Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 28: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:43, 29 March 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 March	29 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted per issues with its author, rendering this open AFD is moot. I've redirected as suggested below to the one place where it has context. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Pyaar Tumhara

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

Non notable song, possible copyright issues here. Wgolf (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to film article Anand Ashram where in has context. That solves any concern with notability or copyvio and serves our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scandal (Japanese band). (Nom should've redirected himself, Had he been reverted the next step would be to discuss it .....) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haruna Ono

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

The article fails WP:MUSICBIO should be redirected to Scandal (Japanese band) Karlhard (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So why didn't you just redirect it? Unless you do that and it's reverted it doesn't really need to come to AfD. --Michig (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussing with others contributors I can't make any changes. --Karlhard (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any potential redirect should, if likely to be controversial, be discussed on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – to Scandal (Japanese band). Doesn't seem to be notable outside the band. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect JAWP's is a redirect to a section in ja:SCANDAL (日本のバンド) (Scandal (Japanese band)). The other mention is in ja:バックダンサーズ! (Backdancers!) in the cast (minor character?). No sources outside of the band context. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Scandal (Japanese band). Insufficient independent notability at this stage. --DAJF (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to BattleTech#Spin-off_Games. Nakon 01:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Game Publishing

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

just a publisher, but they are not the original publisher of any of the three items listed. , just a subsequent owner of the rights who no longer holds them DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into BattleTech#Spin-off_Games. Eh, I'm sympathetic because the game has plenty of mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, but none of the articles are in depth about the actual company and almost all of the remaining mentions are about IGP's relation with the MechWarrior franchise. It would seem, then, that IGP would work well integrated into a larger MechWarrior series article, which does not exist. The next best spot would be the aforementioned target. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 09:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per issues with its author. If a neutral editor wishes to recreate it and properly source it, ping me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umeed

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

Non notable film with only unreliable refs Wgolf (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Under its IMDB title of Ummeed this 53-year-old, waaaay pre-internet film is not unsourcable, appears to be a significant part of a notable's career,[1][2] and has made it into the enduring record. Rather than judge this brand new article on how it looks, I'll choose to await input from Hind-reading Wikipedians able to gauge its notability to Hindi cinema. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-creator has been banned as a sockpuppet. Wgolf (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per issues with its author. If an experienced editor wishes to recreate and properly source it, ping me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay Ka Chor

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

Non notable film with only unreliable refs Wgolf (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This 53-year-old, waaaaaay pre-internet Hindi film is not entirely unsourcable, seems a significant part of a notable's career,[3], and is part of the enduring record, so I'll choose to not judge this brand new stub on current state and prefer to await input from Hindi-reading Wikipedians. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, criterion G4. Wasn't notable then, still isn't notable now. —C.Fred (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Soffa (designer)

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

I can see no evidence of significant notability. All the refs are from a very niche poker area. Wholly unstructured article with vanity phrasing. Currently has no encyclopaedic merit. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recreation of previously deleted page - Thought this rang a bell. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Soffa. Doesn't really help that the article's pretty much of no enyclopaedic value or merit. Mabalu (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the person passes WP:GNG I am seeing reliable sources and coverage from the LVS. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 20:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should have been speedied G4 as Mabalu points out correctly. Refs are promotional releases, blogs and dead links. Google turns up more promotional stuff and social media presence, nothing that passes GNG requirements. Kraxler (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the reasons above, I've tried to speedy it as G4. Promo, fails WP:GNG and previously deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per issues with its author. It a neutral editor wishes to recreate and properly source this topic, ping me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pehli Raat

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

Non notable film with only unreliable sources Wgolf (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Another nomination of a another new stub article on a 56-year-old, waaaay pre-internet Hindi film. It's not unsourable, appears to be considered a significant part of a notable's career,[4] and has made it into the enduring record of Hindi cinema. I'll choose to not judge it upon current state and instead await input from Hind-reading Wikipedians. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per issues with its author. AFD is rendered moot. If a neutral editor wishes to recreate an article on this topic, ping me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpana (1960 film)

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

Film I can't find any notability for Wgolf (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:INDAFD: [5]

Keep per meeting WP:NF. For 50-year-old pre-internet Hindi films I urge the nominator to be a bit more creative in his searches. It is often learned that even weak new stubs are not unsourcable, and that these films have become part of the enduring historic record for early Hindi cinema.[6] Like for instance, when a senior actor's or filmmaker's career is discussed, and media will include information about earlier significant works.[7][8][9][10] No, these old films will not have the coverage of some modern Western blockbuster... but they are suitable stubs. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per issues with its author, thus rendering an open AFD as moot. I am redirecting the title to film article Yaadon Ki Baraat, as the one place where this has sourcable context. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Soni Meri Tamanna

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

Non notable song Wgolf (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep per WP:NSONG and add available sources,[11][12][13] or redirect to film article Yaadon Ki Baraat. Poor WP:BEFORE is almost no BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 00:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabharatham (TV series)

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

Non notable show that is being edited by meat/sock puppets Wgolf (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, at least about the non-notability claim; I found coverage about it fairly quickly here and here to start off with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources found by Ncmvocalist certainly appear to indicate notability. Wgolf - please indicate why you believe subjects are not notable when nominating and what you've done to arrive at that conclusion. --Michig (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus for deletion Nakon 21:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Stewart (British politician)

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

The article may not be notable and has been tagged as such — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregKaye (talk • contribs) 21:33, 28 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. President of the NUS is a significant position in Britain. No good reason given for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Less obviously notable than most other NUS presidents since about 1970, but on balance still notable enough for an article. Leaving aside his period as NUS president (for which there are almost certainly news sources from the time - but news sources from that time tend to be either offline or behind paywalls), there are certainly sources relating to his period working for Neil Kinnock between about 1988 and 1992 (just using previewable GBooks hits, this, this and this, for instance, each discuss Stewart in a little detail, and this and this, while more in the nature of passing mentions, still supply verifiable extra information). Since 1992, he has been running his own company, Neil Stewart Associates - it is easy enough to establish this from reliable sources, but beyond that, we may run into the standard problem of having plenty of sources, almost all of which however turn out to be company press releases. PWilkinson (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While there is some limited notability, the article is one sentence and was added in 2009, and has not changed. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Perrie

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

From what I can tell this is a non noteable voice actor. Wgolf (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. AlbinoFerret 19:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After discounting the SPI accounts, there is a clear consensus to delete. Nakon 03:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elvin Aghayev

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS, WP:GNG ― Padenton|✉ 21:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fwiw, "World Scientist Index" is equivalent to linkedin. You nominate yourself. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aren't the references provided enough proof about the notability of the subject? Just an innocent question. I've cross checked the links and wiki inter links. Looks valid to me. angamk( talk ) 29 March 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oh, can we cross check the edits and page views and thereafter decide? Keeping should be good though as I find the article informative though the reference provided are too few. Maybe we can expand the list and remove the links that are irrelevant. Khangrah talk 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references are mostly published papers, which don't establish notability. The few other references and the only coverage of the subject are tweets that are embedded in a few articles. Are you suggesting some new sources that would meet the requirements of WP:GNG? ― Padenton|✉ 13:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Someone who's either just completed their PhD or is still writing up their dissertation, asserting this meets WP:PROF is fantastically overoptimistic, and presumably is because the author has the usual reason for writing about a nobody. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject doesn't appear to be a pursuing PhD. or have completed or whatever. Looks like the Institute doesn't offer that.VKWmi (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC) — VKWmi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment @VKWmi: and that establishes their notability...how? ― Padenton|✉ 15:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. And the keep arguments above are extremely weak and not policy-based. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Does not yet pass WP:BIO, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the reference links are third party entities, where does the question of GNG comes in here. Yeah, that's what I see. I am new here and just kinda wondering--Nomad25 (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Nomad25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Nomad25: GNG comes into play because you didn't even look at the sources. Most of the sources are publications of the author, which does not establish notability per WP:NACADEMIC. The only news sources are not coverage of the subject, they merely embed his tweets, which makes the only coverage minor and self-published. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 13:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can we keep this for sometime with a tag less harsh and consider deletion if notability cannot be established within a given time? I think this give room for improvement if there are any. --Taureanbull1985 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Taureanbull1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Taureanbull1985: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The subject either meets notability guidelines and deserves to stay, or does not meet notability guidelines and deserves deletion. We are not discussing the quality of the article here, we are discussing the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" of which there are none. ― Padenton|✉ 13:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Taureanbull1985: I think the best option if you would like to retain the work done would be to request the material be userfied or moved to the draft namespace where it can be developed before moving back to the article space. Speaking as one of the delete !votes above, I would have no objection to userfication. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think userfication would be premature until the sockpuppetry issue is resolved. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at the user contributions of keepers VKWmi, Nomad25, and Taureanbull1985 (very few, and limited purely to this AfD and topics related to diabetes in dogs of all things) it seems an SPI may be in order. I don't have time right now but if someone else doesn't get to it first I'll try to find some time later today for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's more going on than that. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC). I also nominate user:Kuknalim, user:Chonchonr and user:TharmingamK. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now up to 23 suspected socks. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see evidence that the subject of this article meets minimal requirements for inclusion into Wikipedia. The standards are established, clear, and low, and I see no arguments that this person meets those standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambedkarite buddhists group

