Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

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

Purge server cache

Contents

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 Articles author blanked page. Speedy deleted Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Economic Impact of Farmers' Markets in the United States[edit]

The Economic Impact of Farmers' Markets in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Economic Impact of Farmers' Markets in the United States" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

The article creator states, "there is scarce literature on the overall impact of farmers’ markets on the U.S. economy." As such, this article is almost completely synthesis (Wikipedia articles must not contain original research) and almost completely unreferenced (material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source).

This article is also a content fork of farmers' market. The A10 CSD tag for an article with the same content and a similar title (The Impact of Farmers' Markets on the U.S. Economy) was recently removed by the article's author. (Due to the article's considerable length, if deleted, it should probably be userified within the article creator's user-space, as a courtesy.) - tucoxn\talk 23:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:32, 19 December 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.

Nama Karoo[edit]

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

We already have an article on Karoo. ubiquity (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hege Lofthus[edit]

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

WP:NN leader of NN organization. Speedy declined by Bbb23 a few days ago. The Dissident Aggressor 21:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Purna Saggurti[edit]

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

BLP with a single source that doesn't discuss the subject, merely lists his name. Swpbtalk 20:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ali Munif Ashmar[edit]

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

Non-notable person, extremely biased sources, POV language. Baatarsaikan (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'm a minor contributor who made some clean ups. The article is tagged for checking the neutrality and it should be discussed in the article talk page (not here). The article is notable per WP:SOLDIER and as you know he was named as the hero of the self-sacrifice operation in a press conference by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the third Secretary General of the Hezbollah. Mhhossein (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Bellevue Massacre[edit]

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

After browsing sources, I'm not convinced this crime is notable enough for its own article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes various subsections of WP:EVENT. A GBooks search for one of the perps reveals what appears to be significant coverage of the murders/murderers in a couple academic books discussing behavior and motivation, as well as a few other books discussing the relationship with goths and young murderers.[1] The article name does not appear to be very prevalent, so I would suggest 1997 Bellvue, Washington murders or Wilson family murders. (The New York Times referred to it as the "Wilson family killings".[2]) Mentioned in an episode of Wicked Attraction. - Location (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  19:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep - An episode of the TV crime series Wicked Attraction has dealt with this spree-killing.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Superseded scientific theories[edit]

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

This article misuses the term scientific theory. The majority of this list is comprised of ideas, hypothesis, and protoscience that do not fit the modern definition of a scientific theory. The fact that the term theory is so often misapplied makes revision of this article cumbersome and unlikely. As time goes on, more and more subjects like the rain follows the plow will be added, necessitating research and discussion by individuals who understand what a scientific theory is. The current state of this article suggests that such editing will not take place. Xyrtex (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • keep. It may well be that the term 'scientific theories' is misused here, I'm not sure. But it is useful to have a list of ideas that were at one time widely held by the best minds on the planet, and later determined to not be valid. Such a list shows growth and change in human knowledge over the centuries. YBG (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Then shouldn't the title be Superseded Ideas in Human History or something like that? The misused term scientific theory permeates the article to the point that it should be entirely rewritten under a different title. In order to be correct under the current title, all of the models, hypothesis, and the ideas that did not arise from the scientific method should be deleted.Xyrtex (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    It seems to me that this class of abandoned ideas should include those listed in the article History of science, but "Ideas in Human History" seems a bit too broad, as it would encompass areas of knowledge such as rhetoric and literature and other humanities. Natural philosophy is another term that has been used historically for these areas of inquiry, but I don't think it would a helpful in this case. YBG (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep but restrict it to Scientific theories that were proven wrong, not those that are incomplete (that'd encompass pretty much all of modern physics, I think). No valid reason for deletion has been provided; this doesn't descend to WP:coatrack. Our ancestors genuinely believed in some funny things (e.g. Isaac Newton and alchemy), but who are we to brag? There are plenty of nutjobs out there with even sillier notions with much less justification. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    But once again, most of the list are not scientific theories and alchemy is most certainly not. Perhaps a visit to that page would clear this up. The casual use of the word theory does not apply here. Is Wikipedia the place to decide if a branch of thought is a scientific theory?WP:SUBJECTIVECAT If so what authoritative sources can be used to settle disagreements? If you want a list of the funny things that our ancestors believed in, than the term scientific theory has little relevance.Xyrtex (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Jannatul Ferdoush Peya[edit]

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

Actor does not indicate enough significance to pass WP:ACTOR. Only one nomination as an actor. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: No policy-backed argument has been made vis-à-vis the (other) relevant content-specific guideline (WP:NMODEL), the general notability guideline, or "what Wikipedia is not"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  19:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - per WP:ENT, had major roles in award winning films and telefilms. --Zayeem (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – She hasn't had enough significant roles to qualify under WP:ACTOR. Unreleased films don't count. Nor is there much evidence that the modelling career is notable. WP:GNG depends solely on the beauty pageant win. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Miss Diva[edit]

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

advertising of a pageant in only its second year. Seems to fail WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources. (with respect, as long as the sources are in the latin alphabet. I can not see what is in other writing systems) The Banner talk 11:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  19:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Miss Diva - 2014[edit]

Miss Diva - 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Miss Diva - 2014" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Advertising and fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources The Banner talk 11:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  19:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Vani Bhojan[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG 999Creep (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wandering WiFi[edit]

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

There's no indication that this organization is notable. I had redirected it to the corporate parent, AirWatch, but that was reverted by Mattarmour without improvement. Per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT I'm bringing it here. Merger is not an option since there's not a single reliable third-party source in the article; there's nothing to be merged. Huon (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Farkhad Akhmedov[edit]

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

non-notable person. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Oxygine[edit]

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

No evidence of notability SpinningSpark 18:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 01:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Practopoiesis[edit]

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

I debated speedying this under A11, since it only seems to appear in works by the user who created the article, but I'll elaborate further and note that the cited sources, other than ones authored by the user himself, don't actually mention this concept, and despite the creator's posting about his theory all over the internet, it nonetheless appears to be a hobbyhorse of one individual. An IP who may be the creator removed the PROD without addressing its concerns. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete for self-aggrandizement & non-notability. As far as Google can discern, this term does not exist outside the writings of one "Prof. Dr." Danko Nikolic, and I'm reasonably confident that no peer-reviewed literature containing it exists either (or it would have been referenced by the article's creator, who is otherwise proficient in making an article pass as well-written and seemingly respectable). See also the article Autopoiesis, where the user Dankonikolic (Danko Nikolic, I presume) has been adding his own works as references to articles (an obvious conflict of interest, and user's other contributions will need to be checked.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok then. Delete it. I am guilty of the crime. I guess I will have to wait until practopoiesis gets more famous and more often used by other authors. I will try deleting it myself but I am not sure whether I know how to do it. (Danko Nikolic) Update: I could only delete the text, not the article.

Selvi (TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and non notable program 999Creep (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Murda Bizness[edit]

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

Non-notable song.Chase (talk / contribs) 18:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Kim Cloutier[edit]

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

Non notable model. Some covers, some works, just that. damiens.rf 16:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 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 speedily deleted by User:Sarahj2107 per CSD G7 (only author requested deletion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sympatme[edit]

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

The name is speld wrong N-xx22xx (talk) 12:21, 18 December 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 Forex Heatmap[edit]

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

Non-notable company, per WP:ORG - the WSJ article is the only reliable source I can find and (ignoring that it's improperly used in the article) it's a passing mention in a list of other similar companies (so failing WP:CORPDEPTH). Nikthestunned 15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for now or userfy. I have not reviewed the subject of this article at all, however I want to point out that the primary author is a new editor who only joined on September 2014 and he already has a bunch of deletion nominations on unrelated article. Based on the wide varied subjects he edits per Xtools, he's clearly independent of those companies he's written about. I mean, wow! He's hardly two months old and has already contributed to over 300 unique pages. In order to avoid discouraging him as per WP:Bite, we should not delete his contributions lightly and instead kindly point out that he should be reviewing the notability guidelines. He may even voluntarily userfy those pages outside of AfD. I'd be open to revisiting this article in AfD in a few months. (Note: may include this argument in multiple AfDs) —CodeHydro 18:18, 18 December 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 userfied. by agreemenr with nominator and article author JohnCD (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Tom Pursglove[edit]

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

He is only a local councillor and a candidate for Parliament. Neither of those satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. If he wins it will be re-created but there is no reason for him to currently have an article (other than as an advertising tool for his candidacy). Being a candidate for a marginal seat does not make him notable. Being 18 when he was elected a councillor is not notable as many others have been elected at that age. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:POLITICIAN, being an unelected candidate does not confer notability, and I do not think his local council activities do, either. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As the original poster of the page I'm fine with seeing it go into some invisible state until after the election but I'm not sure how to do that Wschosta (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wschosta: if you like, and if the nominator agrees, I can "userfy" it - move it to a user subpage at User:Wschosta/Tom Pursglove as a parking-place until the election. JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@JohnCD: that sounds like an acceptable solution to me Wschosta (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: as nominator, do you have any objection if I userfy? Then the AfD can be closed. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
No objections to that. The article as it is would be a good start if he does win the election. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@JohnCD: my only other request would be to put a redirect from his name to the General Election 2015 page (apologies for my lack of knowledge about how to do these things) Wschosta (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC) (whoops, forgot to login again)
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.

EastGate Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG and no independent sources seem to be available, just a few press releases. Nikthestunned 15:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for now or userfy. Yes, this is a tiny company worth only ~$50,000 in total shares outstanding, however my main concern is WP:Bite. The primary author is a new editor who only joined on September 2014 and he already has a bunch of deletion nominations on unrelated article. Based on the wide varied subjects he edits per Xtools, he's clearly independent of those companies he's written about. He's hardly two months old and has already contributed to over 300 unique pages. In order to avoid discouraging him, we should avoid deleting all these article and kindly point out that he should be reviewing the notability guidelines. I'd be open to revisiting this article in AfD in a few months. (Note: may include this argument in multiple AfDs) —CodeHydro 18:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to Eastgate Biotech, Inc. Enough cites to be WP:GNG are available if one searches under all the relevant names. I am also disturbed that the first CSD was so soon after the last create edit that there was not possibly enough time to have done any significant type of WP:BEFORE. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't find anything under that name but press releases and stock information.1,2 Is that latter an indicator of notability? You got some reliable source I can see? Nikthestunned 09:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't entirely sure on the rules of this but I have found that per WP:LISTED: "independent press coverage and analyst reports" should be found for publicly traded corporations. I can't find anything like this for either of the names here =/ Nikthestunned 09:43, 19 December 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 nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


Maggie Sajak[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. Way too early in career LibStar (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 December 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.

