAF leader "routine"?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Where is there a Wikipedia guideline that says "Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia"? WP:NPOL simply does not permit "unelected candidate" as a claim of notability in and of itself. A person cannot claim notability under NPOL until they win election to a notable office; absent that, you have to be able to source them over some other notability criterion (e.g. as a musician, as a writer, as an athlete, etc.) so that their failure to pass NPOL is irrelevant.
And when is a RAF leader "routine"? I didn't say that it was — WP:ROUTINE is a property of the coverage, not of the person. Regardless, being in the RAF is not the thing that the sources you offered are covering her for. There's been no demonstration here that she got substantive coverage for the RAF — of all the sources you offered above, the invalid primary sources are the only ones that are covering her specifically in the RAF context. All of the reliable sources are covering her in the context of the candidacy, and are mentioning her past with the RAF only by way of background. Which is not the type of sourcing it takes to confer notability on her time with the RAF in and of itself — RS coverage of her time in the RAF, contemporary to her time in the RAF, is what it would take. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The rule says Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", so the issue of "unelected candidate" is irrelevant -- clearly she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
What you have given us are local newspaper articles (yes, they do tend to write about local political candidates), her profile on a business website and a few mentions in articles relating to the RAF. This does not establish notability. It's purely routine coverage. If we accepted this as proof of notability then a large percentage of the population would be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't see how Gloucester is a "local" place when it has a population of 123,000 persons. Serving in the Royal Air Force is a national endeavor which she did with notable distinction; so is running for Parliament. Not sure how the coverage is "routine" since it varies considerably -- it is not the same story running again and again, but rather new and different stories, in-depth, as required by the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
"Local" means "not national"! We usually only accept substantial coverage in the national press as proof of notability. She was a wing commander in the RAF, which is a mid-ranking officer and not sufficient for notability (usually we would require her to be at least an air commodore). Being a parliamentary candidate does not mean someone is notable; this is a long-established standard. There are tens of thousands (at least) of political candidates internationally every year. "Routine" coverage means she has only been covered for "routine" things: being an RAF spokesman and a political candidate, for instance. Sorry, but nothing makes her stand out as a person more notable than any other person. If we had articles on everyone who was good at their job, stood for election and was written about because of it in the local press then we just wouldn't be a serious encyclopaedia. There have to be limits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
By your "not national" logic, then, neither all mayors of US cities would not be considered notable, nor US governors, nor presidential candidates who lost, nor candidates for US senate who lost, pretty much the encyclopedia would be limited to persons elected to national office. This is absurd; Wikipedia covers numerous candidates, mayors, members of Parliament (elected and unelected candidates too) because they meet the WP:GNG not because of some rule that only elected national candidates are notable. Or, in the United Kingdom, city mayors would not be notable simply because they were not national politicians, which again clearly does not make sense. Your argument that somehow the existing sources are "routine" is vacuous; routine means repeated regular stuff, nothing about the sources is routine. Rather, seems like you are simply voting delete because you don't like it and making up rules to skirt the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you must have either misread or misunderstood. I said routine coverage in local media did not make someone notable. I did not say that one had to hold national office to be notable. Clearly mayors of major cities and state governors hold major offices and are covered in the national media. And unelected candidates for the Senate or Parliament are not notable for that alone, although they may of course be notable for something else. In fact, I am following Wikipedia's long-established standards for notability. It is you who seems to be saying WP:ILIKEIT and pointing to a collection of minor local news stories and official mentions of her doing her job as a mid-ranking officer as proof of her "notability"! You may notice that as yet you are a lone voice here? Why do you think that might be? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess my problem is the whole idea of "local" is, in my view, very much in the eye of the beholder, and if you see "local" as "not national", as you wrote above, then frankly most newspapers, everywhere, since they invariably focus on a local area (city, town, county, state), would not contribute to notability. So we're left with say USA Today or in Britain The Guardian. If one's idea of "local" is size-related, then a city of 120,000 persons is clearly not insignificant, which Gloucester is. Frankly, I would have revamped the page earlier, and so many people have come across the substandard article, with their eyes glazing over with boring discussions such as this one between you and me, that they just vote Delete out of boredom, even though (in my view) she's notable. Just that I'm probably not going to revamp this article, even if it stays; got other stuff to do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
And there, I think, is possibly the crux of the matter. You do not understand how the British media works and assume it works the same way as the American media does. This is not the case. We have about ten national newspapers (all printed in London) and many local papers, which generally cover only very small areas (usually a single town or city or an area of a county) and generally only report on very localised issues (my local paper, in a city of well over 300,000 people, largely reports on such issues as the refurbishment of shopping centres, the efforts of local councillors to improve the drains, and the injury of locals in road accidents; it does not have anything to say on government policy or international affairs, since that is not its remit). Unlike America, most people who read newspapers read a national paper, although they may also buy a local paper for purely local news. Only the national papers are really valid in terms of establishing notability, as the local papers will report copiously on anything of local interest, including local councillors and candidates. If someone is not covered in the national press then it's a fair bet that they are not really notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
If I "understand" British media correctly. If there's a "local" paper such as the Gloucester Citizen, then it won't have any national articles like this one in it, or this one, or this one about the royal couple's upcoming due date. Or, maybe since the Duke and Duchess are covered in the Gloucester citizen, then they're not notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You will notice that comments beneath the first article have queried why it's in a local paper in the first place, the second article is relevant to Gloucestershire and mentions a Gloucestershire farm, the third, well, the Royal Family are the Royal Family and everyone likes to write about them. My point stands. There is a big difference in Britain between national and local media that is perhaps not so obvious in some other countries. Your last sentence is patently ridiculous, since they are covered in the national media. A lot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Unelected candidate, thereby automatically failing WP:NPOL, with no strong or properly sourced claim to preexisting notability under another guideline — almost all of the sourcing here is of the primary source variety. No prejudice against recreation if and when she wins the seat, but right now she's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't see how "all of the sourcing here is of the primary variety" -- do you mean the current article, or sources I've pointed out here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
In the article. Let's go over them, shall we? #1: Alumni newsletter of the elementary school she attended; #2: RAF; #4: her own LinkedIn profile; #5: Labour Party website; #6: profile on the webpage of a company she works for; #7: RAF; #8: Labour Party newsletter; #10: Labour Party newsletter. WP:PRIMARYSOURCES all. Leaves us with only #3, 9, 11 and 12, of which three are, guess what: more WP:ROUTINE coverage of the candidacy. Which means #3 is the only one that contributes anything to getting her over GNG, and one source isn't enough to put her over by itself. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
See, that's the problem. You're basing your deletion on sources currently in the article (which I agree are clearly problematic). But article content does not determine notability -- and clearly there are numerous reliable independent secondary sources, listed in my previous posts on this page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election; Subject appears to not have received significant coverage outside of being a candidate in an upcoming election; therefore per WP:POLOUTCOMES the article should be made into a redirect into the article about that particular race. Outside of the political race subject does not appear to receive significant coverage from tertiary reliable sources to indicate subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:SOLDIER, or WP:NPOL.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect per MelanieN. Yes, she's done a lot - but is it worthy of a place in an encyclopaedia? Would an article have been even thought of about her if she hadn't been standing for parliament? Probably not. Yes, I'm cynical. But I've seen a lot of articles like this that only surface around the time of an election. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious WP:COI, and copyvio/close-paraphrased from here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Catskill Park (film)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I couldn't find any coverage of this film in independent reliable sources other than IMDB. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 19:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Vlad Yudin. If/when this releases and gains more coverage, we can always unredirect this but at this point in time it'd just WP:TOOSOON for an entry. We don't have enough coverage to really merit an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Fitzgerald Auto Malls[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Weak delete. As I look at the guidelines on company notability, I think this is a near miss. There's just not significant, in-depth coverage of the company in non-local sources. It seems as if the man is more notable than the company (and notability isn't inherited). Indeed, it's possible the man could have an article, but I did insufficient checking to say for sure; others might wish to comment on that.
    • To me, the size of the company doesn't matter; I subscribe to essay WP:BIG.
    • The creator has done a good job ferreting out references, but they're a little weak. The best one are about the man, not the company (e.g. [4][5][6]).
    • Others are local (they're easy to spot). I couldn't find any references that were at least regional, and also had in depth coverage of the company (not just a couple of sentences, or about a single event). Subsection WP:AUD seems worth quoting: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."
    • There was some non-local coverage, such as Outraged: How Detroit and the Wall Street Car Czars Killed the American Dream [7]. Fitzgerald Mall was named several times. However, the coverage wasn't extensive; it was mentioned in context of a single event, and lacked depth.
    • For what it's worth, I looked at the essay on outcomes; this has no formal weight, but is sometimes helpful. Some of the items were interesting (e.g., reference to WP:BIG), but nothing was exactly on point.
    • As a side note, the nominator was correct to say that the article was highly promotional. It's since been toned down. I still see significant issues, but not enough to blow up the article. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hopefully now a Weak Keep Larry/Traveling_Man[I have removed the bolding, and struck through this, as it makes it appear that I have changed my vote.--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)] I would like to start by thanking you for taking such a vested interest in this Wiki page. I now understand more of the process required to keep a Wiki page up and running as well as the process for deletion. Just now, I added a national source from Reuters to the article, which I had not been able to locate previously. This reference should qualify as being one of the "best" references that you listed above in addition to preventing the article from violating Subsection WP:AUD since this is a nationally published source. I appreciate you noting that the article has since been toned down with regards to advertising and that it's issues are not enough to blow up the article. I am still in the process of toning down the article's apparent advertising and will continue to work to improve this article and stave off deletion. Any suggestions as to how I could do this would be truly appreciated. Thanks again, best HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • [I edited your text, above, as it put a bolded !vote next to my user name, possibly giving the impression that I had changed my !vote. Each person should really !vote just once -- so just one bolded item.] Unfortunately, the reference to Reuters [8] might sound promising, but it's just a press release. Indeed, the reference includes the text "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." If you could find an article that Reuters wrote, where it talks about the company in depth, that would be different. Hopefully more people will comment on this deletion request; it's quite possible they'll disagree with me. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for responding, I did not realize that this source was a press release. I am still working on finding more reliable, nationally published sources and will continue to update the Fitzgerald Auto Malls page as I am able to locate them. I agree that one vote per person makes sense and I apologize for making it appear as though you had changed your vote. I do hope that more people weigh in on this page so that I may continue to improve it and avoid deletion. -- HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I was just able to replace the Reuters press release with two other sources I found. Still in the process of improving the page and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Simon Tanner[edit]