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

Fails WP:ORG: can't find any reliable sources covering this religious organization. Esquivalience ^t 19:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom Educationtemple (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article that fails WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Akhileshwar Prasad Sinha

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

Non-notable urologist, fails WP:BASIC. Only sources I could find were: [14][15], however they are only passing mentions of the subject. Also fails WP:PROF because there is no indication that the subject has made substantial contributions to urology (only one published paper with a h-index of 0-1), nor is there any indication that the subject meets other WP:PROF criteria. Esquivalience ^t 19:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, cant find anything notable in searches. AlbinoFerret 19:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree, fails WP:Prof. BakerStMD 00:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodan + Fields

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

Previous afd closed as no consensus. I consider the firm non-notable: the refs are pure PR; the awards are minor & local (e.g. "third largest SF-based women-owned") . This is basically an advertisement for a direct marketing company. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not obviously pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. In the last AFD the Forbes article was mentioned as a good source, and Forbes is a fine publication, but the Forbes article is a case study about a business strategy that happened to be used by this organization, and I would argue is less about the nature of this organization itself. The article certainly does not present this organization as being significant mostly as a model for finance practices. The other sources are mostly not about this organization. I expect articles to be apparent in meeting Wikipedia's standards and this one has too much promotional content to have anything which can be saved apparent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references just aren't there. We have a Forbes column - not by Forbes staff but by a "contributor", as in "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." We have a newspaper interview with the founders when they were in town for a convention. Nothing much else. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 21:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TalkLocal

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

Almost entirely advertising. The refs. are either to the company web site or press releases or only mention the company, or are routine notices about funding. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read all the references and a few were trustworthy 2nd parties, but a lot of times they are just references to listings and databases that would have info on nearly any company. I don't see anything notable just seems another company par for the course. Maybe it's horrible but we have articles on plane crashes not planes landing. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly questionable sources, seems best known for raising money. But new companies raising money is nothing new or notable. AlbinoFerret 19:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Articlee is no more of an advertisement than the one on facebook or thumbtack or adobe photoshop... Further most references to how photoshop works would reference the photoshop user manual written by adobe. Further wikipedia policy states that notability is not solley based on a companies popularity. Mynameisdeleted 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the nominator; there is no significant notice outside of advertorial or passing references. There is no discussion of how the business earns its money (nor can I find any information about this on their website or any other site), aside from raising capital investment. On looking at the article history, it is clear that much of the content has been added by single-purpose accounts, including what looks like a company-operated account. The website says it has made over a million calls, but doesn't discuss its success rate in linking people to service providers, so there is no measurement of the success of the company anywhere. It is not discussed in any of the sources, nor could I find any other sources that provided this information. In other words...there's nothing here but promotional material. Risker (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here, but some sort of merge either from or into this article seems appropriate but no consensus here on exactly what action to be taken. Davewild (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lin-ay sang Negros

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

Local pagent with only local references DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum, merge, don't delete. As the article notes, the pageant is a part of the popular Panaad sa Negros Festival. Google and other searches turn up numerous mentions of the pageant in national media: a few examples are [16][17][18], and there appear to be lots more. If we conclude that the pageant doesn't warrant a lengthy article listing all the winners, the pageant should be described in the article about the festival. Note also that we have a second page, Lin-ay sang Negros Awards, Contestants and Judges, which might also be added to this AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and instead merge the following articles to this parent article: Lin-ay sang Negros 2007, Lin-ay sang Negros 2010, Lin-ay sang Negros 2011, Lin-ay sang negros 2012, Lin-ay sang Negros 2014 and Lin-ay sang Negros Awards, Contestants and Judges.-RioHondo (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per RioHondo. WordSeventeen (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In view of the comments, I'm withdrawing the AfD DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consular Agency of the United States, Bremen

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

Not an embassy or consulate general, just consular branch.No 3rd party sources WP is not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: I don't see why "just consular branch" can be a reason for deletion, and I don't see when this article looks like something in the directory, either. As for "No 3rd party sources", I don't even know why it shows here. Howard61313 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nomination was a kick-in-the-pants to improve the article, and that has occurred. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: this article exists here on German Wikipedia, where it received 418 views in the past 90 days. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

number of page views is irrelevant to notability. WP:POPULARPAGE. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is one of the earliest consulates opened by the United States and longest-open diplomatic missions the US operated (1794-1941, 1945?-1986, 2000-present). While the article is just a stub, that does not preclude maintaining an article for it (it may be improved in the future). AHeneen (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has been expanded with additional sources and details. As a quick suggestion, Smith (1950) contains some more information about the post-World War II situation in Bremen, that could be added. But the topic is clearly notable enough for a keep as is. GermanJoe (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As my opinion above. Howard61313 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the added sources, and arguments put forth by AHeneen and GermanJoe.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Canvas

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

pure jargon; insufficient evidence that it is distinctive DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of different adaptations of the Business Model Canvas, e.g. the aforementioned Lean Canvas, Strategy Sketch (3rd version; there was the Value Model Canvas & Value Envelope), PhD Model Canvas and others. The Lean Canvas is simply the most widely known adaptation of the Business Model Canvas. Thus I propose either keeping or merging with Business Model Canvas. Irene31 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I agree with DGG's assessment of the current article. Also looking into the available secondary sources, there doesn't seem to be enough data to justify this article. Even if this is the most widely known adaptation of the Business Model Canvas. Merging this article into the Business Model Canvas, with a short real description and illustration, might be an option.

Also the creator of the Lean Canvas Ash Maurya, does seem to gain some notability, following in the footsteps of people like Eric Ries and Alexander Osterwalder. He won a Jolt Award, and is described as "one of the leaders in the Lean Startup movement." (Croll & Yoskovitz, 2013). (In time) there could be an article created about him with some mentioning of the Lean Canvas. -- Mdd (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mher Khachatryan

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

No evidence for notability a/c WP:CREATIVE. No art work in permanent collection of major museum. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep"' He is notable. His art work has been published in several prestigious magazines and newspapers of America and Armenia. His work has been kept in various art gallary and museum. Lots of exhibition and workshop has been conducted by himself. Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: in what galleries or museums has his art been kept, and what's the evidence? DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His work is mentioned all over the net, and on self-published sites, but as for articles about him in reliable sources I was only able to find this one article. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - Sir You can find thse things in his official website.