Embassy of Tanzania, Abu Dhabi[edit]

Embassy of Tanzania, Abu Dhabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Embassy of Tanzania, Abu Dhabi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

ails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. and some have been previously deleted. note there is also no bilateral relations article to redirect this to. Also nominating for the same reasons (consulates are even less notable):

LibStar (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Feline (Ella Eyre album)[edit]

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

Unremarkable album whose artist's page exists. Launchballer 14:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ella Eyre. No confirmed details yet, may never happen, but as it appears to currently be planned redirect it for now until there are sources available to write a proper article. --Michig (talk) 22:00, 18 December 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G3 (partial hoax). Bbb23 (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Noe Garcia[edit]

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

Non-notable extra/bit part player, sourced only to social media. Creator may be a sock of User: Noegarcia951 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, self-aggrandizing WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and likely a blatant hoax. --Drm310 (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Self-aggrandizing blurb by the subject and his sock account. -- Alexf(talk) 22:13, 18 December 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.

Eco Pickled Surface[edit]

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

I removed an external link, but really think the article should be heaved over the side. It concerns a process which is apparently a manufacturer's or inventor's pet name for its/his procedure (it's unclear if the process is implemented technology or only a design proposal). The article has sat around for five years without meeting proper reference requirements. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 December 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 speedy delete by Fuhghettaboutit per WP:G11 and WP:G12. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Alex Titomirov[edit]

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

Contested BLPProd. Restored after WP:UND request (by someone claiming to be the subject of the article). Still no inline references, overly promotional, questionable business/corporate biography notability. Hasteur (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Also a 93% confidence factor of Copyright violation Hasteur (talk) 11:55, 18 December 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.

Dr. P. Rathna Swamy[edit]

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

Biography of an academic and civil servant who does not appear to meet notability requirements, neither WP:PROF nor Wikipedia:Notability (people). His name can be spelt Rathnaswamy or Rathna Swamy, and I have looked for sources using both spellings, but not found anything that indicates that he meets WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 11:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Leo Beirut MidWest[edit]

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

Fails WP:GROUP with only a couple of press releases as sources. McGeddon (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 10:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Kerry Garvin[edit]

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

Appears to be an autobiography, References don't appear to establish WP:N War wizard90 (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree that the article should be deleted and is in accordance with WP policy. Wizard90 does not provide sufficient grounds for deletion. Article complies with reliable sources (e.g. Sports Illustrated, Gazetta, and recipient of awards), user policy, guidelines, and overall good and featured articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguevarra1980 (talkcontribs) 14:18, 11 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. One minor award in a minor film festival, the only claim to notability of any substance, is not sufficient to establish notability. As noted, this is a vanity autobiography of a non-notable person.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A "Best Actress" award is not a "minor" award, in my humble opinion. Sports Illustrated is also a prestigious publisher and individual was featured by said publisher as a model. She is also the face of an Elizabeth Arden perfume although that does not appear to be referenced in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguevarra1980 (talkcontribs) 20:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an award given by a very minor film festival. One published photo does not make her notable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I would also point out that Mguevarra1980 is a new account whose primary purpose seems to be editing this article & has seemingly taken over building the page from User:Kerrygarvin.TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Non-notable T&A girl (I'm calling her that because 100% of Google image returns depict her scantily clad) with a suspicious IMDB entry (claiming three films, all unreleased indie/homemade projects, each with zero reviews or commentary). Supporting refs, at best, appear to be blog-lists for wank material. The accompanying picture's uploader (Mguevarra1980, who comments above) appears to have taken it from Garner's Facebook page (the image otherwise has zero Tineye matches), so that fails proper accreditation and will have to be deleted as well. Article contains zero biographical information; her Facebook page contains zero biographical information, and her "website" links under "About" on Facebook as well as her Youtube uploads are merely links directly back to the Facebook page. A modeling site is the best Google could scrounge for (alleged) details. At this point, we essentially have no way of determining if "Kerry Garvin" is a real person's actual name, or is the new pseudonym of a washed-up porn-star seeking to break into semi-respectability.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - If we could Keep purely based on Images [11] I would but unfortunately we can't ....., Anyway back on topic - The article seems like more of an advertisement, Plus the cites aren't exactly brilliant (IMDb being the worst!), Anyway despite myself searching I can't fin any shred of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010(talk) 18:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Quest Global[edit]

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

Company is not notable WP:N. Clearly no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources WP:ORG. Some passing mentions in business press about take-overs etc. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages WP:NOTCATALOG. Thanks -- Marksterdam (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marksterdam (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • KeepWeak Keep - Hmmmmm... I may be wrong here, but looking through the sources I'm seeing more than passing mention in a wide range of business press. Plus, this place seems to have 5,000+ employees. I know head count isn't a criteria under WP:CORP, but 5k employees strikes me as a lot. This article is probably just poorly referenced, not non-notable. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Shifting from keep to weak keep per rationale below NickCT (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
At Marksterdam's request, I'm noting that direct coverage of Quest exists in Forbes, Times of India, The Economic Times, Business Standard, Trade Magazine Aerospace Manufacturing and Design.
Looking at the sources again, I'd probably call coverage of Quest in Indian media "extensive". Coverage outside India is fairly limited. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you NickCT. I think the Forbes article, fulfills WP:CORPDEPTH and is a valuable find. The others strike me as very much passing references of routine business announcements and are probably the result of PR annoucements. Hoping for more votes. Marksterdam (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Marksterdam: - re "others strike me as very much passing references of routine business announcements" - Ok. Point taken for some of those specific links I offered. My counter point is that Times of India, The Economic Times and The Business Standard are all moderately high quality RS. I'm seeing 44 mentions in the Times of India/Economic Times, and 21 mentions in the Business Standard. Granted I haven't gone through them all, but would you argue that none of these will fulfill WP:CORPDEPTH? Seems unlikely.... NickCT (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you NickCT. I think as an engineering outsourcing company they do work with many notable companies and this accounts for a great deal of the passing coverage. Their acquisitions and spin-offs clearly garner interest from the specialised business press such as the Economic Times as they do feature routine announcements of these. Most likely, based on quotes within the articles, these stories are often PR led. However, I'd say none of this means they pass WP:CORP and belong in a general Encyclopedia. Perhaps a more specialised business Wiki such as WikiBusiness may be more suitable for this engineering outsourcing company.
As an example, looking at the first half of the Economic Times links from Google that that you reference this is what I see:
Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business.
Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business.
Passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business.
Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business. Only a few sentences of background information.
Inclusion in lists of similar organizations.
Passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
Passing mention. Article about a spin off company. Not about Quest Global.
Passing mention. Article about a spin off company. Not about Quest Global.
Passing mention. Article about a spin off company. Not about Quest Global.
Passing mention. Article about a spin off company. Not about Quest Global.
Passing mention. Article about outsourced about parts used for Airbus.
Passing mention. Article based on a competition run by the company. Clearly a PR led piece.
Invalid result. No mention of Quest Global.
Invalid result. No mention of Quest Global.
Passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
Invalid result. No mention of Quest Global.
Invalid result. No mention of Quest Global.
Passing mention. Routine business announcement. Very little about Quest Global.
Inclusion in lists of similar organizations.
Passing mention. Routine business announcement. Very little about Quest Global. Based on quotes seems PR led.
Routing business announcement. Some information about Quest but hardly in depth.
Some of the above may contain a few sentences about the background of the company, but for me clearly don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Marksterdam: - Ok. Granted none of those sources aren't what I'd call "high quality". They'd all be "low to mid quality". That said, there seems to be so much "low to mid quality" material that I'm finding it really hard to see this as a delete situation. Given I'm having trouble finding "high quality" references, I'll shift from keep to weak keep, but I think that's as far as I'm going. We may need more eyes on this to find consensus.
BTW - Some direct coverage in the House Business Journal. Not that that's a great source either.... NickCT (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  05:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Untitled Sukumar project[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF and per WP:CRYSTAL. There should be a speedy criteria for articles like this one. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I could make a redirect myself beside dragging it here. But there is not even a name for the project. One can't just make 'untitled/unknown' redirects. WP:BALL-Wikipedia does not predict the future. When principle photography will begin it is going to have a "name" and one have to create an article for the same title. I see no sense in making "untitled" a title and therefore a redirect. And, contrary to the Kailash29792, I don't see how making a redirect is supposed to based on WP:NFF guideline. There's not even a single line on making redirects on NFF or NF page. Thanks! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Taxila)[edit]

Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Taxila) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Taxila)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