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

Tagged for failing WP:GNG since March 2008. Also, there are lots of tags on the article such as WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The article seems to be written like an advertisement for the person. Aerospeed (Talk) 23:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - promotional article, no real notability Gbawden (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's essentially a CV with WP:COATRACK of his "ideas" and no real claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep The article was promotional and CV like, so I cut these parts out as best I could. I added a couple of source from HighBeam. He has published a couple of books with a coauthor and one received a substantial review. He does appear to the expert on digitization of ancient documents, so for that reason I believe he is notable. I am One of Many (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

SoCal Coyotes[edit]

SoCal Coyotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "SoCal Coyotes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:03, 29 September 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 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Article contains largely promotional text about a minor league/semi-pro football team. Long list of references is composed of localized RS and first-party sources and other non-RS. No significant coverage in WP:RS outside the Palm Springs area, even in other parts of Southern California. Las Vegas RS is more about Mouse Davis personally than about the team. Koumz (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Notability is established WP:GNG by widespread, reliable notable coverage WP:SIGCOV in Las Vegas Review Journal, including Page One photo, referenced SoCal Coyotes in another state as early as 2012, verifiable evidence WP:NRV that Mouse Davis was involved in the foundation of the organization. Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Notability is established WP:GNG via multiple examples of verifiable WP:NRV third-party, independent, widespread coverage WP:SIGCOV from the Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line.Gagliardi89 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment.The article and subject meets applicable notability guidelines for sports teams WP:NSPORTS and organizations WP:ORG via significant national and international following and significant weekly coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources. List of references includes multiple third-party RS. Team is recognized by third-party sources as a developmental program, and is not a semi-pro team. Numerous players and coaches in article have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League and other top-level professional leagues, meeting notable criterion as defined in WP:NGRIDIRON. There is also significant interest in players of notability arising from their college football days WP:NGRIDIRON. Gagliardi89 (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment Organization notability must be determined in its own right and cannot be inherited from the notability of players associated with it. If the Coyotes really are notable nationally and internationally, why no coverage from Southern California's major national newspaper (located only 100 miles away), the Los Angeles Times? Koumz (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment The organization is notable in its own right as a developmental minor-league sports team, which makes relevant its association and advancement of players and coaches to and from prominent leagues and colleges defined in WP:NGRIDIRON, as well as the significant interest in players of notability arising from college WP:NGRIDIRON. Second, that is a subjective question for the Los Angeles Times, whose coverage -- also subjective -- does not include minor-league or developmental teams, or hundreds of notable non-sporting organizations. If notability were determined only by coverage from a single major-market newspaper within a 100-mile radius, Wikipedia would have to banish most notable minor-league baseball teams, numerous notable minor-league football teams, and even some notable tier-1 Arena teams. Aside from football, the Coyotes are a non-profit sports leadership organization, recognized by mainstream educators and national periodicals for its curriculum and work within public schools. As a sports team, as with minor league baseball, the Coyotes have a national and international following for its developing players. News organizations in Sydney, Australia, home of ProKick Australia, which places state-side players, follow the organization via NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports radio, which broadcasts games. National coverage includes Bleacher Report and other periodicals. Within 100 miles, the Coyotes coverage includes notable print sources such as the Gannett Company's The Desert Sun; the Coachella Valley Weekly, and Press-Enterprise, mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC, KESQ-ABC, and NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports Radio. Gagliardi89 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The applicable notability guideline for sports teams is not WP:NSPORTS, but WP:ORG, which includes all types or organizations, including corporations and other types of businesses as well as sports teams. At its core, the WP:ORG standard is very similar to the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, in that it requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of a team or other organization. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The article and subject meets general notability guidlines WP:GNG and applicable notability guidelines for sports teams WP:NSPORTS and organizations WP:ORG in that it has significant national and international coverage WP:SIGCOV and receives verifiable WP:NRV weekly coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources . Gagliardi89 (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • If the Coyotes really are notable nationally and internationally, why no coverage from Southern California's major national newspaper (located only 100 miles away), the Los Angeles Times? Koumz (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment That is a subjective question for the Los Angeles Times, whose coverage -- also subjective -- does not include minor-league or developmental teams, or hundreds of notable non-sporting organizations. If notability were determined only by coverage from a single major-market newspaper within a 100-mile radius, Wikipedia would have to banish most notable minor-league baseball teams, numerous notable minor-league football teams, and even some notable tier-1 Arena teams. Aside from football, the Coyotes are a non-profit sports leadership organization, recognized by mainstream educators and national periodicals for its curriculum and work within public schools. As a sports team, as with minor league baseball, the Coyotes have a national and international following for its developing players. News organizations in Sydney, Australia, home of ProKick Australia, which places state-side players, follow the organization via NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports radio, which broadcasts games. National coverage includes Bleacher Report and other periodicals. Within 100 miles, the Coyotes coverage includes notable print sources such as the Gannett Company's The Desert Sun; the Coachella Valley Weekly, and Press-Enterprise, mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC, KESQ-ABC, and NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports Radio. Gagliardi89 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The Bleacher Report articles are written by the team's coach, David Miller. Not exactly an independent source. Nothing on the Football Educator website suggests that it is anything other than Ted Sundquist's personal website, however knowledgeable about football he may be.Koumz(talk) 19:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment Bleacher Report remains significant coverage WP:SIGCOV from a reliable Time-Warner-owned respected and notable national news source WP:GNG, Wiki-worthy and used as a verifiable source WP:NRV by numerous WP articles. Its published stories must meet strict factual editing and content guidelines. The Football Educator is significant coverage WP:SIGCOV from the corporate site of Ted Sundquist, a notable and Wiki-worthy national football authority, and an independent, third-party, peer-review source WP:NRV. The fact that NFL scouts alerted the Denver-based Sundquist (outside of Palm Springs or Southern California) WP:SIGCOV to the Coyote developmental program speaks to the national interest in the team. A barometer of notability is when people like Sundquist, independent of the subject itself, then actually consider the subject notable enough that they have written and published works that focus upon it. In this case, Sundquist, a two-time Super Bowl winner with the Denver Broncos, staked his reputation on his findings. The Coyotes have no other connection to Sundquist or his organization.Gagliardi89 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Response If Bleacher Report really does have "strict guidelines", why did it allow Coach Miller to report on himself [9] (speaking in the third person as if he were an independent reporter rather than in the first person as would be correct if he were openly giving his opinion and claiming it as his opinion)? This is an obvious conflict of interest and violates one of the most fundamental principles of journalism, and the tone of Coach Miller's articles clearly promotes himself and all others mentioned in them. The Football Educator article also notes that Coyotes GM Sam Maggio was involved in editing the article, which call into question the independence of that article. Koumz (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Response The Coyotes (according to website point-of-contact Maggio) were asked to fact-check team statistics and provide supporting white paper documentation to Sundquist's staff upon request -- Coyote curriculum, for instance, that they use in public schools. Bottom line, the Bleacher Report article contained enough noteworthy documentation to meet editorial criteria. Let's stay on point here: The facts remain that a developmental football leadership organization used all of its professional resources to mature an obscure quarterback and earn him a shot with a tier-one Arena Football team, which culminated with the three-time world champion San Jose Sabercats signing him to a professional contract. Subjective issues with 'tone' and criteria and guidelines of the editors of Bleacher Report should be addressed to their editorial board. 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Bleacher Report citation removed and replaced with a third-party reliable source.Gagliardi89 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment The article has been reformatted to make it fit a neutral encyclopedic tone. To date, article continues to be developed and improved, but should not be deleted. Gagliardi89 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The language of the article is still not fully neutral. Your statement that it is calls into question your understanding of neutral tone. Koumz (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Editing continues to improve the page, and any page that improves should not be deleted. The article continues to be developed and improved. It meets notability guidelines WP:GNG with verifiable sources WP:NRV of independent coverage WP:SIGCOV. Gagliardi89 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Has existed for months, and while it contains numerous citations, almost all of them are not to reliable sources, and especially not independent reliable sources - their own website makes up about half the cites, with other cites being non-reliable sources like YouTube, Ebay, Amazon, ZoomInfo, Facebook, ect. I'm not seeing evidence of widespread coverage in reliable sources, here, or even very many reliable sources at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article, which has been previously edited and improved by WP administrators, establishes notability with widespread significant coverage WP:SIGCOV of verifiable WP:NRV reliable sources WP:GNG that are two-thirds of those cited. These include significant national publications WP:SIGCOV that demonstrate the coach is not only a published author who has worked, and co-authored mainstream books, with top-tier NFL and NCAA professional coaches, but also utilizes their knowledge and relationships in the growth of the Coyote organization and the