~~Keep~~ - His work is widely published in several art magazines and newspapers. Collection of his paintings can be found in several gallerias and museums in USA. his initiative Art To Thank is widely appreciated. Artist is notable. His page should be not deleted. I tried to add more about him and tried to improve the article. Thank you. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no reference to the work being in any major museum's permanent collection. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info can be found in his official website. Well, I have added some links to the page. I'm trying to improve the article. Thanks--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The artist is renowned Armenian painter. Reliable sources can be fount in article.--Indianbloomer (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC) — Indianbloomer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The lack of reliable sources in the article is one of the reasons this article should be deleted. If you have some reliable sources, could you please list them here? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found these sources,

I thinks it's enough. Keep this article. --Indianbloomer (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are reliable sources. freshacconci talk to me 20:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that this painter meets WP:ARTIST, and in particular, no evidence that his paintings are part of any museum collection. I also see no significant coverage in any publication with a reputation for serious coverage of contemporary art. The references include low quality sources and passing mentions, such as listings of his name in advertisments for local art shows. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per rationales by Jeeteshvaishya and Indianbloomer. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at WP:ARTIST I think this misses the mark for notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mher is well known for his painting dedicated to Armenian genocide. As no other artist in the world doesn't do the project through traveling show in Art to raise awareness about the Genocide. These things are which make him different from other painters. --Rahul 10:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratunj Tripathi (talk • contribs) — Ratunj Tripathi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note Here WP:ARTIST, it mentions, "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." This fits for Mher Khachatryan as his many work is dedicated to Armenian Genocide and veteran US army soldiers.--Rahul 11:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratunj Tripathi (talk • contribs)
Reply Many artists depict U.S. military veterans. Please provide a reliable, independent source that gives significant coverage to this artist's portrayal of the Armenian genocide. Has any museum shown a themed exhibit of his work in this area? Where is the coverage? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. There are no reliable sources, only trivial mentions. None of the keep !votes base their arguments on Wiki guidelines/policy. freshacconci talk to me 13:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Programs broadcast by Zee Bangla

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

Non needed list that is created by meatpuppets/sock puppets Wgolf (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, this is fundamentally a list of notable television series that were originally broadcast on a particular notable TV channel. Hence a standard indexing list along with the others in Category:Lists of television series by network that should be cleaned up rather than deleted. postdlf (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

while there are many blue links, there is little to establish that those blue links are actually notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but those articles are not part of this nomination and so their notability is not up for discussion here. Even if they should ultimately be deleted, this list should have been nominated concurrently or afterward, not before. Which makes this at best premature. Though time and time again, I've seen deletion nominations for Indian TV series (or lists thereof) based on mere assertions of nonnotability that often prove unfounded, and are always contrary to our treatment of other large countries' TV series, but the discussions get little participation and achieve little substance. So I'm always concerned about WP:System bias in this area. postdlf (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE AlbinoFerret 19:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? We need more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE to understand your reasoning. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 21:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STAR Jalsha TV serials

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

A long list that is mostly pages made by sockpuppets/meat pupets (which the page was created by) Wgolf (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete non-notable list of non-notable shows created by puppets.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE AlbinoFerret 19:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. What a mess. Neutrality^talk 16:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 21:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devdas (TV series)

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

One of these shows that was made by a meat puppet that is not a notable show Wgolf (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletete - this user made articles for tons of non-notable shows, some were a single line. Some appear at first glance to be heavily referenced but it's just a bunch of references to who was on the show and often is just a fan page or a "new show launched" report. This is not even one of those, it just has long unreferenced section describing the plot that is copied from the article about the novel of the same name (compare Devdas#Plot_summary).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, poor sources. Made by a sock? Why is it still on WP? AlbinoFerret 19:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not contain any substantial reliable sources. Nakon 01:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+Greythorne the Technomancer (+gthorne)

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

Dubious notability. Sources are all self-published, affiliated, or otherwise user generated, per WP:RS. I don't doubt the person exists and has written code, but we need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned the need for source code provided by Greythorne, there are now references to code he wrote. (You stated that maybe he may have written code, that looked like a request.)

Many linked references used as valid ones on the Fravia wiki also apply to Greythorne. He is mentioned in Fravia's writings often as gthorne in the 1990s and other sites. This should count for him as well. The 2600 article from 1998 listed in references called "Clampdown" should count as a book reference. The references to him on the web show a span of about 20 years or more in many places all over the net. The sites are not possibly affiliated other than that they are about the same topics - reverse engineering and cracking, which is why he is famous in those circles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caldwyn (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I never mentioned a need for source code. Secondly, it doesn't matter how many times his partners or friends mention him, nor how much code he wrote: Please see WP:Notability for an overview on notability. The emphasis is on reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject itself. User-generated sources like forums or chat-discussions are not reliable sources. Self-published sources or affiliated sources are not independent, and the ones here are of dubious reliability. Primary sources are to be used sparingly, and cannot be used to establish notability. Notability is not inherited by being merely being associated with a notable subject. Furthermore, we are assuming that this person, albeit operating under a pseudonym, is a real, living person, and thus the article must especially be in compliance with Biographies of living persons policy, which sets the bar even higher to avoid defamatory, incorrect, or otherwise poorly-sourced information that can have potentially serious real-world consequences, and third party self-published sources cannot be used to verify BLP information per WP:BLPSPS (otherwise anyone could make a Geocities webpage that states Greythorne is the greatest human of all time, a convicted felon, a Romanian mud-wrestler...). So lets review the links in "References": [19]: self-published by Fravia. [20]: self-published by anonymous, affiliated source. [21]: forum posts. [22]: Greythorne's Privacy Nexus: inherently non-independent. [23]: forum posts. [24] and [25]: more Fravia self-pubs. [26], all that can be verified from the source is Greythorne wrote a letter called "Clampdown" to $2600 Magazine, which would be a primary, affiliated source even it were a letter to the New York Times. [27]: translating a Greythorne tutorial into Spanish doesn't make it any less primary. [28]: Greythorne primary source. [29] and [30]: um, how are these self-published pages even directly relevant to Greythorne? [31]: Greythorne primary source. [32]: fuente primaria de Greythorne (si!) [33] :More primary source code by Greythorne. In short, on WIkipedia we don't care how many times a person's name appears on the internet, nor what their friends, colleagues, or moms think of them. We care about demonstrable significance to the world at large. If this person is notable, find a handful of reliable, non-afifliated sources with a reputation for fact-checking and integrity that clearly discusses Greythorne's significance. For all that is verifiable from the article, Greythorne is noteworthy only to Greytorne, Fravia, and a handful of hackers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to find proof of fame and contributions based on what you are asking for. Nothing more.

You asked how Greythorne was the original published of the translated-to-spanish version - Checking the link, it states they are 'Greythorne's Tutorials' translated - Other than the fact that I remember seeing them online in the past, you had to click the link to see that. I am trying to find more data for you, I hope that his organization (HCU) being written about in books (O'Reilly as mentioned for one) and being a topic of International Internet Security Conferences such as RevCon'06 (and '05) and others [see fravia's wiki for more] is enough. I and aparrently this caldwyn person are looking for data for you to satisfy what you are asking. Not sure how much is needed but maybe more people will try to help.