advertising The Banner talk 02:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. - TheChampionMan1234 02:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. - TheChampionMan1234 02:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. - TheChampionMan1234 02:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: I struck a big swath of text in the article as a copyvio. This did away with most of the NPOV issues, so the subject should be evaluated on WP:N at this point. As the policy for educational institutions in this area is hazy at best, I would have abstained from a !vote. However, the fact that the college doesn't even exist yet, combined with the fact that I can't find any (English; if someone finds enough reliable Swedish RS's, I'll change my !vote) reliable sources to establish WP:GNG puts it over the top for me. Deadbeef 07:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment (revised from Keep). It's in Pakistan, not Sweden. There's mention of Swedish language sources above, but I think there are none, perhaps there are non=English sources in one or more of Pakistan's languages however. It's a college. If it is open, and not "upcoming", then it is to be Kept, as Wikipedia AFD standard for high schools and higher is that they are automatically deemed notable / kept. See wp:NSCHOOL. The article existed for a long time, for many years, and i think the college is open. So i voted Keep at first (but have revised).
However I am bit unclear on the relationship of this article for "Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Taxila)" to the similar article topic of Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Rahim Yar Khan). And there also is UET Taxila as a school, and as towns/cities there are Taxila, Wah Cantt (near to Taxila), and Rahim Yar Khan. The webpage at http://www.swedishryk.edu.pk/ documents well enough that the Rahim Yar Khan school is open. Including, for example, by various notes of events from March, April 2013 and since, in the colleges' events/updates webpage at http://www.swedishryk.edu.pk/updates.html. I edited the article a bit, may have introduced error, so am undoing my edit next. If it is a college though, it is an obvious Keep. --doncram 21:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be in disagreement with WP:NSCHOOL, which is what I was referring to (and I think you meant to refer to). Can you explain how the school passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG? Deadbeef 21:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I came back and revised my comment, which was at first a Keep vote, not seeing your comment following mine. So I may have undermined the applicability of your comment/question about mine. Actually now I am not sure that the article should be kept or not. I probably won't comment further, will leave it to others to sort out the several schools and locations. Sorry for generating confusion. Out, --doncram 21:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
In the article there is statement "Swedish College of Engineering & Technology traces its geneses to December 2009, when it started its operations in Wah Cantt and Rahim Yar khan.", i.e. there is assertion it was open in 2009 in both places. Wah Cantt is near Taxila, might be considered the Taxila campus. Rahim Yar Khan is more than 800 kilometers away, far to the south. Seems likely that the Taxila vs. Rahim Yar Khan schools are distinct enough to be separate schools and have separate articles, but I honestly am not clear on what is available. Over and out. --doncram 22:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does appear to exist and as a degree-awarding institution should be kept per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Not again the Common Outcomes as an argument... The Banner talk 15:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Not an argument, but an illustration of consensus. You should look that word up some time. It's how Wikipedia works and without an understanding of it you really shouldn't be using AfD. Also a bit rich from someone who thinks they can nominate an article for deletion with a single word! If it is advertising, that's easily overcome by an bit of editing. What we're here to discuss is the article's notability, not its content. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
        • No, my friend, you should look up the word consensus. Shouting hard is no part of consensus, although it is one of the favourite tactics of the keep-the-school-crew. The Banner talk 17:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • DELETE Description reads: "The Swedish College of Engineering & Technology, Wah Cantt, is an upcoming college in the private sector surrounded by expanding industrial neighborhood...." So, does this place even exist yet? "Upcoming" implies it doesn't. And, given its totally disingenuous name (obviously not in Sweden), I can't help but being dragged toward the conclusion that its ulterior purpose is as a diploma mill for systematic H-1B visa fraud.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Elban Krishna[edit]

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

Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources doesn't meet the Wikipedia's standard of inclusion and qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Manny Santos[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Brodie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paige Michalchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinner Mason, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nuñez, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Hogart, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character) which were all closed as redirect/merge/delete. This is another character without any sufficient coverage to source an article. The article is currently full of plot details. Gloss 06:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In-universe bio of a fictional character, with no real-world context to demonstrate that he would qualify for a standalone article — this kind of thing belongs on a Degrassi fansite, not an encyclopedia. Redirect per nom. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Karl Allweier[edit]

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

Seems to have had some success, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Created by WP:SPA, possible WP:COI. Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Subject does not seem to be notable and doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris Bucknam[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Article uses primary sources and may have potentially been written by the subject. Can't find good sources to confirm notability. Hustlecat do it! 06:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - I don't know. This guy seems to get lots of passing mention in primary sources, and one or two pieces with more direct coverage. I'm leaning towards non-notable. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Franklin American Mortgage Company[edit]

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

Listed on a 500 list, which shows it was profitable (until 2004), but making money is hardly notable in the business world. Other than that, just mentions their sponsorships, which is effectively continuing the sponsorships, promotionally. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 07:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 07:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable local business.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Highbeam returned one detailed article on the firm, now referenced into the article. This does quote someone's opinion that the firm's founder "is admired in the industry". It still feels to me that this is just a local firm going about its business, but identification of any further detailed coverage could take it to the verge of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sean Fagan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. My research has found no independent sources that discuss, interview or talk about Fagan other than routine coverage. Article itself doesn't provide any sources that meet GNG. I like the guys work, and own some of his books, but can't see how he is notable. Shudde talk 07:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shudde talk 07:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shudde talk 07:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has plenty of citations in google scholar. As one of the leading rugby league historians, I'd say he meets the "widely cited by peers or successors" part of WP:AUTHOR. Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't know where you get the "plenty of citations" or "widely cited" - I find one work by him that has been cited all of 16 times. He is mentioned in other articles, but mentions do not establish notability. The big problem with the article itself is that 6 of the 8 references are BY him, not about him. #8 is just a library catalog listing of his book, and #1 doesn't mention him at all. In other words, there is not one reliable source. LaMona (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

University of Surrey Students' Law Society[edit]

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

Student groups are not inherently notable. There's nothing in this article that shows notability and I can't find reliable sources to show notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite This student group is just as notable as any other student group that has established pages on Wikipedia (for example UCL Law Society ). There is verifiable evidence for all the information given which can be found in other publications (especially hard - not online publications), and its significance is further augmented by the fact that it is an integral part of the student experience at one of the highest ranked UK universities. Furthermore, it includes more references, citations, and sources that show notability than other pages of the same ilk, like Cambridge University Law Society. Therefore I suggest we should Keep the article but suggest ways it could be improved. Conyemenam (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep University of Surrey is a rising university with a strong student body, there is no reason why this page should be deleted. In regards to the lack of reliable sources, neither UCL nor Cambridge University Law Society Wikipedia pages have "reliable sources of notability." Should it be decided that this page be deleted, it should only be fair that other society Wikipedia pages also be deleted for the same reason.131.227.138.76 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep This wiki page should stay as it's informative for new and potential students looking to come to Surrey to study Law from all over the world. It is very similar to other Law society wikipedia pages like Cambridge University Law Society and The Law Society, University College Cork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.34.20 (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: The couple of press releases offered as references are not evidence of attained notability, nor are multiple searches (Guardian, Highbeam, Questia, Google) locating anything that is. The best I could find was this brief interview with someone who had been involved in the society but that does not discuss that particular society in itself. Fails the WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite Student law societies are historically important parts of the English legal profession. There aren't too many organizations in the world that are significantly more important than this one. The number of distinguished former members must be quite enormous. This is not just an average student society. Per the comments above; not an average student society. Give the editors a chance to improve the article. Conyemenam (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding your assertion that "There aren't too many organizations in the world that are significantly more important than this one" please provide evidence. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I also notice you have already provided a "Keep and rewrite" opinion earlier in the discussion, so I have struck the second !vote. AllyD (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

James Propa[edit]

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

Non-notable radio personality. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – Talented young man, but no major achievements yet. WP:TOOSOON. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Distinction (social)[edit]

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

Cleanup of ambiguous and confusing article title left over after a move Bhny (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Restore redirect This is really an RfD not an AfD. I cannot imagine that this would be wanted as the title of an article distinct from Distinction (sociology). So what harm in keeping it as a redirect? WP:Redirects are cheap: Noyster (talk), 10:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The harm is that a Distinction (social), such as a knighthood or Nobel prize, isn't the same as Distinction (sociology), so it would be redirecting to a wrong article. This is what I have previously fixed. Bhny (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
To my mind "social distinction" would be an odd way to describe a knighthood or award; but OK, an alternative is a redirect to Distinction - the disambiguation page - where readers can make the distinction for themselves: Noyster (talk), 15:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm ok with that. Bhny (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ethallobarbital[edit]

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

Page tags state that any unreferenced material may be challenged and removed - the whole article has been utterly unreferenced since the placement of the tag more than 5 years ago. The article has been edited twice since 2011 and nothing meaningful has been added whatsoever. Since the whole article is unreferenced, I challenge it per the tags and instructions, and suggest its removal. CharlieTheCabbie|Yack to the driver 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
References, albeit indirect, are provided: the PubChem entry is sufficient evidence, I think. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not consider PubChem an appropriate reference. It just says the drug exists. The article claims it's a barbituate derivative, which PubChem does not reference. It says lots of different names for the drug, but nothing which says what it is. CharlieTheCabbie|Yack to the driver 01:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
For references to more in-depth literature, see [37]. Sources have to exist for an article to be kept; they do not have to be in the article. (Also, I don't know much about chemistry, but isn't it self-evident that it is a barbiturate derivative? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
(Restoring accidentally deleted comment): Note that one source gives a slightly different structure and chemical formula for Ethallobarbital: [38] הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Poor article doesn't mean that the subject doesn't deserve an article. I agree that it needs to be expanded. There are no articles on Pubmed about this specific barbiturate, but it might be used in veterinary medicine. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please be advised that I have notified the Pharmacology Wikiproject about this AFD with a view to them repairing or rescuing this article by expanding it. Thanks :) CharlieTheCabbie|Yack to the driver 10:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Bikini Luxe[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG and no independent sources are available whatsoever. Article claims features in a couple of reputable magazines, though these claims seem unfounded: Cosmo on Google (Cosmo's search is useless...), shape.com, Shape on Google. Also Candice Galek 1 and 2. Nikthestunned 09:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you have to say about sources such as Yahoo, travel weekly, digital journal, ABC (dead link), CBS. They are not notable?. --Karlhard (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Correct, they are all press releases, which don't count towards notability per WP:ORGIND. Press releases are written by the company and so are not independent. (Why would you include a dead link also? That doesn't help at all...) Nikthestunned 15:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Found multiple third-party sources that are definitely not press releases: [39] [40] [41] [42]. —CodeHydro 16:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The first is a wordpress blog and so isn't reliable (also does read *exactly* like a press release despite your assertion!). The last is also a blog, if paid, per the disclosure. Of the other two, simandan.com doesn't look remotely reliable (looks like a random personal page) and noragouma.com fails WP:ORGIND for consisting solely of an interview (it's not independent if the information comes straight from the company owner). All of these look promotional also, given the wording etc. Nikthestunned 16:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Most information on any organization can be traced to the organization itself. WP:Independent does not require the information to be independent, only that the source deciding to publish the information decides that it is worth publishing independently. Press releases fail because those are published automatically and without editorial review. Interviews however do require the third party to ask questions and then decide if it's worth talking about them. While the sources I provide may sound promotional, the most important point is that the decision to publish them is not in the hands of the company. Heck, if I like a product, I will rant and rave reviews about it even if the company doesn't pay me a dime. —CodeHydro 16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
So by my count we've one ref of dubious significance, doesn't sound like widespread coverage to me. Nikthestunned 16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Have expanded the article third party sources [43], [44], and [45] in addition to the ones mentioned in my previous source. Note that while the first of this second set is a blog, it does bill itself as an "independent fashion blogger" at the bottom of the page. Admittedly many of these sources are popular blogs, such is normal when dealing with relatively new phenomenon as it takes time for more traditional sources to catch up. I would certainly be open to bringing this article back to AfD in a year to review its notability in other sources. —CodeHydro 17:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:BITE. As a final note, the original author only joined Wiki in September of this year but has already editted over 300 unique pages [46]. As per WP:Bite, we have to be more lenient on notability in order to avoid discouraging new and potentially valuable members of our community. —CodeHydro 18:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Notability is not going to change in that time - articles should be deleted if they fall outside of policy - no amount of edits done will make these three companies notable, so why wait a while? The new editor is clearly competent enough to create some decent articles, I went through and fixed up one so I'm fully aware of that. Doesn't change matters for these three, however. Nikthestunned 18:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy (!vote) is much preferred over deletion for novice editors, though I still think there is enough evidence for a keep here. —CodeHydro 18:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
One ref (of dubious significance or not) is not enough per say it's "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", unless you've some RS you've yet to add to the page. Nikthestunned 18:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Which it doesn't meet - I've seen no evidence of ""Significant coverage" [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail", per the above. Nikthestunned 09:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Beebarian[edit]