development of its players. Verifiable independent sources WP:NRV include ISBN titles of the actual books, their notable national publishers, which include MacMillan Publishers, Skyhorse Publishing, Bess Press, and the role of co-authors -- June Jones, Mouse Davis, Jerry Glanville -- within the Coyote organization.Gagliardi89 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Sources added to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV ongoing widespread coverage from mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC and KESQ-ABC as another example of notability WP:GNG. Aside from football, the Coyotes are a notable non-profit sports leadership organization, recognized by mainstream educators and national periodicals for its curriculum and work within public schools. As a sports team, as with minor league baseball, the Coyotes have a national and international following for its developing players. News organizations WP:SIGCOV in Sydney, Australia, home of ProKick Australia, which places state-side players with the Coyotes, follow the organization via NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports radio, which broadcasts games. National coverage includes Bleacher Report and other periodicals. Within 100 miles, the Coyotes WP:SIGCOV coverage includes verifiable evidence WP:NRV of reliable notable print sources such as WP:SIGCOV the Gannett Company's The Desert Sun; the Coachella Valley Weekly, and Press-Enterprise, reliable mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC, KESQ-ABC, and reliable NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports Radio. A barometer of notability is when people like Sundquist, independent of the subject itself, then actually consider the subject notable enough that they have written and published works that focus upon it. In this case, Sundquist, a two-time Super Bowl winner with the Denver Broncos, staked his reputation on his findings. Gagliardi89 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage from the WP:SIGCOV Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line.Gagliardi89 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Added WP:GNG additional independent, reliable, notable widespread coverage sources WP:SIGCOV such as Honolulu Star Advertiser, and Hawaii 24/7 to demonstrate verifiable evidence of coverage WP:NRV of current players (kicker Dan Kelly) and role of team contributors and published works (Jones-Miller).Gagliardi89 (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Successfully de-orphaned with links to other pages. Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Additional verifiable objective edvidence WP:NRV with WP:GNG third-party widespread coverage WP:SIGCOV from Procanes.com, a reliable, independent source for news about University of Miami athletes. Procanes.com reported on the Coyote organization and signing of former Hurricane.Gagliardi89 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Procanes.com, which may or may not be a reliable source, did not report on anything, it simply reposted an article from the Taft Midway Driller newspaper of Taft, California. The Midway Driller article WAS WRITTEN BY THE SoCal Coyotes (as noted on the Midway Driller website)! User:Gagliardi89's statement that this is independently-generated material about the Coyotes, regardless of who republishes it, is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. This is the second time this user has claimed articles generated by the Coyotes or their coach, J. David Miller, to be independent when they are not. User:Gagliardi89's ability to judge the independence of content SOURCES (not just wherever they might happen to be published or reposted, but who actually WROTE them) is clearly in question. Koumz (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Procanes.com citation removed, and replaced with additional third-party reliable sources of significant coverage.Gagliardi89 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Article relies primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources.Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Article establishes notability WP:GNG, has received and continues to receive significant coverage with WP:NRV verifiable objective evidence WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Numerous reliable sources and significant coverage WP:SIGCOV is demonstrated outside Palm Springs area, across Southern California, to Florida, to Nevada, to Hawaii, to Australia, and addresses the topic directly and in detail. Significant coverage is not a trivial mention. Reliable sources include editorial integrity, such as Pulitzer-prize-winning news agencies, published books and mainstream television news networks, which meets verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources encompass published works in all forms and media. There is also demonstration of secondary sources covering the subject, another good test for notability. There are numerous sources independent of the subject. Article establishes notability WP:GNG, has received and continues to receive significant coverage with WP:NRV verifiable objective evidence WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Gagliardi89 (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See above about this user's understanding of independence of sources. Koumz (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Article relies primarily on reliable, third-party, published and broadcast sources.Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Article establishes notability WP:GNG, and contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage, including the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Desert Sun and Anza Valley Outlook. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV network television affiliates NBC-KMIR, ABC-KESQ. Reliable sources include editorial integrity, such as Pulitzer-prize-winning news agencies and mainstream television news networks.Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Independent, widespread, notable, reliable, verifiable widespread coverage is current to October 14, 2014, with continued coverage on the Coyotes from NBC affiliate KMIR. Article continues to rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published and broadcast sources. Gagliardi89 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep -- Article meets notability guidelines with verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources. The evidence shows the topic has gained significant independent coverage and recognition since 2012. Sources of evidence include recognized publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources. Article establishes notability WP:GNG, and contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage, including the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Desert Sun and Anza Valley Outlook. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV network television affiliates NBC-KMIR, ABC-KESQ and CBS-NBC Sports Radio affiliate KXPS Team 1010. Reliable sources include editorial integrity, such as Pulitzer-prize-winning news agencies and mainstream television news networks. Per WP:GNG, significant coverage in independent sources makes deletion due to lack of notability inappropriate. Article continues to improve, has eliminated questionable sources and now pursuant to WP:GNG relies primarily on reliable, third-party, published and broadcast sources.Gagliardi89 (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Struck Gagliard89's second "keep" !vote; you only get to !vote once in any given AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - Rarely, if ever, have I seen an AfD that was a bigger mess than this one. The author (and sole substantive discussion participant) has created a nearly impenetrable wall of repetitive commentary above, and has done his article, this AfD, and other editors a disservice by doing so. It's a mess, and it's apparent from the lack of commentary that everyone, including all of the regular participants in American football-related AfD discussions, is shying away from this AfD because of the required effort to wade through the volume of accumulated material. Rather than relist this article again in a week, I am going to request that editors who are regular members of WP:CFB and WP:NFL focus on this AfD and come to a decision based on WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Perhaps we can find some way to divvy up the necessary homework to make a sensible recommendation to keep it or delete it, but this has gone on long enough. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pare article to an appropriate length and reassess deletion. To my eyes a large part of the problem is that any actual notability that the subject team may possess is completely overwhelmed by the relentless promotional tone and inclusion of even the most obscure details in the team's history. Probably the article can be reduced to three or four main points - 1) successful team; 2) "spiritual as well as physical growth"; 3) lots of historical connections to Mouse Davis and - well, maybe only three things. The point is that the team may, in fact, be notable for a couple of things, but it's almost impossible to see through the cruft and clutter to appreciate what that might be. The article as it stands is a mess. If it were a taut, clean article saying what the team is, and why it's notable, with maybe a few sentences about its greatest successes (or worst failures, I dunno) - I think its chances of surviving the AfD would be a lot better. I've taken a few sharp stabs at reducing the article to manageable size and invite other editors to do the same, so that the AfD can go forward with the real issues clear to all. JohnInDC (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, regardless of issues with the article or the actions of the article's author, subject receives plenty of significant coverage for tertiary sources, however all the sources appear to be local to the region where the subject is active in. While it can be argued that this meets WP:GNG, there are more stringent criteria that the subject falls under WP:NGRIDIRON & WP:ORG. When looking at this, the subject does not appear to pass WP:AUD; therefore, failing that more stringent guideline, I cannot support keeping this article until that is found published by a non-local source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. On its face, it appears that the subject of the article may have enough reliable sources to attest to its notability under the GNG (as local as most of them may be; this is complicated by the fact that they have never shown themselves to be able to even hold a steady long-term relationship with any league, so opposing cities' news sources aren't available). However, the tone of the article is far too grossly promotional, and the author's work reeks of that of someone with a conflict of interest (whether or not the user actually has one is another question altogether). If a user believes they can take on the gargantuan task of totally rewriting this article, neutralizing its tone, and paring out the promotional content and dubious claims about its stature in the professional football scene, then they should transfer the article to userspace so that the sources can be preserved. Otherwise, this article reads like borderline spam. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Additional comment: The particular issue I see here is the use of "peacock terms;" namely, the persistent and pervasive insistence on referring to the team as "AAA." That is a dubious analogy, since professional football does not have the same pyramid structure that is present in minor league baseball or hockey. The Coyotes are not affiliated with the NFL or any other verifiably professional league, nor are any other members of the various leagues in which it has played. If it is truly "AAA," by any standard, then what constitutes the "AA" league or team? The "A" league or team? Lastly, how does the Coyotes prove convincingly that it truly ranks higher than any such team that would be "AA" or "A?" (Perhaps it's simply sponsored by the American Automobile Association—I kid.) The sources mentioned in the article do nothing to support the "AAA" description. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of reliable sources have been listed within the article. Any issues such as a conflict of interest can be fixed by other editors (assuming the editor has one). Its not borderline spam though. All the claims, however much POV exists, are still referenced. Sure POV can be toned down, but that doesn't warrant deleting the article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 01:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