The sources (woodmann and other Fravia page mirrors) etc... are reliable, being that they are HOW the data was published (online) -- More importantly, they were the actual source used in the presentation at RevCon'06 by Fravia himself. Please stop disregarding real public sources. See the video proof here: https://archive.org/movies/thumbnails.php?identifier=Fravia_Reversing_our_searching_habits_Power_searching_without_google -- every 'one minute' frame of the presentation is shown - pictures of the site itself, and the source is very NOT fake. It is publicized well as the real source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 15:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are unfamiliar with Fravia and HCU, and his sources are international (see his site for how he published info) and WHY Greythorne is one of the professors he talked about, as well as his partner, and put as a professor of HCU. I think you have made up your mind, but the proof is there. More proof of the online organization HCU added in the form of an O'Reilly book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 15:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never argued the sources aren't real, I am arguing they are inherently affiliated, unreliable (in terms of Wikipedia standards, again see WP:RS), and/or primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). Excessive or exclusive use of these three types of sources impede Wikipedia's core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. The O'Reilly book you mentioned is the first reference bearing a hint of a reliable, independent source, and assuming it actually discusses Greythorne (chapter or page numbers should be included to aid verification), may be evidence that this subject possibly meets notability guidelines (again, see WP:N, WP:BIO, and every blue link in my previous comments). I hold no ill-will towards the subject, and freely admit I am unfamiliar with him, as I am with most people, even those that have Wikipedia articles. My own opinions of the subject, same as yours, are irrelevant: we are dealing with policy here. Simply present more third-party sources that demonstrate the subject's notability, and all question will fade away. P.S. In any discussion, please post replies below the last comment, to maintain chronological flow. We read from top to bottom, not bottom-up. Also it is helpful to indent comments with one or more colons (:) to nest responses under their respective paragraph. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also shown you the accurate resource (the actual source, complete with video/photo proof) that shows that it is the real source for international conferences used in their conferences - that shows Greythorne when you actually read the source it shows. I would think that first hand by video would count... Not sure why that wouldn't honestly. I really hope that you consider that. Fravia being a similar famous person in the field stated on those documents how Greythorne is his brother and partner in this. Why is an internationally publicized conference material not valid but a book about it may be? I am really having trouble understanding your logic. I have even shown you proof that ORC is real, Fravia is real, and they mention him in partnership. Please consider it. Thanks for at least reading our postings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I am hoping, is that by finding all of Greythorne's collected works on the reverse engineering subject, which is NOT easy since he no longer has a web archive, that his name won't be lost in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That, the publicized woodmann site resource, and the article in the book about ORC's lessons being required reading. What you don't seem to understand is I am finding those lessons, And Greythorne's name is all over them. Why do you think I have gone through all this trouble to show validation of the sources? I really hope you understand why all of this is important to me. I simply can't find most of these famous article without him splashed all over them. Doing a google search for "gthorne orc hcu" I found over 4000 entries. Not what you would get for Mariah Carey, but not everyone on wikipedia is even that 'found.' Even a decade or so late. That is why. I wish I had found this stuff a decade ago, before his main archive sites closed down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RannDiBeers (talk • contribs) 20:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many of the 4000 hits are reliable sources? I have no doubt whatsoever that Fravia, Greythorne, ORC, and HCU exist, and Fravia appears independently notable based on his article. However, verifiable existence does not equal notability, and notability is not inherited from being associated with notable entities. Barack Obama has said many nice things about his daughters, and they have even been covered in reliable press, but Malia Obama, for instance, still doesn't merit her own article as all press coverage is due to her relation to the President of the United States. Similarly, should it be found that Greythorne is not sufficiently notable on his own, appropriately-sourced information on him could plausibly be incorporated into Fravia, Old Red Cracker, or possibly even an +HCU article, i.e. a subject that is independently notable (significantly covered in multiple, third-party reliable sources). I hope you see how arguments like "his partner Fravia and some anonymous forum posts say he's really important", even if verifiable, do not come close to satisfying the General Notability Guideline, which is what this discussion hinges on. Some of the sources you've included so far might be appropriate to verify certain passages, but all the primary sources or self-published sources in the world don't count towards establishing independent notability. As an analogy, say my mother wins an Academy Award, and in her acceptance speech says "I owe all my success to my dear son Animalparty, the smartest guy I know". I still wouldn't merit an article, even if someone found every test I took, every essay I ever wrote, and every post on my Livejournal or Flickr as "proof" I am a notable person; and in the absence of reliable, independent sources I would be first in line to argue its deletion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I am perfectly willing to accept that Greythorne was influential to an unspecified number of people, but if no significant, reliable, third-party coverage can be found, so be it! Wikipedia is not the place to construct an "oral history" composed entirely of primary sources and raw data (No original research). Furthermore it would be improper synthesis to state in essence: "HCU is notable. Greythorne was part of HCU. Therefore Greythorne is Notable." We as editors cannot make such inferences unless reliable secondary sources explicitly say so. If you want to firmly establish Greythorne's importance, or make sure his name isnt lost to history, do some real investigative work and get it published in a reputable peer-reviewed outlet first (where presumably experts would evaluate for accuracy, cherry-picking, undue promotion, and balance). Such a piece would thus constitute a secondary source, and would be suitable for a BLP reference. Note: a simple Google search produces a (non-RS) forum post in which Greythorne (apparently) reveals his real life identity, thus ever more the importance of adhering to BLP policy which includes erring on the presumption of privacy for the subject. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note for admins or other participants, there are additional comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/+Greythorne the Technomancer (+gthorne), however any subsequent discussion should probably occur on this page, not the Talk page. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way, way too promotional. Also, there seems to be very little available coverage about this person. He was apparently skilled and influential, but without some kind of coverage in reliable sources, this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. A hacking/cracking wiki on Wikia would probably be a better place. It's not easy for hackers to get mainstream coverage in the press, but it does happen. Could also be redirected to Old Red Cracker, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps National Names 2000 (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote. Do you have a reason for keeping? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP, WP:BIO. Reams of internet cruft cited as sources, but nothing recognizable as a reliable source. Sandstein 20:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portia Li

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

No explanation or claim of notability. Sources mention the subject, but aren't about the subject. Onorem (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she appears to be quite notable. Bfpage |leave a message 18:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both the general notability criteria and the alternative biography criteria. Being a "senior reporter" for the local California office of a large New York-based newspaper does not automatically confer notability, nor do the stories they cover, especially ones with literally dozens (if not hundreds) working on them like the SARS epidemic. Reporters report and other reporters occasionally quote them. That's their job. The only source in the article which remotely focuses on her work is a column in the Wall Street Journal back in 2001 [34], and even that one appears to be incredibly sparse on biographical detail. Most of it is behind a pay wall, but the only biographical information it appears to provide is that her father was a businessman, she was born in Hong Kong, once worked for an unnamed paper there, and got a Masters degree from the University of Utah. I have copyedited the article to remove grossly exaggerated claims about her prominence which were not confirmed by the citations. A particularly egregious example was the former section entitled Receives recognition from Hillary Clinton claiming that "Li was singled out in 2007 by then presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton for an apology..." This was completely misleading. In this minor snafu over press credentials, Clinton apologized to the three newspapers involved and their editors-in-chief and reporters. Li was simply one of the three reporters. If I had access to the full WSJ article, I suspect some of the other claims would also be found to be exaggerated. The remaining articles merely mention her in passing. I'm willing to change my mind, if significant in-depth coverage of her does emerge, but for now one column in the WSJ 14 years ago does not constitute that. Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore I did not run into a pay wall for the Wall Street Journal. I can send you the link if you'd like. Much of the notability is based upon this Wall Street Journal article, which I'm guessing that you haven't been able to read yet since you mention the existence of a pay wall. I thought the quotes were quite remarkable and established notability. Best Regards, Bfpage |leave a message 14:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bfpage, the WSJ is behind a paywall in Europe (beyond the first paragraph). Given the misuse of the other sources (outlined below) as well as the Receives recognition from Hillary Clinton I outlined above (not referenced to the WSJ article and occurring 6 years later), I would need a specific quote from the WSJ that supports the claim she "was credited for having a major part in freeing the physicist", not simply the quote "'Portia was way out in front,' stated Policy Director of Chinese for Affirmative Action Ted Wan." Way out in front in what way? For example, this article on the subject in The New Republic credits her pieces in the World Journal as playing a part in raising awareness, along with pieces in another Chinese-language American newspaper by other reporters, but also credits many, many other people and organizations and indeed suggests that others played a far more important role in getting him freed. The phrasing in the WP article did not reflect that.

I would also need a quote from the WSJ that explicitly supports the contention that her reporting and her reporting alone prompted FBI investigation into San Francisco gang extortion. That was the clear implication behind a section titled Prompts FBI investigation into San Francisco gang extortion.

The cited source "What To Do About Bird Flu" does not remotely support the claim that "She was recognized by the Chinese community as taking the lead in reporting on the SARS (bird flu) crisis.".

Finally this source is simply a notice about a conference in San Francisco at which she was one of the speakers, not "the featured speaker".