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

This is just a demonym for people of Brahmanbaria. This is more like a dictionary entry, not encyclopedic article. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Yup, Vanjagenije is correct. Transwiki to wiktionary, and soft redirect there.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. NOTE: There are only a few region specific demonym in Bangladesh used widely (e.g. Siloty for people of Sylhet Division). Most other names are just colloquial and would not appear in sources. – nafSadh did say 17:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Walek & Associates[edit]

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

A PR firm of only 19 employees. It has been acquired by Peppercomm, which is the focus of available sources and can be reported on the Peppercomm page. Rankings, awards and lists do not make a PR firm notable, as the PR industry has a very large volume of these. CorporateM (Talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I would be fine with the article being turned into a Redirect to Draft:Peppercomm, which seems more notable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough secondary sources to be worth a Wikipedia entry.--TMD Talk Page. 01:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect (changed from "Keep"). Keep the material, but move/merge to WalekPeppercomm (currently a redlink), leaving a redirect behind. There is no Peppercomm (currently a redlink). [Update: Draft Peppercomm article created, and is what I prefer now as redirect target] The merged firm and/or both predecessor firms seem notable. One article can cover merged firm and be redirect target for previous firm names. CorporateM's deletion nomination seems to suggest that they assume Peppercomm to be notable. Resolved by Keeping/moving this to WalekPeppercomm. Note there are awards, e.g. this press release one that announces WalekPeppercomm to be 2014's best PR firm for hedge funds. For notability of combined topic, check also:
(Find sources: "WalekPeppercomm" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
(Find sources: "Peppercomm" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
--doncram 22:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
And I find there are many misspellings of Peppercomm as "Peppercom" (e.g. 3 correct vs. 23 incorrect in a non-free national newspapers database), so try also:
--doncram 00:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Although Peppercomm has only about 100 employees[47], a quick search in PRWeek suggests there is enough source material, including a 2014 Agency Business Report. I have used these "Business Reports" from PRWeek for other agency articles and they have been the kind of comprehensive source that is useful in building the encyclopedia. I don't think it should effect this deletion discussion (it's generally a bad idea to paste an article about Walek and rename it Peppercomm), but I would encourage someone to start a page on Peppercomm separate from this discussion. I would not be comfortable starting it myself for reasons I won't get into, but they seem to have enough source material for an article. CorporateM (Talk) 23:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, per suggestion I have started Peppercomm article, currently at Draft:Peppercomm and submitted to appear in mainspace. I can't move it myself, it requires another editor to move it to mainspace, but has been submitted and will appear in mainspace by regular Articles For Creation process. I see in the good "business report" source that the WalekPeppercomm entity is just a sub-entity of Peppercomm, which continues, so I agree with CorporateM that creating the Peppercomm article separately is best. But the Peppercomm article can serve as proper redirect target for Walek & Associates [update: and also for WalekPeppercomm]. I've included Walek & Associates in bold in the Peppercomm article and otherwise edited it to be a proper redirect target [update: though i see the bolding was removed by another editor, fine, no problem either way]. So I think it is now reasonable for this AFD to be concluded with "Redirect" decision, where the redirect target is the Peppercomm article when that article is in mainspace. The closer could make the move into mainspace, or could close with the redirect decision to be implemented when Peppercomm goes to mainspace. A redirect decision is superior to a simple Delete because it preserves the edit history and conforms to Wikipedia's promise to credit contributors per our copyright system. And it allows for acccess to the past info and it allows re-creation of an article if/when there are more substantial sources. --doncram 04:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
And it's conceivable that the WalekPeppercomm unit, which is located separately in office in Boulder, Colorado, could get spun off and go back to Walek & Associates or similar name. And be notable on its own. Probably not, but still better to have the redirect keeping edit history, IMHO. --doncram 21:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree. FYI - I made some copyedits, etc. to your draft. I noticed citation 3 is a self-authored piece, but left it alone. CorporateM (Talk) 08:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Happily also editor User:Sarahj2107 agrees this is a reasonable resolution (thanks). The draft was quickly rejected by an AFC regular editor, but I've added more and resubmitted it. I added one more cite on that point, about the agency being Wikipedia-policy-respectful, also a "self-authored"/non-independent source, but I believe it is a true fact. And I added several more PR Week agency business reports, for 2008, 2009, 2012, because you suggested those are "comprehensive" and relatively well-regarded as RS, though I didn't find one for every year. I think there's enough there now for the article to be accepted for mainspace, but maybe some more development from the now-linked PR Week sources would help. Maybe the AFC regular editor is naturally skeptical about PR agency articles which probably often are created by COI editors (not the case here). Anyhow further improvements and/or moving it to mainspace would be welcomed. Thanks. --doncram 21:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I am somewhat skeptical as well that a 100-person PR agency would qualify, but at-a-glance it looked like they may have it (someone would need to research more than I did). I try to avoid articles related to fellow members of a trade association I am in, so I didn't bother with it too much. (it is a pretty close-knit community) I noticed stuff like "the firm has an improvisational comedy culture, including a program called "Comedy Experience"" which was cited to a primary source from the company. The quote in paragraph two seems un-encyclopedic. Sam Ford's book is irrelevant to the firm page and there are too many awards (please see WP:ORGAWARDS regarding what I feel are proper sources for awards). Also I do not believe the self-authored pieces should be used. Waggener Edstrom Communications is a small(ish) PR firm page I brought up to GA status and may be a good example to follow. Not trying to beat you up for volunteering your time, but my suggestion would be that less is more. CorporateM (Talk) 00:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
To CorporateM, your feedback about the editing is fine. I rather agree with you, less would be more, and what I put in could well be edited down. About the improv comedy culture, that is weak-ish and sort of synthesis-like, by me, putting together what I saw in several video links and interviews and other sources that are all probably directly from, or closely derivative to, the subject company or its people. The improv comedy slant should indeed be edited down; it would be far better to have an external source describing the improv comedy as a characteristic of the firm, and i did not find such an external source. It was me trying to make the article interesting and to verbalize what I was finding; it is fine by me if another editor ruthlessly edits that down. Or even better if someone finds better support for what i was trying. But there are multiple primary-type sources mentioning improv comedy connection, and some representation of that should be kept in the article, though maybe not in the lede. And yes the Sam Ford co-authored book also is weakish. It's relevance needs to be supported or it should be dropped. Thanks for your feedback. --doncram 22:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Jerome Mackey[edit]

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

Sources consist of a few passing mentions, which is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE either.Mdtemp (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The writing style makes it really hard to judge notability and the reference format makes it hard to judge quality. I tried helping the main author with similar articles but (excuse if I misunderstand intent) but it seems that they believe quantity of references and pieces of information will somehow push this article to WP:GNG. The prose does not make a case for notability and I will need a bit more time to examine the references before I vote.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, an earlier article on him was speedily deleted.Mdtemp (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep Notability Established

Notability author keep this is very referenced and a good article Author of significant book(s) on their style; - e.g. a book that is recommended study for the art (e.g. by an organisation they do not lead) or by someone who is an artist from a different style and/or school, but beware vanity press. Yes four books
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability#Schools_and_organisations
Note: unless the art/style is notable, a school or organisation teaching it is unlikely to be. Hence these criteria are similar. Criteria supporting notability Subject of an independent article/documentary: see above, and consider if it was the style/art and the school/organisation was an example. yes
Long, externally verifiable history Yes
Large number of students yes between 4000 and 5000 in 1974
Regular or large competitive successes in inter-school/ organisation tournaments where the style is notable.n/a
Multiple wide spread sites: an organisation 2 or 3 in a 30 mile radius is a lot less likely to be notable than one with 30 schools in different countries. These are the extremes but illustrate the point. yes multiple states
CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

He is not a school or an organization. As far as being a notable author, what has he written about his style that is recommended by those not connected to him?Mdtemp (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
CommentHe was the a pioneer in the field by being the first franchiser of martial arts schools. He is similiar in notability to Tiger Schulmann CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
More comments still no vote. All that tells me is that the Tiger article has its own problems and may need a visit. The franchising of Martial arts schools was (is?) an American phenomenon and being the first to do so in a large way has some claim to notability (notoriety). I would like to see that backed up by good (clearly formatted) references.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Somewhere in one of the references it says he had 3 schools in NYC and 8 others. I wouldn't say that's franchising in a large way, but your view may be different.Mdtemp (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Neither would I which is why I asked for references backing up the statement.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I found nothing to show he meets any of notability criteria for martial artists. However, I still haven't decided about whether or not he meets WP:GNG. I've looked at a number, but not all, of the sources listed in the article. I found some that don't even mention him, but most are passing mentions or things like lists of schools. Given his legal problems, there may be enough coverage to pass GNG, but I haven't had the time to do enough research. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment Papaursa [48], [49], and [50] CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
More passing mentions.Mdtemp (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 18:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment Life Magazine [51], Black Belt Magazine full article about him. [52], New York Magazine section on him. [53] CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
He's not mentioned on the Life cover, the BB article is about martial arts by mail marketing, and the New York article is a list of dojos. Nothing to show significant coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment MDTemp, he qualifies on General Notability Guideline. He is an author, owner of the first franchise of martial arts schools, and there is significant coverage of him. By martial arts schools qualifications he fully qualifies. Take a look at martial arts schools. There are significant coverage of him in many areas. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
He definitely doesn't qualify as a notable martial artist. I also haven't seen the coverage necessary to convince me he meets GNG. I see lots of passing mentions and some coverage of his stock mail fraud case (WP:BLP1E), but not multiple examples of significant independent coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment The founder of the first franchise martial arts school in the United States makes him notable. His organization certainly qualifies him more than American Top Team, Brazilian Top Team, Evolve MMA, and Tiger Schulmann's MMA. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I finally got the time to search for sources for Mackey. I did a google search on his name and judo and went through every hit listed on the first 8 pages of results. My conclusion is that there is not enough significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. There's no doubt there's a number of passing mentions, but I don't believe that's enough for WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I did fine one from Life Magazine [1]