2011 Sunflower League football season[edit]

2011 Sunflower League football season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2011 Sunflower League football season" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Little notability, excess detail, no references. This article has been on the wiki for too long. --Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This nomination was not created properly. Listing on daily log for the first time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall talk 04:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - non notable high school league Gbawden (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 21:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Oni Chichi[edit]

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

Non-notable pornographic video game. Only sources are to a retailer and some sort of IMDB type site. No coverage otherwise in reliable sources. Ponjuseme (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 21:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete no indication of notability, and no reliable, independent sources. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarence Elkins[edit]

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

This article meets notability guidelines and I believe other wikipedia guidelines, however, the subject of the article has asked for the article to be deleted. The person who asked for the article to be deleted was the one who submitted the photo, so I believe it to be a legitimate request. On the talk page he posted:

"My name is Clarence Elkins Sr. I created this page and felt safe putting my information on the web. Since I created the page I have felt much stress & threatened from people trying to get in touch for all the wrong reasons due to my Wikipedia page. I've had enough stress in my life and I am asking you to please remove this page ASAP"

I'm not sure how these issues are typically handled, so I felt a discussion here would be the best solution. I am a major editor for the article and I feel it's an important topic and would wholeheartedly support keeping the article if it was at AFD, however, I also don't want the page to cause anyone any trouble. So, this is the issue at hand. Bali88 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Lia Szepes[edit]

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

Originally a WP:PROD but thought I'd bring it here for additional views. A 1930s Hungarian actress who was the female lead in several films, and may possibly satisfy #1 of the entertainer guideline. On the other hand, largely unsourced so may simply fail WP:GNG, noting that sources on pre-War Hungarian cinema are most likely in hard copy and a little hard to find. Views welcome either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Jewish seminary[edit]

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

This, as it is since long time, should be a Wictionary item. If not, should be written in detail and in encyclopedic language and style to "become" a Wikipedia article. Therefore I suggest its deletion either for RD to the dictionary or per WP:TNT. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Aquaphor[edit]

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

Unable to determine how this product is notable. There are dozens of petroleum jelly products, and this one does not appear to stand out from the rest. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - Aquaphor is a big company. It may not be a super exciting product, but I think it meets notability guidelines. Bali88 (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Crumbs[edit]

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

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

Virginia Grande[edit]

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

No evidence of secondary notability from unaffiliated sources per WP:BIO and not meeting WP:SCHOLAR criteria. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