What it boils down to is that her entire notability rests on one complimentary column about her work written 14 years ago. In my view that is not sufficient for a stand-alone article. Others, of course, may well disagree, but that's what AfD discussions are for. Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a few more references to support the notability of this journalist. In addition, I have found a number of journalistic stubs that also have even more pressing concerns of notability compared to this article. These are:Articles on journalists with possible notability concerns:

and this was just a small sampling. I propose we consider this article to be a stub and trust the good faith of the other Wikipedia editors to expand the information on this article. The very best of regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 22:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor above Bfpage believes that the subjects of the article above do not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:AUTHOR, than those articles can be PRODed or taken to AfD. Just being a journalist doesn't make the journalist notable; just cause the journalist writes a lot doesn't make the journalist notable. It would be like saying, because I write X number of articles, or contributes Y% of certain highly read articles than I should be notable. Nope. Doesn't work that way.

If non-primary sources give significant coverage of the subject of this article than the subject meets WP:GNG. Really simple. So far I have seen one article (in the WSJ) that meet WP:SIGCOV. Now if that same WSJ article is republished in other reliable sources, that single piece only counts once, not multiple times. Thus, it is WP:TOOSOON. One article does not make WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Two reasons. 1) Li doesn't seem to me less notable than the huge number of NPR and BBC reporters who have Wikipedia articles. 2) If you Google her Chinese name 李秀蘭 and the name of her newspaper 世界日報 you get a lot of hits. Her articles seem to be widely republished by mainstream news for overseas Chinese, e.g. China Daily and Sina.com. (There are a number of Baidu articles about people with that name, but I think they are all not her. Nothing in zh.wikipedia. My Chinese is rather limited.) I think that if there are articles about Li, they will be found in the Chinese language press M.boli (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because a journalist is published, doesn't make the journalist notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't believe that just because a journalist is published doesn't make the journalist notable. What I do believe the case to be here is that this journalist is highly published, may have a daily news column along with organizing anti-discrimination activities within the Chinese-American community and I have run into the language barrier to properly assess those sources. I do the search, find the events and huge volume of her work and then get stuck because either I can't get google translator to work properly/she uses a different Chinese name or I get the surname confused with her first name. Bfpage |leave a message 19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand the OTHERSTUFF point, but when I wrote that there are huge numbers of articles on NPR and BBC reporters it wasn't supposed to be an otherstuff argument. I think that media figures are extensively covered by Wikipedia for a good reason: they have audiences. A lot of people encounter them through their reportage, so there is a natural constituency for information about these people. People want to know "who is this person who produces these news articles I disagree/agree with?" "What kind of name is Doualy Xaykaothao and how do I pronounce it?" My argument for notability is that Li appears to be in the same category: a reporter with a large audience. By virtue of producing a lot of articles for for a major newspaper and having them frequently republished, for more than two decades. M.boli (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Taiwan. Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject China. Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. I've left notes on the talk pages of WikiProjects Taiwan and China [35], [36], to see if anyone there can help us with sourcing from the Chinese-language press. It's quite possible, that more about Li herself, rather than the stories she covers will be found in Chinese newspapers. If so, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. As for the the list of utterly non-notable journalists who have WP articles, that's an argument for deleting those articles, not keeping this one. Similarly, the fact that she reports on notable stories does not in itself make her notable. Notability does not transfer in that way. She is simply doing her job. Literally hundreds of reporters cover the major new stories. As for the "new sources" added, all but one were duplicates of the USA Today article. The remaining one is simply a mention of the paper she works for. Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the subject has written multiple pieces, that doesn't make the subject notable per WP:NAUTHOR. The subject has received multiple mentions, but few if any have the subject as the primary subject of the reliable source. Furthermore, few if any of those reliable sources given what one would consider significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. Therefore, the subject appears to fail WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Bfpage |leave a message 19:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrator: Could you list this AfD in the Ethnic groups AfD discussion category? Bfpage |leave a message 22:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it, Bfpage, but you don't need to be an administrator to do it (I'm not). In future, just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact, click on your chosen category and follow the instructions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Journalists can be a bit tricky when you apply the usual notability tests, because they obviously get their names in the papers a whole lot. But looking at the sources on Li that are provided, there isn't much that is substantially about her in a source that is independent of her. Covering notable stories for the press does not make you yourself notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - I found sufficient sources to consider her notable, completely ignoring any merit based on her own publications. There's a Wall Street Journal article about her, significant quotes/interviews in Washington Post (via AP), Time, SF Gate, USA Today. Lesser quotes in SF Gate, New Republic, Asian Week. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that as Longevitydude stated below, that is a single WP:EVENT, which appears to have meet WP:PERSISTENCE. Sure it can verify the treatment of ethnic media journalist by Hillary Clinton for that event, but that doesn't mean that the subject of this AfD is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:Lasting, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Longevitydude (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakon and RightCowLeftCoast:: Going through just those sources I linked above: WSJ July 31, 2001; Washington Post February 27, 2007; Time February 27, 2007; SF Gate February 27, 2007; USA Today March 17, 2015; SF Gate August 3, 2004; New Republic JULY 2, 2001; Asian Week MARCH 23, 2007. Publications from four different years over a 14-year period in multiple contexts. I'm afraid I don't understand any of these temporal delete arguments. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ source is a single significant coverage reliable source where the subject was the primary source, that went on for more than two lengthy paragraphs, I acknowledged this before. However, the pieces which linked in Rhododendrites keep opinion are primarily about a single event, an event which received passing coverage in multiple reliable sources, but has not received persistent coverage since then. Therefore, a single event + a significant coverage piece in the WSJ does not make WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO IMHO. Now a second piece the length of the WSJ article, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio and iny case totally unreferenced. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dwadasha jotirlingam

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

Copyright infringement Tomandjerry211 (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rinat Hasanov

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

Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:MMANOT. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has no top tier fights with which to meet WP:NMMA and there is no significant coverage of him. My own search did not find any evidence of him winning any major titles nor did I find anything that looks like it would meet WP:GNG (although there was some coverage of a Finnish hockey player with the same name). The claim of a third place finish at the Russian Combat Sambo championships has no sources and gives no dates. Even if it did, I don't think it would be enough to show notability on its own. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided The various titles claimed for him are probably sufficient for notability, but they lack WP:RS citations to support their reality. If anybody inserts those references, I'd say keep. Otherwise, delete. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear the MMA titles are not significant (in terms of WP notability). I couldn't find him in my search for his third place sambo finish. I agree that if all of the titles claimed were sourced showing he was indeed a national champion in both Pankration and submission grappling, as well as finishing third at the Russian sambo championships that he would meet WP:MANOTE. However, my vote to delete stands until such sources are provided. Papaursa (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a search and didn't find anything that would show he's notable.Mdtemp (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Haven't seen anything that shows me significant coverage by reliable 3rd party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep reasonably well known martial artist who passes GNG. This makes WP:MANOTE irrelevant. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's a kickboxer that doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers. The only source is his name mentioned in a list of fights for an upcoming event. That's definitely not enough to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily call him a kickboxer, but you're right that appearing on a fight card is insufficient to meet GNG and there's no evidence to support a claim that he meets MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (keep). - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sippai

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

The film has reportedly been shelved. Cast and crew has not worked on this project for almost a year. It's unlikely to be continued or to be released. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Saravanan, Sippai Gautham Karthik, Sippai

Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3) for a slow-moving project which has begun filming and is not yet released.[37] Even were this to be never released, we'd have coverage to show its failure as meeting inclusion criteria. Or perhaps the topic can be spoken of in the director's article? IF there ever is one. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, not much has changed on that site since 2013 and I've heard from insider circles that the crew is unlikely to continue this project. Btw, it was also me who created this article and I nominated it straightaway for deletion since I wasn't sure if it's notable enough to be kept as an unreleased film. If it meets the criteria, I'll withdraw the nomination and re-edit the article. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. Well, as WP:NFF instructs that failures can even meet inclusion criteria, the information on its filming and (failed) completion certainly has enough sourcability to be spoken of within the filmmaker's article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 21:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Widnes F.C. season

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

Not a notable enough club for a season article. Kivo (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NSEASONS –Davey2010^Talk 22:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Libre art