  • Delete The Life "article" (2 paragraphs) is more about judo than Mackey. Even if you consider it significant, GNG requires multiple sources and I don't see them. I do like the little kid throwing the instructor through the air--totally unrealistic but in keeping with the views of martial arts at the time. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am named in a Time article on the martial arts. Made my day when it came out but it doesn't make me notable. Passing mentions are just that.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment Alright, I will state the case
  1. The first to establish the franchise system of martial arts in america
  2. school in 3 states
  3. responsible for the teaching of over 4000 students.
  4. Helped to establish martial arts throughout the East Coast by bringing in from Asia many noted instructors and making them instructors at his schools.
  5. the sheer number of passing mentions in numerous books, black belt magazine, magazines, show GNG. The listing is well over 50.
  6. the author of at least 4 books.
  7. now if you look at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability#Schools_and_organisations
His organization, of which he was the owner would qualify. Possibly maybe create a page about Judo, Inc and redirect Jerome Mackey to it. Since his organization fully qualifies. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

CommentI just created page if you believe redirect is a better idea. Jerome Mackey's Judo Inc. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I just crossed through your second keep vote. Lots of passing mentions still don't make significant coverage. Nothing to show he's notable as an author. Nothing shows he was the first to franchise schools and arguably his chain wasn't that big--if all of the dojos combined had only 4000 students in their history. I know individual schools that have had more students than that. Finally there's even less coverage about Judo, Inc. than there is of Mackey himself. Papaursa (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment Papursa, This was over a 15 year period and when martial arts was confined to adults. This was before martial arts became martial arts schools became inundated with children. Additionally, there are numerous sources that state he was the first to franchise martial arts in America. The numerous sources are in the article! CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The articles you mentioned indicated he was all about teaching children and none of the sources say he was the first, just among the earliest. In addition, as mentioned earlier in the discussion, there's no indication he franchised in a major way. Papaursa (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep I like the article. 24.103.234.74 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep would seem to pass WP:GNG from the amount of sources. User:Mdtemp did you notify article creator? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • keep I like the articke . Highly referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.108.64
So the keep arguments appear to be based on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:GOOGLEHITS, neither of which is a valid reason for keeping an article. No one is pointing out significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Quinn Fawcett[edit]

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

Article on an author does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria or GNG. Person co-authored a handful of shared-world fiction a decade ago. Only refs are to Publishers Weekly book descriptions, and a fleeting and incidental reference in the Los Angeles Times. (Also, as an aside unrelated to the AfD, note that editor claiming to be subject of this article complains the bio is inaccurate, "professionally damaging" and causing him "financial harm.") BlueSalix (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 30. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 18:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR criteria. It's worth noting that Bill Fawcett, I believe, is the one who made the comment on the board. "Quinn Fawcett" is the apparent name of the "team" or "writing duo" of Chelsea Quinn Yarbro and Bill Fawcett. The former also fails to clear the hurtle of notability as well, but that's a different page perhaps. Anyhow, not much coverage (substantial, something other than standard PW review, etc.) for his books or him.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge into Chelsea Quinn Yarbro. The problem is that there has been no official consensus that trade reviews don't count towards notability, although there is a general consensus that they are greatly depreciated in comparison to longer, meatier reviews by other outlets. I think that this is partially because some of the trade reviews won't review anything they're handed and do give negative reviews. There has been the idea that trade reviews solicit books and are guaranteed to give positive reviews and Kirkus is a good example of how bad trade review outlets can be, however there are exemplary ones like the Library Journal and Booklist that do argue that trades can still be usable. However in this case what we have is an author (supposedly) that has taken to a BLP board to complain that someone is writing negative things about him. (I can't see what in the original article about him (Bill Fawcett (writer)) was so negative, personally.) Anyway, my thing is that the books in this article could very easily be merged into the existing article for Quinn Yarbro, who does pass notability guidelines. She's extremely prolific- so much so that I'd actually recommend creating a spin off article to include all of her written works (Chelsea Quinn Yarbro bibliography), which would easily be able to encompass the books under her various pseudonyms- it's reasonable to have a spinoff article for a bibliography if a notable author is particularly prolific. There's really no reason to have separate articles for a pseudonym when an easier alternative is available, especially if someone is complaining that something is harmful to their career. I'll try to bang out an article for her bibliography in my userspace. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yikes- I had absolutely no idea that she'd written this much! A separate bibliography page has long since been overdue, I think. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Done- the bibliography is now live, so the article should redirect to Chelsea_Quinn_Yarbro#Pseudonyms, where lower down in the page there is a link for the full bibliography, which includes her work with Fawcett. The main page does say that she has worked with Fawcett, so this will comfortably contain the same information without really needing a separate page for the pseudonym. We also have the side benefit of having CQY's full bibliography (as far as I can tell), whereas her page could only contain a small portion of it due to her being so incredibly prolific when it comes to writing. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's what he wants. 70.192.83.88 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't find any mention of the volume of a writer's output lending anything to credibility via WP:AUTHOR. For the record, I think the argument of "Author X has written and published so many books, he is by default notable" a weak argument. Moreover, the issue isn't that a review in the NY Times Book Review is "meatier" than one in Kirkus, it's that the NY Times Book Review is a stronger source. That it has a better reputation. Been around longer. Has earned a better reputation. Has a better readership. That kind of stuff. Also, another thing for the record, it's excessive to list every book an author has published, especially if they are prolific, because, generally, there's a risk of veering into WP:RESUME, and lastly, reading some comments on the AfD lately, I have to say, (borrowed from elsewhere), words are like leaves and where they most abound, much fruit of sense is rarely found.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not arguing for his article to be kept, just saying that CQY is notable and she's notable enough to where listing her bibliography would be worthwhile. Merging the series into the main page would make it fairly unwieldy, hence the page for CQY's work as a whole. I mean, they don't hand out the Bram Stoker Award for Lifetime Achievement to just anyone, after all, and she's one of a fairly small handful of people who have been given the award. That kind of award is given to the person for their work as a whole, which is another reason why we should try to list as much as possible. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. First of all, we don't have an alternative process for handling joint pseudonyms of two notable authors; there is no primary redirect target, and there's no reliable way to assure that duplicated content in the separate bios would remain in synch and consistent. Better to treat this as no worse than a legitimate spinout article; it's not unusual to see articles like this for sustained collaborations between notable musicians. Second, the dismissal as insignificant of PW reviews is just plain wrong; Publisher's Weekly is quite selective in its choices of books to review, and there's a pretty-well-established consensus via many prior AFD discussions that multiple PW reviews strongly signal notability. Third, there seems to be a lot of coverage out there; the "author"'s books were also regularly reviewed by Kirkus (another strong signal of notability, though not literary quality), there are a few dozen newspaper reviews showing up in Newsbank, including one in USA Today (albeit rather brief). GScholar even turns up a few hits in academic journals, which may not be enough on their own to establish notability, but certainly suggest it. As Tokyogirl quite accurately argues above, there's no case for removal of the content of the article; this is a discussion over the form in which the content should be retained: This really isn't a discussion about deletion, and would be better closed summarily. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see a reference to support "Publisher's Weekly is quite selective". From their own site: "The book review section, not added until the early 1940s, has grown in importance over the past 75 years, and it currently offers opinions on 9,000 new books each year." Their page for submissions gives no information on selection. [54]. Last I heard, about 30,000 non-self-published books come out each year; we don't know how many of those are submitted to PW; even if they all are, 1 in 3 is not "quite selective".
There's nothing selective about Publisher's Weekly. Less so with Kirkus. BlueSalix (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Your overall figure is way, way off, by a factor of 10, making your "1 in 3" analysis nonsense. That total should be more like 300,000.[55][56][57] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I never made a "1 in 3" analysis. That comment was left by LaMona, who did not sign her comment, just like you didn't sign yours, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Feel free to check-out WP:SIGNATURE if you need help. BlueSalix (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about forgetting the signature. ~30K/~10K = 1 in 3. From the page you cite: "Bowker reports that over one million (1,052,803) books were published in the U.S. in 2009, which is more than triple the number of books published four years earlier (2005) in the U.S. (April 14, 2010 Bowker Report). More than two thirds of these books are self-published books, reprints of public domain works, and other print-on-demand books, which is where most of the growth in recent years has taken place." And I specified "non-self-published books", although I didn't even consider that PW would include reprints, etc., but I'm sure they don't - so removing, say 70% (= more than 2/3), we're back to 30K, and 1 in 3. PW doesn't cover PD works, and self-published books are under a different program at PW. LaMona (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
No. No. No. No. No. 30% of 1,000,000 is 300,000. This is not subject to debate or consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I can't count. But we still don't know 1) how many titles PW receives for review 2) how many it selects of those. So I'm still questioning PW being "very selective". This is a statement that needs a RS. LaMona (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Nice analysis by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 00:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Hullaballoo. Content can be modified if we decide the BLPN's Bill Fawcett claim has merrit - though a quick Google raises doubts. Artw (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment A Kirkus review is no more a sign of notability than a PW one. Both are trade journals. Both review a lot of authors. Both accept payment. Throwing a statement out there how one is another weak point in Wolfowitz's analysis, particularly, "there's a pretty-well-established consensus via many prior AFD discussions that multiple PW reviews strongly signal notability," which is neither here nor there with this discussion, and "GScholar even turns up a few hits in academic journals," yet another limp towards clearing the hurtle of notability. I'm afraid it falls short. And, for the record, my response to tokyogirls' "comment" refutes her "argument." Going back to BlueSalixs' original post, this author does not meet WP:AUTHOR.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't have any particular comment on the trade reviews (although I will note that there has still been no official consensus on whether or not they are considered invalid for notability purposes), but I do have to stress that I believe that CQY's work as a whole merits an article because she received a major award from the HWA for her work as a whole. Stoker Awards are pretty darn notable and less than .01% of the people involved in horror have received one- let alone received one for their life's work. Only 44 people have ever received a Stoker Award for Lifetime Achievement since its inception in the 1980s. It's not a small achievement by any means. However this is somewhat of a moot point since the topic at hand is whether or not the specific pseudonym should merit an article, not about CQY's work as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep with rationale. - I've been following this AfD discussion for several weeks, while I contemplated the comments of others and the best course of action to pursue in this AfD. As I see it, we basically have three choices:
1. Keep a separate "Quinn Fawcett" article, more less as it is now;
2. Redirect the "Quinn Fawcett" page to either "Bill Fawcett" or "Chelsea Quinn Yarbro";
3. Delete "Quinn Fawcett" and add duplicate text to both "Bill Fawcett" and "Chelsea Quinn Yarbro" regarding the Quinn Fawcett partnership.
This is the common problem we face with any duo or partnership where the individual partners are also notable. None of the three options is ideal, given that "Quinn Fawcett" is of marginal notability at best, making a stand-alone article somewhat problematic. A redirect to one of the two parent articles, by necessity, makes a choice to redirect to one or the other of the two literary partners, and not redirecting to the other. Deleting the "Quinn Fawcett" article requires the insertion of duplicate content into both parent articles, giving due credit to both Fawcett and Yarbro for the works of the "Quinn Fawcett" partnership. Having thought about this, and recognizing that there is no perfect solution, I have decided to treat this article as a "spin-out" of content from two notable subjects, and to register a "KEEP" !vote in favor of the "Quinn Fawcett" article. At the end of the day, there is no harm in keeping it, and provides the most logical structure for the two parent articles, fully recognizing that other AfD participants may reasonably disagree with me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Gun Buster[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography article created over 7 years ago, tagged with an unreferenced tag over 6 years ago. Should instead redirect to Gunbuster, a more notable term. Sources welcomed, if anyone finds them. Mika1h (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep - the proponent wishes to delete this entry because it has a similar name as some cartoon character. There was a hatnote on this article indicating where to go for the cartoon character but because some people might get confused it is suggested that this entry is deleted. It is clear from google searches that this author wrote several propaganda books during WWII and thus during a time of austerity this makes the author somewhat notable. The fact that there are negligible electronic records indicating this author's status does not mean that it is not worth having an entry and hoping for additional editorial input in future. This issue continually arises for books written before the advent of Google and it is a shame that there seems to be a move for wholesale removal of data which only has scanty reference on Google. I'd go and search the NLA for more info if I had time but I have a paying job to go to. Gillyweed (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:BIO, "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Just because you presume the person is notable doesn't mean it's worth keeping. If you can't find sources through Google, maybe visit your local library. You shouldn't have created the article at the first place if you didn't have any sources. --Mika1h (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind advice. I created the article seven years ago and several other authors have helpfully added to it. I'm sorry but I don't have time to pop down to the local library and trawl through the archives to save a stub. However, the material that currently exists is helpful and is not contradicted by any of the fairly poor sources currently accessible by google. Just because something cannot be googled does not mean it isn't notable. The world did exist before google. Gillyweed (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I was only able to find the one source online, but a google books search brings back a ton of hits so I believe article improvement should be possible via those. I am unconvinced by the argument that this article is causing significant problems for manga readers. Artw (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I am relying on criteria 4(d) - represented in major institutions. In this case the National Library of Australia contains multiple copies (which is unusual for a non-Australian author) and criteria 3 - independent reviews. I am now looking for them and finding some. Gillyweed (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you think "galleries or museums" from 4d is meant to include "libraries"? That seems like a stretch. NickCT (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, why not? The National Library of Australia doesn't collect everything (unless it is Australian), and thus the fact that a Pommy book remains in the collection (and hasn't been de-accessioned) indicates that it thinks that the book should be represented in its collection. Gillyweed (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Books from the 1940s aren't always going to be easily sourced online, but we have the substantial source added by Artw as well as multiple mentions in other books about WW2 literature, as can be seen, for example, in the results of a GBooks search for <"Gun Buster" Dunkirk>. (Some examples, mostly viewable only in snippets: [58][59][60][61][62][63] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Arxiloxos: - Which seems to be an argument for why the books might be notable, not an argument for why the author might be notable. The article, as it currently stands, appears to be a biography about the author. Not an article about a series of books. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
      • To me, this is a difference without substantial consequence. Either way, the appropriate result is an article that includes information about the author and his books. Editors might disagree about the article's title, but one way or another, Gun Buster would be kept either as the main title or a redirect to whatever other title is chosen.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I've added more material and more references. If I have time I will do some more work on it tomorrow. Gillyweed (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Arxiloxos: - re " difference without substantial consequence" - With respect, I think you've gone way wide of the mark here. If you can't see the substantial difference between a WP article about a book series and a WP article about a person, you might want to take time to consider how WP works and look at other comparable articles.
Under your logic we could just wrap Mark Twain into The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. That's clearly not right. NickCT (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems feasible to tease biographical details from the many references which are out there such as this. The topic seems more notable than the rival animé which seems to be a routine potboiler. Andrew D. (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael Schuerger[edit]