National Report[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Further, currently is just a list of headlines that got picked up by other news agencies thinking they were legit or that others debunked. Only one sentence about the actual website. Page content is not actually about page title. Sources on page do not discuss the website/company itself or its notability. I think National Report is likely notable enough to have its own article, but current article needs WP:NUKEANDPAVE EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Totally agree! Lets delete it!Yup69 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Many don't realize it is a satire page and the Wikipedia page for it is the best place to explain that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.181.137 (talk)
  • I think it should be kept. The article can be improved, but not deleted. People wanting to know what kind of "newspaper" it is (i.e. not one to take seriously) should know that. So, no deletion, but a complete make-over. My opinion. Jerappelle (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There has been no improvement in the article since the beginning of this year. No one is working on it. NUKEANDPAVE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP by all means rewrite it. Martin451 22:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm against deleting the article. At the very least, people need to know this is a humor site, not a site for actual news. bhumburg — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am against deleting it also. I used Wikipedia to verify that the site was satirical. It has reach and is notable.125.237.32.170 (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • How on earth does this fail GNG? Just look at the list of times it's fooled more reputable news sources, not to mention large portions of the Internet. The Banksy arrest story is trending like mad right now. If you can't load up your Facebook without seeing a prominent mention of the site's current story, it seems pretty notable to me. —Robotech_Master (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite if needed. AfD is not cleanup. Martin451 22:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It needs to be correctly called what it is -- a hoax site. From Wikipedia: A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. In no way does it fall within any definition of "satire." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talkcontribs) 06:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This article should NOT be deleted. It's a public service announcement to those who mistakingly think the National Report is a legitimate news source. It is not. It is also NOT satire. It's nothing but lies and people need to have access to information so that they know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenietart (talkcontribs) 15:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Queenietart, Sarahseehoward: Whether or not it's satire is not what's being discussed. That's currently being discussed on the article's talk page. Also, Wikipedia is not for public service announcements. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, @evergreenfir, whether or not it is satire is most certainly being discussed and it NEEDS to be. It is inherently part of any discussion on whether or not the article should be deleted. It is noteworthy and deserving of an article precisely BECAUSE it is not satire. And for goddsakes, when someone calls it a public service announcement and you aren't processing that purely as a metaphor, it should not surprise me that you continue to believe National Report is satire. @Queenietart is completely correct. These articles exist to deliver accurate and true information on something like National Report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talkcontribs) 01:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep; meets WP:GNG. Sources about news services being fooled by the stories have a fair amount to say about the website, certainly more than the "trivial mention" low bar of GNG, and there's been a full Verge article published since this nomination, covering the National Report's misinformation over Ebola in detail. --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was going to close this as keep, but then I noticed that a large majority of !voters were either new users (one has only one edit, which was to this AfD) or anons. I don't want to make any accusations (so please forgive me if I'm wrong), but I'm beginning to wonder if there's some sockpuppeting going on here... --Biblioworm 02:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 17:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Due to what seems obvious to me is either canvassing/meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, I've relisted this so a wider variety of editors may review, giving us a more genuine consensus view. Dennis - 17:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete On the basis that that this entry is not notable but also "not suitable for an encyclopedia." There is a tendency to misuse Wikipedia as "advertising" due to the fact that entries are prioritized by the google search engine. This site falls into that category. BTW i have never seen the "National Review" prior to finding it here on the deletion page. Lfrankblam 19:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talkcontribs)

David Longoria[edit]

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

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

  • Comment - You made a comment about 267 unique hits...what is that in reference to?
I don't even follow this type of music and I'd heard of him, so I'm leaning toward notability, but I'd like to compare this to the music guidelines and hear what others have to say before I make a solid vote. Bali88 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Oliver Walker[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

William Morrison "The Bard of Mallusk"[edit]

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

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

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

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

Marc Seifer[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR. The sources are all indicative of a certain fame within insular WP:FRINGE communities, but we need more than that for a WP:FRINGEBLP. jps (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete – Claim to fame seems to be his autobiography on Nikola Tesla, and even that is only cited 73 times. At this time, I lean toward delete as not meeting the guidelines for inclusion for notability. User:Shoessss (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: The only noteworthy thing about this individual seems to be that he wrote a book on Tesla, which, though reviewed in a few reliable sources, apparently failed to make much of an impact. This makes him non-notable as an author. His scholarly output is far too modest to meet the requirements of WP:PROF, and there is insufficient substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources to meet any of our notability guidelines. His notability does not extend between a tiny subset of the fringe pseudoscientific community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep His Tesla book is well reviewed in Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Library Journal, Technology Review] Nature and Scientific American, and is widely held in libraies. He also has had a notable career in graphology, and his work has been discussed in psychology textbooks. Seems notable as an author, and his academic career enhances his notability. Edison (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, he is a bit more of a hack than a PROF, but we don't judge. He seems notable per WP:AUTHOR #1 "widely cited by peers", we don't judge the "peers" either. Sites like huffingtonpost.com do go to him[10] and he seems to get interviewed[11]. His Wikipedia entry is pretty padded and self serving so I'd vote for knocking it back to a stub until it can be supported by secondary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We learn about his favorite series and films and there are wonderful sources like pipl.com! And then people want to delete it, now really... Seriously, I have no time looking into this to see whether there is any notability here or not, so I won"t !vote right now, but at the least this needs an axe and needs to be stubbified. --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep -Ditto with Edison. He is a respected and notable author and handwriting analyst. Investimate (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you perhaps enlighten us how it can be verified that he's notable? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - the reviews of his work probably get him over the line but I certainly wouldn't object if someone wanted to delete this and start again or reduce it to a stub at a minimum. Stlwart111 00:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or stubify Doesn't really seem to meet author or prof where is the significant coverage on the subject in secondary reliable sources? I am not finding it. One book of some note does not rise to notability, a few quotes and interviews in low to middle quality sources does not rise to notability. What would an encyclopedia entry on the subject contain? Perhaps wrote book on Tesla then what else is really notable? What secondary source calls him "a respected and notable author and handwriting analyst"? - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

  • Delete Vanity does not yet quality for speedy deletion; but this entry is a clear example whereby a biography goes into life details that are not relevant, even were this person notable beyond those people specifically interested in the subject matter which is really Nicholas Tesla. The Tesla biography is a clear example of a good wikipeida biography, and if Seifer was an expert on Tesla then his writings could be used as a source. Do we really need to know that Seifer was influenced by "Kukla, Fran and Ollie, Amos and Andy," when we really don't care about Siefer as a notable person! This type of biography might also be a "conflict of interest" based on the absolute minutia contained within a very verbose entry. I would suggest deleting this entry with prejudice. --Lfrankblam 20:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sonja Buholzer[edit]

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

This page, created by  Sandstein  16:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC), is a procedural recreation of a previously malformed nomination by an IP editor, who offered the following rationale:

"This bio of a living person was clearly written for the purpose of commercial self-promotion. It is not written using a Neutral Point of View, providing no substantiation for adjectives such as "bestselling" and "widely known". It meets as good as no Verifiability criteria as what few sources there are belong to local publications (all in German except for one English interview with the subject) and several of the links lead to pages that are either inexistent or expired. It also shows almost No Original Research as most of the text is not sourced and reads like a sales pitch and/or excerpts from the subject's own books. Of the two external websites provided, one is the website to the subject's personal business, the other no longer or never existed. 223.25.192.230 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)"

  • Delete Clearly a marketing related entry--Lfrankblam 20:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Colm Kelleher[edit]

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

Not notable as a scientist, and having two published books doesn't automatically confer notability for a stand alone article. Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR.