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

Somewhat essay-like article promoting neologisms like "librart" or "ethical artists" that do not seem to be used anywhere else (not in the meanings given, at least; I even have trouble finding anyone speak of "libre artists"). The sourcing is a bad joke: of the seven references provided, only in two the English phrase "libre art" appears at all; some of the others are about completely unrelated topics (for example, that the name "liberal arts" sounds similar is mostly a coincidence). In short, WP:MADEUP WP:SYN/WP:OR thing. The topic at hand can be covered just as well in articles like free culture movement, open content or copyleft. — Keφr 13:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant original research. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Hospital

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

as per WP:NOTABILITY. WP:Unreferenced Vin09 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly is not notable at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not Maps. Dormantos (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a quick look at the revision history reveals that there were previously external links that were judged (correctly) as linkspam and removed, leaving no external links nor citations. Therefore fails wp:V. BakerStMD 00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small hospitals are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Guayana King Air Disappearance

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

No evidence that this event is notable, appears to have minimum news coverage, nobody notable was involved MilborneOne (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should this apparently well-sourced fatal incident at least be mentioned in the article for Cheddi Jagan International Airport? --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence of notability whatsoever. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just renamed the article to it's correct spelling of "Guyana". Antonio Caballo Loco Martin (aqui, aqui) 08:15, 4 April, 2015 (UTC)
Delete both the original and target articles, as failing Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ABI Research

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

This company does not appear to pass WP:CORP. The references provide just one in-depth article about the company, from its hometown paper. In a search I found no additional independent coverage - just press releases and user-supplied information at sites like CNBC and Bloomberg. A Google News search finds occasional passing mentions of one of their reports, but nothing about the company. MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Barely notable company that's been the subject of promo edits repeatedly. As MelanieN said, sources are just passing mentions or press releases. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable, indeed. -- Luk ^talk 13:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsider Many sources of direct citations in respected media apart from press releases as well as other factors.Timwiki99 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also the comment at User talk:Timwiki99. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears user has strong conflict of interest. Thanks for pointing that out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. User was very direct and honest about that but encourages you to look at the facts, not at the user. Timwiki99 (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also the comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ABI Research. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Sources I do agree that it is important for Wikipedia to adhere to WP:CORP. The issue becomes how do we define "notable". This standard needs more objectivity. Certainly having only a handful of people weigh in on this debate is insufficient. I believe it is only fair and objective for anyone stating here that the company is not notable to do some research of their own to back up that position. Here are some further citations not from company PR (I pulled these together in less than 10 minutes and I suspect one could find hundreds more if one invests the time):

ABI quoted in 1994 about a technology that today is finally getting a lot of attention: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/01/business/technology-putting-space-age-expertise-in-the-driver-s-seat.html

ABI’s Nick Marshall recognized as top 100 Wireless experts: http://www.todayswirelessworld.com/top100/

ABI’s Nick Spencer was interviewed by the WSJ for this story: http://www.wsj.com/articles/challenge-of-apple-watch-defining-its-purpose-1424133615

Stu Carlaw, ABI’s CRO, invited to be a judge at the world’s largest wireless conference: http://www.globalmobileawards.com/awards-history/judges-2012/#

Stu Carlaw interviewed by the ITU (a sub group of the UN): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jxfdqX4Fwg

Stu Carlaw hosts major conference session with COO of publicly traded company Cablevision and CEO of Tele2: http://www.mobileworldcongress.com/sessions/5124589889781760/

Michela Menting, ABI’s cybersecurity analyst, interviewed and quoted by Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/02/18/could-nsa-turn-your-hard-drive-into-cyber-spy/

Wireless expert Jeff Orr with ABI interviewed and quoted by NY Times: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/business/international/lenovo-no-1-in-pcs-aims-at-us-smartphone-market.html?_r=0 Timwiki99 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, barely appears notable. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The Long Island Business News article was a good, in-depth profile, but kind of dated and not really the kind of information we can use in the article. Then there are quotes in the media, but according to WP:NORG, quotes from an organization's personnel as story sources don't count toward notability. And frankly, considering the business model, I think this about all we are going to get. The company is successful, so my guess is that the market reports are pretty good. But they're confidential, so we can't see them. Since we are going to be more or less dependent on the company for press releases or whatever it chooses to reveal about itself, I think this is a case where it's just not a topic for an encyclopedia article. We're not a business directory, and having an article in Wikipedia is no big deal. Especially one this short, which is about all we can write. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Capitulating, Ok. It is still unclear to me how we define notable. If you were to ask 10,000 people randomly which is more notable, ABI or Alexandrine Grammarians, I am guessing you would have a much higher incidence (but still not very high) for ABI^[1]. And I enjoyed the article on Alexandrine Grammarians honestly and I do not believe it should be deleted. I bring it up just to make a point. In the circles of technology analysis and market intelligence, ABI is quite well known. But I will let this go as it has no material impact on ABI and I am sure the volunteer editors here have better things to do. I appreciate all your work and will continue to enjoy Wikipedia and send in my annual donations, even though I disagree with you all here. But, in the interest of real objectivity, it would be great if you applied the same critical eye to other pages like this one. A few examples of many:
- Frost & Sullian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_%26_Sullivan
- Ovum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovum_Ltd.
- Yankee Group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Group

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrine_grammarians

Timwiki99 (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable", as Wikipedia uses the term, is defined very clearly at WP:GNG and WP:CORP. It means the company has received significant coverage (published reporting) from independent reliable sources. "Significant", "independent", and "reliable" are also very clearly defined. It's true that "notable" may not be the best word to describe this requirement, because a company may think of itself as "notable" in other ways. Maybe we should call it "coverage", or "recognition". But the bottom line is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we need to see significant coverage from third parties before we can include a subject here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Companies in our industry tend to contribute to reporting on other companies. Generally, our industry doesn't itself get covered much. Perhaps this is the nature of the intelligence business. Anyway, we have withdrawn our arguments against deletion. Our only request as written above is that some objective source (should not be us) review the pages of similar entries on Wikipedia. It would be grossly unfair to not apply this standard equally. Timwiki99 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a list of other companies you feel are similarly situated and post it to my talk page so they can be considered for deletion. I agree that its a problem for some companies to have articles while their competitors of similar size do not. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this article can't be more than a stub with the sources available. Not enough coverage. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quayle

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

Subject does not appear to have attracted the attention of multiple independent third party news sources— references are mostly primary or are not independent (i.e., the subject's own web site is the first reference; an Amazon list of books is not evidence of notability; etc.). Subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. KDS4444^Talk 11:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. The subject is a published author and is widely cited by his peers WP:AUTHOR and a quick bit of research demonstrates that the subject has a noteworthy following WP:GNG. If your complaint is to lack of references, or mis-placed refs, this can be cleaned up. Additionally, further content can be added, such as the subject implication in a precious metals fraud scheme. Adding content will take some time. Please allow for this. Delhiwallah (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added Sources. Concerned references have been removed and further new stories related to his business have been added. Delhiwallah (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources range from mere passing references to subject,[38][39][40] to self-published sources lacking any apparent editorial oversight,[41][42][43] to those w/ clear promotional ties to the subject.[44][45] Levdr1lp / talk 11:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Especially when considering WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:BLPCRIME, there just aren't sufficient good sources to establish significant coverage in reliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 21:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet notability requirements due to lack of reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete _ I only see one reliable source; fails GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 00:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mads Pieler Kolding

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

Subject of article does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:ATHLETE. KDS4444^Talk 11:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason I created the page is because he reached semi-finals of All England SSP and also the ongoing 2015 India Super Series finals (notability criteria no.2 for badminton players). He also won some International Challenges. Griff88 (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've been puzzled as to why he didn't already have an article and was preparing to do so myself. He has competed consistently at the major events of badminton for quite some time now and deserves a page.--MorrisIV (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:NBADMINTON. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Chicago aldermanic elections, 2015. Seems to be agreement here that speedy action needed. Anyone, feel free to revert if you feel this is inappropriate. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 06:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Yañez