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

vanity piece, no independent sources Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Michael Schürger has indeed produced and acted in films, but I can find no sources outside of film sites like IMDB. His latest film, Far Rockaway, does not appear in Variety. Since he is also a musician, perhaps someone can find sources relating to that genre. Also, I note that there is no entry in WP:DE, although I also know that WP:DE is rather strict about BLPs and especially those involved in popular culture. It is possible that WP:EN is therefore seen as a more amenable WP source. LaMona (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
"... film sites like IMDB..." - IMDB is a site listing films, that anyone can edit. Therefore it is considered not a reliable source. There are other such sites, from Rotten Tomatoes to the "mashable" film section. So perhaps a clearer description would have been "social sites that list films and let anyone make changes." Does that explain it to you? LaMona (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, not anyone but only the producers are allowed to make entries in IMDB, and they get carefully checked before published.Budybla23 (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. His most significant credit appears to be being a "segment director" of [[The Fallen (2004 film)|] (2004). Far from enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

List of songs about Miami[edit]

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

This list article does not seem to serve a purpose, and I feel like it will always be incomplete. It is based on original research currently. Natg 19 (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 07:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no valid deletion rationale presented, and as often in these cases it seems like the nominator is simply unfamiliar with lists of this kind, if not lists on Wikipedia generally. "I don't get it" is not an argument, and the obvious purpose of the list is to group songs by shared subject, just like any of the other lists in Category:Lists of songs about a city. "Incompleteness" is also never a reason to delete; see, for example, Template:Dynamiclist or Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists. Most lists on Wikipedia are and always will be "incomplete" in the sense that, as here, we have limited them to entries that have some connection to notable subjects rather than merely every thing of that type that has ever existed. And OR is only a reason to delete if the problem is unfixable, i.e., if it were unverifiable whether any songs are in fact about Miami. Given that this list is (and should be) limited to songs that are either notable themselves or by notable musicians, secondary sources should be available in many cases if interpretation is in doubt. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I doubt there is one song anywhere which is "about Miami", there are several that might mention Miami in passing, for instance Back in the USSR, which appears to get an entry on this list, there may be songs set in Miami, but, I Left My Heart in San Francisco is not about San Francisco, but about the singer's heart. As the nominator states, this is, and always be, original research because you will not find independent sources which say a song is "about a place" so premise for this list is, as postdlf says, unfixable. However, Postdlf is correct - nothing in WP is ever finished. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like a valid list, though it could really use a lead and perhaps a bit explaining how each song is about Miami - this would also make it easier to purge the list of songs not about Miami. In response to Richhoncho's point, though, while "Miami Nights" may not actually be about Miami, it certainly seems that "Everybody loves Miami" and "This is Miami" are. That some entries aren't on-topic just means that the list will need occasional purging, as many lists do. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Philosopher. If I purged any song which wasn't referenced and about Miami, there would be no list, would there? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ...which problem is easily solved by finding sources for what the songs are about before doing the purging. I did give examples of two songs that are clearly about Miami. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The first of which some of the lyrics are "Miami nights, it was all a dream, If I can get my money right, I'm about to OD, Little more weed, 1st class seats 1st class hoes, we on South Beach." The second of which the lyrics start, "This is not Miami, This is not Bangkok, This is not Milano, This is not New York" and continues in a similar vein. Are either of these songs really about Miami? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you misread the post - I noted that the first of those (Miami Nights) was not about Miami. The second, (Everyone Loves Miami) clearly is about Miami - lyrics here. The third is more than a bit silly, but still about Miami. Hey, we're not music critics here. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not certain I agree that any of the three songs are "about Miami," but my opinion is not relevant, it's whether you can find third party references which say they are about Miami, I am happy to strike my oppose if some references can be found. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 02:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nate Feuerstein[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Also seems promotional. Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete The Rapzilla source is a good, non-self-published, reliable source. None of the others are. Agree it feels promotional. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Long Time Dead (Torchwood)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, does not appear to satisfy WP:BK. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Krishna (TV actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT not notable actor VanishingRainbow (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Alaigal[edit]

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

The article has no sources asserting to its notability. It is a very long description of the plot and the cast It reads like a PR promo from the TV network. VanishingRainbow (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Acting President of the United States[edit]

Acting President of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Acting President of the United States" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This article is poorly sourced and is redundant in light of other well-sourced articles on the same subject (e.g., Presidential Succession Act and Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Large portions of the article appear to be unsourced conclusions. To the extent there is any material that is salvageable in this article AND is not mentioned in other articles, such as the ones referenced above, such material can be moved to such article or articles. SMP0328. (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that the acting president of the United States is unquestionably notable, as evident by the term's frequent use in media, educational and legal sources spanning several centuries, and that its not nearly poorly written enough to justify a nuke and pave. Also, I do not believe that the articles you list adequately cover the topic. Both of the articles listed were specific laws and amendments passed during the mid 1900s, while the acting president is a specific position that has a history going back to the late 1700s. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Spirit of Eagle and would further note that a general overview article for the topic is really necessary for overall topic comprehension, given the varied history of presidential succession. Indeed, if it came down to merging articles, this is the more important topic article, not those of the individual laws. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment What about the sourcing? This article has almost none. As for Philosopher's suggested merger, such an article would be gigantic. Regardless of what happens to this article, the articles I cited should remain independent articles. SMP0328. (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I was not suggesting a merger, but making a point about the respective importance of the articles. Sourcing is important and should be done, but the encyclopedia is not finished and I don't see the current lack of sourcing as terminal for the article. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Samantha Nock - A Halfbreed's Reasoning[edit]