Not to be confused with the science educator [12] or the financial executive [13] of the same name. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Skinwalker Ranch, as writing about that seems to be the only claim to notability. Artw (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep – Seems to be notable and influential in the research of Interleukin 3, GM-CSF and G-CSF as they pertain to Acute myeloblastic leukemia as shown here [14]. ShoesssS Talk 14:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not convinced by the citation record pointed out by Shoessss (for one thing, several of those publications should be discounted because his name is only listed in a middle position) and there seems to be nothing else that would pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete There is no independent coverage of him and I don't think I see enough to show notability as a researcher (though I could be wrong). The lack of coverage is what decided my vote. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 16:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete As a research scientist the subject is not notable. It would be appropriate for his writings and papers to support other Wikiedia entries if applicable. The fact he has written papers is not in and of itself justification for a Wikipeida entry; If he had a landmark accomplishment then he would be worth of mention, ever were it of lesser importance compared with the accomplishments of Jonas Salk----Lfrankblam 21:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ida Stewart[edit]

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

This is a pending case that has yet to be verified. As age hasn't been (fully) verified, it's original research to state she was the oldest living X. Living to a certain age does not make someone notable. PROD removed by User: Old Time Music Fan without an explanation. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 16:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Supersoldiers in fiction[edit]

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

Everything in this article is based on original research or unreliable sources. We can't just make our own observations about what is and is not a fictional supersoldier, that simply is not how Wikipedia works. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wow. Original research is putting it mildly. Defining who qualifies for this list has been done almost without sources, and I find it difficult to imagine how one could ever find reliable sources for such claims. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article Supersoldier cleary states that a Supersoldier is "capable of operating beyond normal human limits or abilities" which meens that it meets the criteria of what a Supersoldier is. Moreover, if its defined as an original source, than why not go further and delete Flying car, Hovercar, Holography in fiction, and others, as there are no clearly referenced solid definition for these terms either. --Virtualerian (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not generally considered a valid argument for keeping. Any content which is based on users deciding for themselves which items meet certain criteria and which don't is original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
As previously stated, there are no clearly referenced solid definitions for other science fiction elements, such as rayguns, and they still have their own lists. I think we should just rename the article to "List of fictional soldiers" (That would be similar to "list of fictional extraterrestrials", "list of fictional books" and others). I think it comprises a good list as well. --Virtualerian (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you understand my point. It isn't whether or not we have a firm definition of what a super soldier is. It is if users are using their own judgement, as opposed to reliable sources, to decide if a particular fictional soldier meets that definition. Articles on fictional topics often suffer from this misunderstanding. What is required is a reliable source for each individual entry that identifies that specific fictional soldier as a supersoldier. If we don't have that, the entry should not be on the list. If there aren't enough sources to properly verify a stand alone list article then we shouldn't have one. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Most fictional topics suffer from that indeed. I think it should renamed List of fictional soldiers in science fiction or something similar.--Virtualerian (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but with a lot of pruning and clarification. Supersoldier presents an unsourced, ridiculously hazy definition, according to which any elite soldiers, e.g. Green Berets, SAS, Spetsnaz, would qualify. The cleanest way is to include entries whose fictional works explicitly state they are "supersoldiers". That would include Saurons, but exclude the Mobile Infantry of Starship Troopers. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That's kind of my point. If we reduce this list only to what can actually be referenced, it might, maybe, contain two items. That's not enough for a list article. I've already removed a "in fiction" section from the parent article for these same reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There are the Saurons (and Sauron Death's Heads, who are super-duper soldiers), the Morthans of David Gerrold's Star Wolf series, and Super Soldiers, just to name a few. Enough to justify a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I take it that you're saying that your interpretation of these books is that these characters meet the definition of "supersoldiers" as defined in the Wikipedia article. To me, that's analysis. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep. That is my whole point. If we are deciding for ourselves what is and is not a supersoldier, we're doing it wrong. Not one single entry has a ref that leads to a source that even uses the word "supersoldier". That means that this six-year-old article is 100% unverified. Yes, there do appear to be two refs, but one is to some sort of fan page and does not use the word "supersoldier" and the other is a webcomic that... I don't even know what it is or why anyone thought it was even relevant to this article. If there are , as has been suggested, users who are interested enough in this topic to try and find some actual sources, sources that clearly define specific entities as supersoldiers so that we aren't deciding for ourselves, I would suggest that those users either step up now and add those sources or that the article be userfied until such time as it is no longer in this unacceptable state. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope. That's the exact opposite of what I said. I said the Wikipedia definition is useless. The criterion I suggested was the fictional works themselves identifying their characters as supersoldiers. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although not a fan of "military sf" I do see that connections can be drawn from many sf sources to create an informative list such as this. But I am also aware of the need to reference secondary sources to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. Throwing out all this work seems a little radical to me when the list would be perfectly acceptable if adequate referencing was undertaken. The article has been around since 2008, and it has had 99 edits by 68 distinct users. That strikes me as indicating an acceptable level of relevance. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that argument is that it implies that if enough users engage in original research that makes it ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
A quick web search brought up this page (http://futurewarstories.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/fws-topics-super-soldiers.html) as a major essay on the subject (again unreferenced) and various other references to "DARPA's Defense Sciences Office" projects. What I was attempting to point out was that there are a number of editors who obviously believe that the topic is of interest. I think that if just a few of them took the time to add a few references to the existing page then it would quickly fulfill the referencing requirements. There are a lot of lists on Wikipedia which could be accused of being original research. Until the original editors created the pages 2013 in literature or List of religious ideas in science fiction I very much doubt there was a single source of such information anywhere on the net. So in many ways it is original research but it includes references. It may be that the editors of the page under discussion have added in more commentary on the entries in their list than is usual for lists of this sort. But again I believe this indicates an editing requirement for the page rather than a blanket deletion (see citation notification on List of religious ideas in science fiction). Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 16:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge "Super-soldiers in Fiction" fall mostly within a sub-genera of Science Fiction and as such the information contained within this entry could present in a table to those interested in the subject. Each and every entry would need to be referenced. Presently the content reads as original research and as such needs either to be firmed or deleted. Generally, it would be easier to write an article than it would be to write an article that has been properly sourced. A Wikipedia Sandbox would be a more appropriate home for this entry. ----Lfrankblam 21:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I have to say you are kind of all over the place with this remark. You start with saying to merge without really identifying where it should be merged to, then seem to advocate outright deletion, and finally userfication. If I was closing this discussion I would have no idea how to interpret this comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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

List of breweries in Nebraska[edit]

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

Procedural nomination SpinningSpark 14:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. This list is one of the sub-lists of List of breweries in the United States. Most of these were nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut. The result was snow keep. It was accepted at that AFD that notability was not a criteria for inclusion on these lists per WP:CSC and they could attempt to be comprehensive. The Nebraska article was sitting at AFC and I waited for the result of the AFD before accepting it. Since posting the article has been expanded and moved to a new title. The list part was subsequently deleted. Consequently, I restored the list part at the original title. This has been disputed so here we are. If a comprehensive list of breweries is deemed acceptable on Wikipedia then it is reasonable that the Nebraska ones should be included. SpinningSpark 15:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