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

Unelected politician (de facto campaign biography). An earlier attempt at a bold redirect was challenged by the content creator at AN/I and I believe that we should thus treat this like we would a contested PROD. At a glance this is not a GNG pass but I have not examined this at length and am making this AfD nomination as a courtesy to the original content creator so that a defense may be at least made. Carrite (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect or Speedy Userfy (with a NOINDEX magic word) until the election is over. A virtually uncited and overly complimentary article on a candidate who bears little to no other cited notability should not exist on Wikipedia mainspace. The article's creator may have been well meaning but they need mentorship. Also, the unexplained list of 15 unformatted and untitled External Links is extremely problematic -- some of them may be useful, but who has the time to click and read each one? All in all, this article is problematic as is, any way one looks at it, and as the nominator states, is a campaign biography. It needs to disappear from mainspace, fast. Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The election is April 7 [46] (15th Ward), and is a run-off between Yañez and someone who does not have a wiki article, so this article needs to go away fast. @Carrite: I know you meant well un-redirecting this article, but it shouldn't stand for a full week's AfD in my opinion, due to the promotional nature of it and due to the fact that the election is only nine days away right now. Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender: How about putting a NOINDEX up until the AfD is closed, would that solve the promotional problem satisfactorily without corrupting the deletion process? Carrite (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, if he wins the election, he'll be an almost certain WP:POLITICIAN keep as an elected Chicago alderman. There is a case to be made for a TNT delete-and-rebuild in that case. This piece clearly needs a massive overhaul if kept; if sources can be mustered in the defense here, I'm willing to do that. I don't want to sink time on a deleted page though. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As long as it's on mainspace it's still linkable from the election articles, surname article, etc. Since it's four months old it's already been indexed by Google [even though for some reason it's not coming up on Google at this precise instant; Google is like that sometimes with its new algorithms] and will stay that way for a month or so even if it were to get deleted. Could we draftify it (with a NOINDEX code) while the AfD is in progress? That way it disappears from mainspace, but we can link to it here and discuss it? Softlavender (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC) ETA: I agree there is usable material here if he is elected; I just don't want this article on mainspace influencing that election. Softlavender (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. It should not have been restored and it needs to be removed PDQ. I am seriously considering putting a CSD tag on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Speedy delete or redirect per G-11. With due respect to Carrite, whose motives I believe are reasonable, this AfD is an unnecessary waste of time. The subject clearly fails WP:POL. In it's current form the article is just a campaign add. Any coverage from press and media is purely of the run of the mill sort that all candidates for public office get. There is no reason to drag this out for the sake of formality. The article is obvious CSD material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography, not an ad. Not G11 worthy. Certainly it needs a massive rewrite, but that's not a notability question. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. This is blatant promotionalism and it's continued presence in the main space is very unfair. If I were the other candidate or one of his/her supporters I would be pretty ticked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty blatant. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a campaign ad. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's a WP:COATRACK political ad very thinly disguised as a bio. If this isn't a campaign add then there is no such thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original solution was best: merge into Chicago aldermanic elections, 2015, and convert to a redirect – the current article is problematic, as it clearly seems to be "promotional". If this individual wins election on April 7, then a (hopefully more appropriate) article can be restored here. --IJBall (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just re-read this article. Just looking at one paragraph it is largely unsourced and reads like a press release, like this unsupported and unattributed claim: He realized he wanted to help mentor youth facing many of the issues of modern urban life. According to whom, the candidate himself? This is what you read from a campaign handout, and if it were stripped of puffery it would be lucky to make stub quality.

I am tempted just to be bold, and redirect it now as suggested above, any objections?

No objections here. However the article has already been redirected once. The nom reverted it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is the best solution, until the election is over. Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should also be aware that the creator of this page is the subject of an ANI report here for edit warring on the Chicago mayoral race signed in and under an IP address. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marlo Dwyer

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

Film and TV credits don't come anywhere close to satisfying WP:NACTOR. Also fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Contrary to what her article suggests, she only co-starred in one film: Man with Two Lives. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source is not to a story about her, but more of a directory listing. Questionably notability for old low budget films. AlbinoFerret 19:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion has been going on for almost a month now and there's no evidence that it's moving closer to any sort of consensus forming. A straight vote count provides a slight edge to the "Keep" side, but not a decisive one or one that indicates consensus has been reached to take any particular course of action. In particular, on the subjective question of whether the coverage that exists for this person is sufficiently substantial, there appears to be no clear agreement between editors, despite extensive discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M. William Phelps

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

True-crime author with no apparent secondary coverage other than reviews panning his TV appearances. If I'm wrong, please someone point to such coverage. EEng (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Subject is a noteworthy published author and is widely written about. Passes WP:AUTHOR. The reviews are not panning the author's "TV appearances." Some are about a TV crime series he developed and hosted on the Investigation Network. I have added third-party sources to it and will continue improving upon the article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but can you point to the sources qualifying for GNG or AUTHOR? The only source I can find giving anything more than passing mentions is [47], and that's hardly GNG's "significant coverage". Beyond that he won the "Genre" category at the 2008 New England Book Festival (whatever that is) [48] and that doesn't give us any of AUTHOR's criteria:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

EEng (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that the subject is an author "with no apparent secondary coverage other than reviews panning his TV appearances" appears to be inaccurate. There has been extensive secondary coverage of a TV documentary series he developed and hosted, including USA Today here, the Denver Post here, KTFF TV 2, the Associated Press and the Peninsula Daily News. He was featured in Writers Digest here. As for awards, one of his books was a New York Times bestseller, and he won a Society of Professional Journalists award. The awards and media coverage meet WP:GNG. Those are now cited in the article. As for negative reviews, or "panning," the documentary series was criticized by the New York Daily News here. I am unaware of a requirement that to pass WP:GNG the coverage of the subject needs to be positive. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage doesn't have to be positive, but it does have to be coverage.

The Society of Professional Journalist's Award -- so impressive those words sound! -- turns out to be second place in the "Investigative reporting - magazine" category from the Connecticut chapter of this society -- and the list of awards given by the Connecticut chapter that year covers thirteen pages [49] -- about 250 awards in all! Multiplying by 50 states in the US we might estimate there to be some 12000 such awards each year -- hardly notability material.
What you call being "featured in Writer's Digest" is a phony set-piece interview on a promotional website, as seen in the url you link to http://www.writersdigest.com/writing-articles/by-writing-goal/get-published-sell-my-work/m-william-phelps-expanded-interview ("get-published-sell-my-work").
Everything else is press-release WP:ROUTINE stuff about his TV shows (not him), most of which mention him only in passing with the usual puffy quotes -- one mentions him just once! EEng (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your saying "everything else" is press-release driven or a puff piece does not make it so. You failed to recognize the New York Time bestseller, the New England book award, that one of his books has been optioned for a film, or to recognize that the Associated Press wrote an article about him and the documentary series, which was picked up by other news outlets. The Associated Press, as well as book reviews done by Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly, are not publications looked upon as driven by press releases. A search on Worldcat distribution, here, shows that his title Nathan Hale alone is carried by 768 libraries for four editions of that book, which is substantial. Based on the coverage, the subject is a notable author and TV producer, as shown by the cited sources. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's well established that being a bestseller has (some) notability value for the book itself, but none for its author (though it's something to mention in the author's article, obviously -- if he has an article, which depends on his own notability). Same for library holdings
I mentioned the "New England Book Festival" award already -- it's a minor local award.
The reviews are about Phelps' books, not him. Here, for example, is every mention of him in the Kirkus review:

Veteran true-crime author Phelps chronicles the story of the killing … Two Houston homicide detectives provide the focal point for Phelps .... The author is respectful of the police ... Phelps reports in unimaginative, sometimes overwhelming detail.

This is "substantial coverage" of Phelps?