Samantha Nock - A Halfbreed's Reasoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Samantha Nock - A Halfbreed's Reasoning" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

advertising The Banner talk 05:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete unless someone can clean it up (since I won't be that person, I don't have the right to say keep) (WP:TNT). Fails WP:NPOV, sources primarily from a Wordpress (fails WP:RS) apparently written by person who is the subject of the article, and its large block of text suggests a copyvio, though that might not be the case. She may be notable, but a google news search reveals only a few, mostly blog-based articles about her. — kikichugirl ? 05:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Calibre(unit)[edit]

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

Non-notable unit of measurement. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. War wizard90 (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I am ok with merging this and several other articles created by this same editor into relevant measurement articles, most of these do not need their own article and are dictionary definitions only. Thoughts? War wizard90 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I am concerned about the reliability of the source. I put a list of the pages created here noting that they appear to be based on Other Systems of Units by François Cardarelli. The author link does not seem to show relevant credentials that would warrant relying on the source for novel information: if the book confirms what is in more established sources, the alternatives should be used, and claims that are not confirmed elsewhere should not be used in Wikipedia. I've asked the editor whether the book contains more information than tables showing equivalences such as 1 wrap = 240 feet. Depending on what extra details are available, I'm inclining towards deleting all the pages (or perhaps redirects for some) rather than literally merging. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: the same book source lists "Wrap = 240 ft" (and it does, I've seen the page in Google books), but the Oxford English Dictionary has no such meaning for "wrap". It does show a linear measure, but it's shown as 3564 yards. If the OED doesn't know about the 240ft version of "wrap", this casts doubt on the reliability of the source. (I wondered if it was a typo for "warp", but there's no 240ft unit in OED for that either.) PamD 14:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Pet (BDSM)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICT, article lacks sources and doesn't seem like it will ever move past a stub. Bottom (BDSM), animal play, and Dominance and submission already exist. If it's not a dicdef it reads more like a dab page. Prodded, but was removed by creator. I support deleting above all, but a merge into that article (or another appropriate article) also seems like a good idea. — kikichugirl inquire 04:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Investors Europe[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 04:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - looks more like a collection of links about a non-notable company. Google news search reveals mostly unrelated hits, general web search reveals self-published unreliable sources. Would tag for G11, but not unambiguously promotional enough for me. — kikichugirl inquire 04:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Gibraltar trading portals are a notable and important subject for the global online trading community197.224.40.193 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Luke Marquardt[edit]

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

NFL player who fails WP:NGRIDIRON by never playing in a regular season game and doesn't have substantial non-WP:ROUTINE coverage to merit WP:GNG. Deadbeef 04:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 04:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 04:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Twelve Gauge Valentine[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. Some mention in metal sites and blogs, as the band does exist, but these sites are not reliable sources (e.g. user-submitted or fan sites). --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not clear why the article was recreated after last deletion. Perhaps some salt is required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

DWBC-TV[edit]

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

No reliable sources covering the subject, fails to meet WP:NME. —theenjay36 (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Natasha Agrama[edit]

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

Undersourced BLP with no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC Swpbtalk 01:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:55, 18 December 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 delete. Vandalism Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Karruche[edit]

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

Nonsense BLP article. Article was nominated for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed by the article creator. Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 18 December 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.

Modular smartphone[edit]

Modular smartphone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Modular smartphone" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
  • Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Message copied from my user talk page (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)) :-
    • Why was modular smartphone deleted?. It in a bona fides bases include text from another Wikedia article that had copyrighted material. This text was deleted and included another one, after seeing the tag. But was deleted in any case. But copyviolation page continues: Phonebloks. The final text in modular smartphone was right.--Lagoset (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. It leans a little too heavy towards Blokstore in the opening, but this is an emerging technology with several new players entering the market. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 03:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep- thanks, I am going to improve. The text from other Wikipedia article has been deleted and new text have been included in this page. --Lagoset (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • keep - article shows promise and has shown major improvement since CSD tagging. Looks good for now, though it needs cleanup and maybe some expansion. @Lagoset: I'd recommend drafting in your user sandbox first, since you seem like a good author, and I'd hate to see your contribs CSD'd because you weren't finished. — kikichugirl ? 06:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you a lot. I have improved from the initial redaction. Think are going to appear more news about the topic than can be included in the article or can be included text from Google Project Ara (to do it more lighter) or de-copyrighted from Phonebloks. --Lagoset (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Paralikkunnu Juma masjid[edit]

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

This article is about a mosque (masjid), but here is not even one source to prove it's existence, and especially not it's notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • delete - unlikely to be truly notable enough to go beyond the stub it is. A news search revealed only two sources, certainly not WP:SIGCOV. — kikichugirl ? 23:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Kattoor Kalasadhanam[edit]

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

There is no claim of significance, no reliable sources to prove the wp:notability of the subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sommernatt ved fjorden[edit]

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

There is no explanation why this song is notable. There are no reliable sources that discuss the song. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep I understand the nomination since there was no references, but the song is well-known and often played in Norway; I have added one reference about this. Iselilja (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not see any sources in the English article which establish notability, and Norwegian Wikipedia has no sources at all. However, Norwegian Wikipedia lists plenty of recordings of the song. If there are so many recordings of it, there may be reason to believe that the song is notable, although the article currently is badly referenced. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The source I added was from the ordinary encyclopedia in Norway: Store norske leksikon. They don't have an article about the song specifically (normal encyclopedia seldom has such entries), but in an article on Ketil Bjørnstad they call the triple album Leve Patagonia! for pioneering, a musical epic and a milestone in Norwegian popular music. This particular song is described as a romantic pearl which is part of Norwegian song treasure; often played on radio and by bar pianists. Basically they describe it as an evergreen. And as you can see on NOWP it is recorded by a variety of artists. Iselilja (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - when nomination was added this was a deletion worthy article. Now wth Iseliljas improvements it is not.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Serbian parliamentary opposition leaders[edit]

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

I never heard about a position called "parliamentary opposition leader" in Serbia. In Serbian parliament, opposition is always consisted of several parties, usually not in good relations to each other. So, there is never one leader of the opposition, but several leaders. This article claims that the leader of the largest oppositional party is the unofficial "Leader of the Opposition", but there is no reliable source to prove that such (unofficial) position exists. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Embrace Today[edit]

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

This type of nomination almost always brings the fanboys out, but. Article has been unsourced for eight years, and citation tagged for six and a half. External links are primary or broken. G-search turns up the usual plethora of blog posts, casual mention, YouTube videos and the like. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails the GNG. Ravenswing 00:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Brandman Agency[edit]

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

Not the subject of two, in-depth reliable sources as required by WP:CORP. A search in the leading trade magazine, PRWeek,[64] results in only blurbs repeating information from a press release and similar directories at O'Dwyers'[65]. Currently used sources are either not reliable, or are infotainment about fashion and electronics she "can't live without" - not exactly the basis of an encyclopedic biography. Whether the founder qualifies for a page is a discussion for another day. CorporateM (Talk) 04:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article on a firm. A Highbeam search turns up some passing mentions associated with work done by the firm but I am seeing no WP:RS coverage about the firm itself. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Microtipping[edit]

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

This is unreferenced and I cannot find sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Digital currency. This seems to be a fairly popular phenomenon involving digital currency. While it is relatively new, which would make it harder to search engines to index, that doesn't mean it's not notable. According to this source one company reports that 10,000 transactions daily of this type, which are 1/6th of the total volume of transactions. Also, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of Google results (I see ~170K results for 'microtipping'). Granted most results are not WP:Reliable, there is plenty of precedent for ignoring that policy in the case of relatively new phenomenon. While perhaps not quite firm enough for it's own article yet, I think it's worth a redirect. —CodeHydro 15:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per Codehydro. Another possible target is Micropayment, which is a much more commonly used word. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Object Proposed Deletion Re. Codehydro and Bearian proposal to Merge and redirect to Digital currency or Micropayment. As pointed out Microtipping is a burgeoning phenomena. As such, I initially created the standalone article to provide microtippers the ability to factually define the act of "microtipping", going-forward. It was only flagged in the first place because I referenced two microtipping services; which was interpreted as G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Perhaps a Digital currency redirect would suffice, however, in my personal belief, does this topic an injustice by belittling its importance on the internet. Micropayments differer from Microtipping by the nature of its senders' intention. The act of sending a micropayment involves its receiver providing goods and/or services in return for said payment. Microtipping is purely a gratuitious act, in which one expects nothing in return. One may argue that Microtipping is a form of Micropayments. Please feel free make edits as you see fit. Vwm3nelson (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Consensus has formed for a merger, however two merge targets have been presented, Digital currency and Micropayment. Relisting to obtain more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to micropayment. When the day occurs that even 0.1% of internet users have micro tipped, then we have a phenomenon worth its own independent entry. Until then, ballyhoo about this "burgeoning phenomena" sounds like typical Internet 3.0 marketspeak, when the phenomenon is an actual everyday common event, it will get its own entry.-Augustabreeze (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

UCLA Labor Center[edit]

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

I can't find sufficient third-party references to show notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Everything that I'm finding is from UCLA or related labor groups. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Very promotional article, with lots of puffery about its achievements. The article-sized section about the director, or rather "leader", is so POV it would never be accepted here as biography. There is not enough independent sourcing for a standalone article. I suppose it could be redirected to UCLA but I don't really see the point of a redirect from this title. --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: It should be noted that it appears this article is currently being edited as part of a student project ([66]). Antrocent (♫♬) 10:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep a notable subject actively being worked on as part of a class project, concerns hopefully will be addressed. Antrocent (♫♬) 10:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a valid argument. But I'd be curious to hear why you think it's notable. In my view it fails WP:GNG. Also remember that per WP:NOTTA, "student editors should be treated in the same way any new editor is treated, without any special considerations that other editors do not receive." Tchaliburton (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Probably not notable based on our reckoning that individual departments of academic institutions are not notable. Note that this is an entity that has organized class WP-editing projects in the past and this may well be part of an ongoing project, so please userfy in the event of deletion. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Todd Cochrane[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Self-promotional from the looks of things; has been tagged for notability for almost seven years with no resolution. Hopefully, we can resolve it one way or another now. Boleyn (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete He's definitely well-known in the podcasting arena, but I only found one mention of him in a mainstream publication Washington Post. Everything else is blogs and podcasting-specific web sites. LaMona (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan -related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Api.ai[edit]

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

No evidence this meets WP:GNG. Prod removed without comment. Swpbtalk 00:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Byers Communication, Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable & unverifiable subject. Fails WP:NME & WP:CORP. —theenjay36 (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Essentially no RS coverage, almost all Google results are mirrors or false positives, possibly a hoax. Everymorning talk 02:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Asha Bhat[edit]

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

This person's sole claim of notability is as winner of a non-notable pageant. Yet another attempt by a certain user (with massive and very clear conflict of interest) to promote Miss Supranational, which has been declared non-notable in multiple AFDs. Although the previous Miss Supranational Mutya Johanna Datul passed AFD due to general coverage, surely this is a case of someone who is notable solely for a single event which is demonstrably non-notable in itself? When I do a search excluding "Supranational" almost all Google hits disappear. Mabalu (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Notability is not backed up by independent sources. The Banner talk 12:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Miss Supranational is a notable international pageant according to the reputed website "angelopedia.com". .