List of notable Ebola patients[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E Also, if they've got their own articles, this looks like unnecessary duplication and essentially a WP:content fork. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Revised, see comment below. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep or Move/Rename, but keep out the living biography information where it is an issue. Maybe just the generic statistical data about cases.Starstr (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that this article provides some interesting starting points in the current research and discussion during the ebola crisis in West Africa. I vote to KEEP the stub class article, which deserves development, not deletion. MaynardClark (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this nomination at all. How would BIO1E apply to an index of articles that share a common characteristic? If you want to try deleting an individual article on that basis, that's a completely different issue, but I've never even seen the argument that BIO1E would apply to a list like this. By its own terms it's focused on when a person should have a standalone article. So if anything, BIO1E would support a list or prose topic article instead of individual articles. I also don't understand how a list that groups articles together somehow duplicates the articles themselves; perhaps the nominator is simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia lists of any kind? Please read WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN (comparing this list with Category:Deaths from Ebola). There may very well be an argument for deleting or (more likely) merging this list somewhere, but it hasn't been presented yet. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm happy to withdraw the nom if other editors feel that's best. But first, I'd like to know if in their view, this article satisfies navigation in the WP:MOS. Also, the talk page and the article edit summaries suggested to me that there was concern about the content. Specifically one editor noted that the focus on 'notable' Ebola patients, would mean that the list is out of proportion to all others with Ebola. So undue weight would apply. And finally another editor pointed out that the list is essentially covered in Template:Ebola. My concern firstly is the ‘notable’ cases are really the health care workers who’ve fallen ill. Granted, they've done God's work there, but their misfortune in contracting the virus is no greater than that of any of the thousands who've fallen ill. Perhaps what is needed is a rename, or repurpose? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no such thing as "unduly" reflecting the same focus that sources represent. UNDUE says exactly the opposite, that we should not focus on a viewpoint or aspect of a topic to an extent that reliable sources do not. That sources have described only a relative handful of individual cases in detail while merely giving statistics for the majority of victims is not something for us to ignore. See also WP:NOTDIR, which explains that while we index articles we do not repeat the phone book (in other words, we almost always keep lists limited to notable entries). Listing all the thousands of people who ever contracted Ebola (even if verifiable), rather than focusing on notable cases or at least those with some secondary source coverage, would be contra NOTDIR and indiscriminate (and arguably WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Also, your comment about the list being redundant to the template is contra WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting that we list the thousands. I was simply repeating the concerns on the talk page. And I'm asking editors if the article satisfies navigation in the MOS. If so, then I'll withdraw the nom. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete This entry does not stand by itself. The people listed are simply victims of Ebola. There are Wikipedia entries about the wider topic. --Lfrankblam 21:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talkcontribs)

List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTPEOPLE by design. We cannot have lists of non-notable people. jps (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A person who discovers a big hunk of rock hurtling through our solar system is notable in my book. Certainly a lot more than the innumerable professional athletes that litter Wikipedia. I feel that regrouping the former under this list is a reasonable compromise. This kind of information is not readily available elsewhere on the Internet. Urhixidur (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of argument. I'd also point to WP:IINFO. jps (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ratsada E[edit]

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

The only ghits I see are parroting this page. I can't even prove it really existed, no less was notable in any way. As always, would loved to be proven wrong, but as it is with zero sources and none available, fails WP:V Dennis 14:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, delete it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Nigel Botterill[edit]

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

this person lacks notability (WP:SPIP). The article is also an orphan. GillsMan (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

20 to 1 (darts)[edit]

20 to 1 (darts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "20 to 1 (darts)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines; no sources given which indicate what is notable or significant about these rules, or even where they come from 331dot (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no way to prove that this was made up by the creator or associates, so it can't be deleted by the easily-abused criterion A11, but the complete absence of sources makes it entirely possible. At any rate, this game hasn't been covered by reliable sources such as academic journals, books, or major media. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hillcrest Primary School[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Great Lakes Institute of Management[edit]

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

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

AC Locomotive Group[edit]

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

Could find no evidence of notability. Only reference is the group's own website, found no coverage in any news media. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 12:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

By "no evidence", did you look in the railway heritage printed press? Or is it just, "I Googled it and most of the first page was their own website, so there can't be much out there"? I know you've been busy: three days on WP and already 81 articles created. Sorry, pages. Now it's time to get a few articles deleted and then it'll be off to RfA before the weekend. Obviously no time yet to read WP:IMPERFECT.
Yes, this is a crap unreferenced article. That is still no reason to delete it. Once upon a time[citation needed] we used to write articles here. Then other people used to expand articles. Nowadays we don't bother with that tiresome stuff, we just play the Great Wiki Game of pissing all over others' work for fun and profit (Wikimania, 2014). Much more exciting. Much better rewards. You'll have that admin's tin star and shiny purple helmet in no time.
As to the notability of the AC loco group, then don't ask me, I'm no RS. But people who do own locos, like the NRM and several of the major loco leasing companies, seem to regard them as substantial enough to be trusted as curators for the electric parts of the national collection. The RCTS list them alongside commercial train operating companies, although it's only a couple of current mainline registered locos, so that clearly doesn't count.[15] Or even just the electric operating companies like ETL, who used the ACLG for heavy maintenance tasks.[16] That would all tend towards suggesting they're a real museum group and worth regarding moderately seriously. Not in the same league as the Belgian Comic Strip Center of course, but just maybe worth a few bytes on Wikipedia, on the off chance that some poor benighted fool with no ambitions for climbing the greasy mop might actually come along one day and work on usefully improving content? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Please don't bite the newbie. I nominated this article in good faith, because the article offered no evidence of notability, and a search of the Google News archive, Books, and Scholar found no coverage of the group. A regular Google search found brief mentions on a number of websites, but nothing that could be considered real coverage by a reliable source. That doesn't mean I'm convinced coverage does not exist, only that I was unable to find it after what I feel to be due diligence. I understood the purpose of this discussion to be to find reasons to keep the article, which you are very welcome to provide. Please don't be too quick to draw conclusions as to my character or purpose, as neither are relevant to this discussion. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 14:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Please don't be so quick to think that because you can do something, it's a constructive thing to do. I don't understand baseball, so I refrain from running amok and deleting baseball articles. It's also pretty clear that there are many ways to ask a community or project for assistance or opinions as to notability. But no, that tempting little AfD button always calls first... It's just so _important_. A whole article vanishes! You've changed things forever! Whee! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep - In my quick Google search, I found a few references that support the group's notability: The Railway Magazine, Volume 152 (Google Books), also see this article on the magazine's website, Electric Traction News cites the group in a few articles and press releases, RCTS lists their current TOPS locomotive pool codes, as noted above, the National Railway Museum in York uses the society as a resource for parts and to house locomotives (as noted for British Railways electric locomotive Bo-Bo Class 84, No 84001). They even had a locomotive bear the group's name as noted in Electric Railway, Volumes 51-52 (Google Books). I'm sure I could find additional reliable sources with further research. Slambo (Speak) 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

BlackPanther OS[edit]

BlackPanther OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "BlackPanther OS" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
  • Being "the most popular Hungarian developed Linux distribution in Hungary" could potentially be used to decline A7, but it must be sourced to independent and reliable sources. Looking overall, there are no sources across all three language versions. And including a list of download links can be violating WP:NOTLINK. Not able to read into Hungarian or Slovak, I am calling it here with a delete. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 14:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Mô hình Gaussian hỗn hợp[edit]

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

this article created in different language in English Wikipedia page and also it dose not mention any reference link to check the authenticity of the article Alexbacho (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Cristian Favela[edit]

Cristian Favela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cristian Favela" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
  • This page was prodded, but the prodding process got messed up. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The original PROD was for Not notable. WP:BLP1E.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Invite Jesus Into Your Life (Vol1)[edit]