The person of concern is notable as a 2nd runner up winner at the Indian beauty pageant Miss Diva - 2014 and the winner of the notable international pageant described above. 11:43, 11 December 2014 (IST)

Runner-ups are not notable, sorry. As far as I can see Angelopedia is just another wiki, and alternative wikis are not considered reputable sources for Wikipedia. Mabalu (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Even so, angelopedia is not exactly an independent and reliable source. The Banner talk 02:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ali Hammoud (Mister International)[edit]

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

Largely unsourced (and the few sources that are there are related sources). Spectacular claims about his personal life go unsourced. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Vernon O. Johnson[edit]

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

Non-notable veteran. There's an assertion of importance with his world trips, but it falls short in verifiability. That's my main concern, that Johnson falls short of WP:BIO with the events of his life.

My secondary concern is that the article was created by JohnsonFamilyTheTrip, an account which appears to be promoting the book written about Johnson by an apparent family member. That takes it beyond just a non-notable biography into the realm of promotion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. The article is interesting, and from reading the article, I'm sure the book will also be an interesting read, but I don't see how having an interesting story to tell makes a person notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I also have some concerns about the promotional aspect here, so I agree with the observations that C.Fred has made above. Cmr08 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Please reconsider inclusion, as issues have been addressed.

  • Do not delete per nom. Over 40 citations have been added to the article per request, as well as photographs — Preceding unsigned comment added by JendaAJ (talkcontribs) 21:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, as the nominator, I still feel the article should be deleted. I've looked over the additions, and I do not feel that they show Johnson to be a notable person. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for consideration of sources added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this article is deleted, we probably need to go through the deletion process for the article on his spouse, Anne Beckwith Johnson, as well. —C.Fred (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Tobi (1978 film)[edit]

Tobi (1978 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tobi (1978 film)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article does not have any Reliable sources to establish notability, and does not seem to meet WP:Movie. There is nothing in the article except a plot summary and no claim to notability or significance. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep because there appears to be numerous Spanish-language search results in Google Books here. I ask anyone fluent in Spanish to review these results and share their findings. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I decided to look at the Spanish Wikipedia, there was a article under the same name back in 2009 but was deleted due to copyright violations. The lack of article on the Spanish Wikipedia is not an argument for the deletion here, however it should offer some insight into the significance of the film if the native language wiki doesn't even have an article on this film.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    We have to consider recentism too. Wikipedias of any language will be skewed toward twenty-first century films, so films that predate the Internet will be much less covered unless they are seminal films. This film seems to pop up in quite a few search results that I suspect that an article is likely warranted, but it would help to know what the results say exactly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    It looks like Variety has an English-language review of the film as evidenced here, but it is not available online. It shows up in Variety '​s archives here. This would be a pretty good point in favor of notability. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
These look more like listings of what's currently playing, I don't have a subscription to look more directly at the articles but from the synopsis you have linked it looks more like casual mentions and IMDB type listings not extensive coverage or actual reviews of the film. Hopefully we can get more people involved in this discussion that may actually speak Spanish and may have an account on the variety archive site.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Variety review identified above appears to be a strong indicator of notability. Another review, according to Google Books snippets, is apparently present in the magazine Bohemia, Issues 36-44. The director Antonio Marcero has been the subject of multiple books, eg. El humor y la emoción: el cine y la televisión de Antonio Mercero by Carlos J Plaza and José Luis Rebordinos and Antonio Mercero, 25 años de cine by Mikel E. Sánchez, and so it is reasonable to assume there is some reliable significant coverage in these books too. A tough one, but ultimately a keep for me. Cavarrone 21:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Alexyia[edit]

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

This page contains no references, she apparently took part in a national heat for the Eurovision songcontest but did not win, neither could i find any confirmation that she had released an album. Looking on the Romanian wikipedia, there is no mention of her at all. Fails WP:MUSIC entirely. Karst (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete The article should be deleted for not satisfying WP:BIO. Mhhossein (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Humane Science[edit]

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

Prodded for being either an unsourced WP:NEOLOGISM or unsourced promotion of an institute called "Humane Science". The original editor has removed the prod but made no attempts to clarify either way or address the lack of sourcing.

Animal_testing#Care_and_use_of_animals already covers the same ground if this article is meant to be about carrying out animal testing humanely, while I can find no sources (or even any web content outside of their own site) about the "Humane Science Academy". McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia has standards for what articles should include to be kept and what should be deleted. This meets no inclusion criteria that I know and fails with WP:DICTIONARY. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

LogiGear[edit]

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

Almost all the sources are provided and StickyMinds seems unlikely to be reliable. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. In a search I found a Bloomberg listing [67] but otherwise nothing. No significant sourcing is provided in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Memphis Monroe[edit]

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

A non-notable pornstar unworthy of having a page on Wikipedia. She fails WP:Pornbio for having just 140 films to her credit (per iafd) and no significant awards ("Favorite Breasts"???). She also has no independent, secondary, reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The sources here are the typical AVN, star-factory, Penthouse, xbiz and such, which are not independent of the subject. Redban (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete more or less per nom. No qualifying awards, therefore failing PORNBIO; no nontrivial reliably sourced biographical content, thereby falling below the GNG bar. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as passes WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG. –Davey2010(talk) 17:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You're trying to be disruptive, aren't you? Scene awards don't count under PORNBIO, and there are no other relevant claims. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Citing my reason for keep isn't being disruptive, I personally believe she passes PORNBIO and GNG due to the awards as well as overall searches on Google. –Davey2010(talk) 23:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
"due to the awards" -- Didn't you read WP:PORNSTAR? Scene-related awards don't count.Redban (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject very likely fails PORNBIO, but meets GNG given the level of coverage in secondary sources about her. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The only sources I see are promotional "About Me" information from her own site; promotional "Model Biography" from Penthouse; AVN Press Releases; TheStarFactory Press Releases; and IAFD. In other words, the only sources are promotional or primary, which doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Redban (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - per argument above. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)
    21:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick Catalano[edit]

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

non-notable professor/writer. Article created by User:NickCatal. / edg 19:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find book reviews (short ones) for his book on Clifford Brown (although not very flattering ones), but nothing else of substance. I added a NYT book review to the site, since I had it "in hand." Otherwise, I don't see any signs of notability. LaMona (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Gavin Fitzjohn[edit]

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

Bordering on a speedy deletion candidate, subject seems to be a session musician with no evidence of independent reliable coverage about him. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Adequate Seven - I have found some sources including: here and here but I don't think there is enough coverage for him outside of Adequate Seven, a previous band he played in. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Josh Lippi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Harsh (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I think there's a place for studio musician groups, but they don't seem notable enough yet. BTW the link to the SF Weekly cite has changed. It is now here. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  19:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Also the article seems more promotional which doesn't really help its case. –Davey2010(talk) 03:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

RIMES (company)[edit]

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

Doesn't scratch the surface of notability: proper discussion in reliable sources is missing. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  19:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Gavin Fitzjohn[edit]

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

Bordering on a speedy deletion candidate, subject seems to be a session musician with no evidence of independent reliable coverage about him. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Adequate Seven - I have found some sources including: here and here but I don't think there is enough coverage for him outside of Adequate Seven, a previous band he played in. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Terror in Meeple City[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I can find sources that mention this game, but none that are reliable enough to confer notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the article to add supporting references I was able to find, ensuring they are from 3rd-party sources not affiliated with the game. The game (as Rampage) has been featured in a video related to the TableTop YouTube series created by Geek and Sundry and hosted by Wil Wheaton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcIsRmb6A_8. I also thought that the name change presumably due to potential copyright infringement was notable, although admittedly I have not found any reliable sources for that information. I will let those more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines decide whether this confers enough significance to warrant an article or not. STLocutus (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable mean more than just being third-party. Those references don't appear to cut it. I suggest taking a look at WP:RELIABLE. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems quite notable to me and it's going straight onto my Xmas shopping list too. Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Some English sources that look good are [68] and [69]. Lots of non-English sources. I can't easily evaluate them for reliability as I'm pretty much English only. Though many look quite professional. [70] is a list and [71] is an example. Hobit (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Chaambi Operations[edit]

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

This article seems to be written with the point of view that might be unbalanced. There are no references in on the for the information in this article can be confirmed. Since this is an article based about middle east conflicts, I don't feel qualified to approve its inclusion in the encyclopedia.   Bfpage |leave a message  23:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep – for now. Apparently this was created in its present form by an SPA with only two global edits, one of which is this article and the other of which is registering it at WikiData. How is that possible? I thought you needed at least 10 edits to be autoapproved. Anyway, this article is a translation of the French Wiki article fr:Bataille de Chaambi, which has 69 footnotes. So that's where the sources are. The editor should have said that in his edit summary, but we can do that now – tag it for references, put the {{Translated page}} template on the Talk page, and bring it to the attention of one of the groups that does Middle East conflicts. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Madina Engineering[edit]

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

no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)