Invite Jesus Into Your Life (Vol1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Invite Jesus Into Your Life (Vol1)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Contested Prod. It is something of a struggle to find the kind of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to suggest that this book satisfies the general notability guideline. VeryCrocker (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems more like an advertising attempt. There's no information here as to why it's notable enough to be included. Mandybrigwell (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the book has notable needed, i just verified it on google, check it out for yourself and you'll see ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.92.63 (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hope you guyz check this link http://www.caribbeancommunitylive.com/content/nortreus-werley-artist-christian-author-and-drummer-cap-haitien-haiti, it's everywhere online, look (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceraphin1 (talkcontribs) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Ceraphin1 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

http://searchcelebrities.com/celebrity-news/christian-singer-and-author-of-the-book-of-invite-jesus-into-your-life-werley-nortreus-is-saving-thousands-and-thousands-of-souls-worldwide-for-jesus-christ-learn-more-about-his-ministry-and-how-his/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceraphin1 (talkcontribs) 11:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Ceraphin1 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There are many other sources like http://gospelartistspeoplenews.com/2013/12/29/book-released-and-review-invite-jesus-into-your-life-vol1-by-gospel-singer-werley-nortreus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceraphin1 (talkcontribs) 12:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Ceraphin1 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Ceraphin1 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book ultimately passes notability guidelines for books. It exists, but as existing is not notability that fact means very little here on Wikipedia. As far as the links given above, Search Celebrities is not considered to be a reliable source for several reasons, one of which is that they accept payment from various people who pay for more coverage on their site. This author doesn't seem to be one of those people, but even so this fact makes the site unusable. Ceraphin News Magazine does appear to have an editorial board but we can't really verify its editorial process and it kind of gives off WP:SPS vibes. Carribean Community Live doesn't seem to have anything on their site to show that they have editorial oversight at all, so we have no way of knowing if the article was written by a staff member, a random person, or by someone representing Werley as a whole. Even if we accept these last two sites as reliable sources, they would still not be enough to establish notability in this circumstance. I'm sorry, but the book just doesn't pass notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Cookson[edit]

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

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

  • Speedy delete Unref'd BLP. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I added a couple of sources to eliminate the unreferenced BLP issue, so this AfD can run its full course. This is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, but there is coverage about her, e.g. [17][18][19]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Russification of Ukraine[edit]

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

Was speedy delete db-all, but it looks politically controversial. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not understanding what the deletion justification is here? JTdale Talk 09:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep by criterion 1 unless nominator advances an argument for deletion of the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep — an article on a notable, well-sourced historical process. If it has POV concerns, I'd be happy to work on it, but that alone doesn't justify deletion. LS1979 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Todd Willing[edit]

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

I can find very little notability to this article, it is entirely unreferenced and biased in perspective to, with statements such as He is one of the most influential people from his birthplace Hobart, Tasmania. Google brings up lots of hits where the articles subject is the spokesperson for Ford on a new car design, but very very little indepth coverage. It is simply words "Todd Willing, Design Director for Ford Australia says...". Most indepth article was this; [20]. JTdale Talk 08:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Elton Dharry[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womyn-born womyn

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

Felisha Faye Mendes[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete. Clear case of A7. Notability not asserted. Alexf(talk) 10:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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

A search for independent secondary sources finds little to support notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Cult of Green (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that would show that this model is notable by Wikipedia's standards. The existing reference is a directory listing that shows only that she exists and is a model, and is completely insufficient. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

University and College Crowdfunding Platforms[edit]

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

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

Sage Testini[edit]

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

Autobiography with questionable notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. I did a Google Search on the individual and could not come up with an WP:RS, nor was there much coverage on this person as well. --Dekema2 (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Smart Energy System[edit]

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

Non notable system written as a position paper or advertisement. The only apparent reference is their own--the term, of course, is so general as to be unsearchable. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opposed to the redirect, but neither do I think it's needed. This seems an unlikely search term, which is the purpose of redirects. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason why you think it is an unlikely search term? The phrase appears to be in widespread use e.g. 1.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my semi-objection to the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
No Redirect Smart grid is a electrical system that can detect what is happening to the grid, Smart Energy System is supposed to be a concept of storing renewable energy in the way we store fossil fuels EoRdE6 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete current article, no opinion on redirect. The recent DRV made the situation extremely clear, with repeated reference to "our page". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Minimum control speeds[edit]

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

Per WP:OR and WP:NOTMANUAL. To see what I mean, read what was removed from the article here[21] when the PROD was taken down. ...William 13:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

  • Keep The article simply needs a few more sources... I think it is a fairly well written article other than that EoRdE6 (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Book of Nullification[edit]

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

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

  • Delete or Rewrite I agree the topic seems trivial and not needed on Wikipedia. If kept however it needs a complete rewrite because after reading it I still have no idea what it is about... EoRdE6 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to its author, Christopher Memminger, who is indisputably notable as a South Carolina state legislator and Treasury Secretary of the Confederate States of America. The political pamphlet is already described in his biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree good idea, redirect it EoRdE6 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to draft:Bierton Strict and Particular Baptists. If David Clarke can manage to limit the vanity stuff, an article about the church itself may stick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Bierton Strict and Particular Baptists[edit]

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

Self-published book with no secondary coverage; fails WP:NB. Article created by author. Blackguard 02:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete This article is completely unsourced, pointless, and uninformative. Doesn't pass most of Wikipedia's criteria for Notability or Article Quality EoRdE6 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Bierton Crisis[edit]

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

Self-published book with no secondary coverage; fails WP:NB. Article created by author. Blackguard 02:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Holly J. Sinclair[edit]

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

A ton of plot details, unsourced and non-notable. Gloss 02:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan[edit]

Threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Declined PROD that isn't notable. NickGibson3900 Talk 01:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


This is an important topic. This page should not be deleted.

Within the page itself it is evident that there is a possibility of nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Users of Wikipedia have the right to remain informed on this vital issue.

Maakhter (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Please understand that while Wikipedia will record information about current events that are in the news, we are not a news site ourselves (WP:NOTNEWS), nor are we a forum to report on various different issues. We are here to inform, but in the context of an encyclopedia. The type of informing you are referring to is more appropriate for news sites, forums, blogs, and the like. There's just no real need for a separate article if it's already covered in another article. The only way you can show otherwise is to add plenty of references to show that nuclear war specifically needs its own page outside of the main article entry. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
======================================[edit]

Which guidelines and policies were used to create following pages?


Cuban missile crisis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis


Cold War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War


Nuclear arms race

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race

The nuclear arms race was a competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War.


Soviet Union–United States relations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations


Maakhter (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Gernatt Family of Companies[edit]

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

This article's notability as a local company with primarily local references is in question. As discussed on the article's talk page, the article primarily uses local sources with the subject in question being sparingly featured in most. Certainly, there are verifiable sources of this company's existence and notability, however, as the guidelines describe, "article content does not determine notability." While the article appears to be well written, the article does seem to raise questions about the notability guidelines that have been set forth. --Dekema2 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. No statement of notability. Just a local sand/rock/cement group. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just to add for purposes of clarification, I noticed "What links here" for the article led to articles where the subject was prominently featured for notability purposes, including Family business and sand mining, although the latter may be justified. --Dekema2 (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently no mention at sand mining. However, the article creator added a non-notable mention on Work accident. Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Correction. It was Environmental impact of mining. --Dekema2 (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge. I have to admit this article is very well written, highly referenced, and there seems to be some slight notability but pretty much entirely the coverage is local. It annoys me I couldn't find any notability, as this is a great article otherwise. There is plenty of notability for its owner/founder but not for the company itself. I would recommend merging a reasonable amount of this content into the page Daniel R. Gernatt, SrJTdale Talk 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Mediaocean[edit]

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

no evidence for notability; sources are either mere notices or press releases DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Article from Wall Street Journal already included. Notability is firmly established with sources that need to be added to article. Forbes, Advertising Age, Business Insider, Yahoo Finance, some in The Guardian. Coverage of Pandora integration in Billboard Magazine. Also pre 2012 it was called Donovan Data Systems, and there is an article on that company I am going to merge right now, plus more coverage on its pre-2012 business. JTdale Talk 10:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)