There's nothing here about the subject. EEng (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I found and added a Good Morning America appearance (here) where the subject is interviewed throughout the piece. Along with the other national coverage as cited in my earlier comments, the feature articles about him in Writers Digest, his writing awards, his TV series and his New York Times bestseller, plus his authoring 23 books, the subject sufficiently meets notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you mention I've dealt with above, with the exception of Good Morning America -- and as for that, here's the entirety of its "coverage" of Phelps:

The horrific tale is now the subject of M. William Phelps' new true crime book, "Murder in the Heartland." He conducted interviews with Montgomery's ex-husband, children and mother, law enforcement officials, friends, relatives, and neighbors. ... Phelps said that Montgomery had worked a different shift than her husband ... "It was easier for her to manipulate him," Phelps said. ... Phelps said that Montgomery had researched how to do a Caesarean section on the Internet ... Phelps said that the prosecution might have a strong chance of proving premeditation... While in prison, Montgomery, Phelps said, has found God. She's found Jesus Christ," he said.

As before, none of this is about Phelps. EEng (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that that is your mantra, but that is not the case. Good Morning America is about what he did to get to the story, and the feature stories are about how and why he became a writer. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the entirety of mentions, or quotations, of Phelps in Good Morning America are given in the block quote just above, and says nothing about "what he did to get the story". The "feature article" is, as already mentioned, found on a vanity-publisher's website (""get-published-sell-my-work") and is an interview; interviews are of zero notability value because they're not independent of the subject.

The almost complete lack of coverage of Phelps is reflected in the article, BTW, in the fact that, other than his name and where he lives, ~~and that he has a wife and three children,~~ it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about him -- it's essentially a list of publications and screen credits. At this point I think it best if we let other editors give their opinions. EEng (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writer's Digest is not a "vanity-publisher's website." Look it up. It is a printed magazine that was established in 1920 as a how-to for freelance writers. It is sold on magazine racks nationally: "Writer's Digest is an American magazine aimed at beginning and established writers. It contains interviews, market listings, calls for manuscripts, and how-to articles. Writer's Digest is owned by F+W Media, which publishes the annual edition of Writer's Market, a guide containing a list of paying markets — magazines, publishing houses, and contests — as well as an index and tips for the beginning writers. The magazine is published eight times per year." Again, saying something is so does not make it so. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, you're naive. But believe what you want. Anyway, interviews are still of zero notability value. Now be my guest and have the last word if you want, after which please can we just let other editors weigh in? EEng (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response "Naive"? Now you are being rude, which is uncalled for. Yes, please, let this end. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a Reuters article and Q&A (here's the article), dated 2012, of a lengthy interview with the subject and his TV series co-host. Reuters is a reliable third-party source that further establishes notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted interviews have zero notability value, becuase they're not independent of the subject. In any event, this piece says nothing at all about Phelps himself, beyond "crime author M. William Phelps and criminal profiler John Kelly revisit unsolved serial-killer cases ... Phelps, a former consultant on "Dexter," has a personal stake: His own sister-in-law was murdered by a serial killer in 1996." That's it. This is just more evidence of the complete lack of available coverage of the subject. EEng (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response He meets WP:Bio, according to the guidelines, if his works have been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," which they have, or if something he has created has been the subject of multiple articles or reviews, for which the TV series has. This is absolutely not a case of "complete lack of available coverage of the subject," as you continue to repeat regardless of the secondary sources presented along with new ones I have found since you started the AfD. By the way, you do not need to respond. I know what you are going to say. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond since it's not my goal to convince you, but others, and I don't want them misled your misstatements. There are, as AFAICS, two reviews cited in the article, each one paragraph long. [50][51] That's not, as the guideline you partially quote calls for...

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

"Articles" announcing that a series is coming don't count. EEng (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I reiterate so that "others are not misled by your misstatements" about coverage in USA Today, New York Daily News, Reuters, Writer's Digest magazine, etc. Phelps is regularly quoted about murder cases, which he is known for writing about in 23 books released by traditional publishing houses and talking about the cases on a national TV series. GNG is met, as demonstrated by multiple coverage in reliable sources, and the subject is notable. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"And I reiterate so that 'others are not misled by your misstatements'", writing a lot of books on murder cases and "talking about the cases on a national TV series" are not coverage of him. And he's not, as you say, "regularly quoted" about the cases, except in the context of the WP:ROUTINE puffery one finds around the release of books and announcements of TV series. Every source you've pointed to above as constituting "coverage" I've refuted, in most cases by quoting in full the handful of passing mentions of Phelps each contains. First you say he meets GNG, then when that doesn't work it's AUTHOR, then BIO, and now it's back to GNG. In reality it's none of those.

Now that we've disposed of the no-notability Reuters interview, can we go back to awaiting comments from other editors, as agreed? EEng (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you describing the Reuters interview as "no-notability" does not make it so, just your opinion that appears to not be based on the guidelines. Let others chime in. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMDb listings are persuasive all by themselves. But there are also writieups abouthim in major dailys like the Denver Post and the Hartford Courant. Reviews in significant outlets. This AFD is a slam-dunk KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the entirety of mentions of Phelps in the Denver Post's "writeup about him":

The Investigation Discovery show "Dark Minds," hosted by true crime author M. William Phelps, is called "Road Paved to Murder" and begins at 7 p.m. ... Phelps also interviews a Denver Post reporter, criminal profiler John Kelly and a serial killer serving multiple life sentences who goes by the moniker "Raven."

Yup, that's a slam-dunk for sure. The Courant piece is indeed longer but, again, one puffy interview is hardly significant coverage. What else is there? EEng (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What policy are you applying, other than IDONTLIKEIT? My point is that there are so many reviews in RS, so many IMDb listings, and interviews in Writer's Digest, and write ups in major daily papers like the Hartford Courant already on the page that it is not necessary to go searching the way it ordinarily is for AFDs on authors. I'm sorry that the editorial judgment of a great newspaper line the Hartford Courant fails to meet your personal standards, but I fail to see what that has to do with WP:GNG, or WP:AUTHOR (multiple independent periodical articles or reviews), policy standards that this writer sails past.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in the interest of full disclosure EEng asked me to take a look at this, but bear in mind that I'm completely capable of making up my own mind on these matters. That out of the way, I have to agree that there's almost nothing here that's about the subject himself. This isn't a situation like we have with music, where the notability of albums is directly tied to that of the writer; completely non-notable people can produce notable books or TV material, it happens all the time. As an example see Autobiography of a Geisha; Masuda Sayo doesn't have her own biography because people don't comment on her (in her case she actively shunned such attention), they comment on her book. Same concept here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Authorship is an exact parallel to music composition. Writing a notable book or the script of a notable movie is what makes a writer notable. Even a single book (see: To Kill a Mockingbird) can make an author notable. see WP:AUTOR "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". Masuda Sayo is unusual, nevertheless, she would sail past WP:AUTHOR (which is, as you probably already know, the same for all creative professionals (see: WP:CREATIVE) But in more routine cases, writing a number of books and movies that get respectful reviews and/or substantive press attention satisfies WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely possible for books to be notable even if the author is completely unknown, as a history guy by trade such things are quite routine. In any event, I don't believe WP:AUTHOR actually says a person is inherently notable if they've produced something notable; situations like these are exactly why it doesn't say that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, it's also totally beside the point. This AFD is about a writer of multiple films, multiple books, participant in multiple modestly successful TV shows, and written up in multiple RS places over many years. Some of the mentions are brief, but even these are often in articles about works of which he is an or the author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BOTNL, hate to ask, but why don't you take a few minutes to look at the various references in the article, to see just how superficial almost all of them are. With two or three exceptions they're not "reviews" but ROUTINE announcements, and even the reviews are paragraph-length. EEng (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is the crux of the matter here. None of the cited sources really discuss the author, and there's certainly no way that this sort of trivial coverage translates to notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, profiles exist. Here are some: Hartford Courant: [52], [53], Writer's Digest: [54], Also this, from a publication that I am not familiar with [55] . fyi, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both discussed above. They are both interviews, and interviews have zero notability value because they're not independent of the subject. EEng (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both? Surely you mean all three. only 2 of which are mentioned above, although User:The Blade of the Northern Lights aserted that there were "none" on the page. And you are wrong. "not independent of subject" WP:GNG "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Interviews and profiles in a major daily like the Hartford Courant, or a trade magazine like Writer's Digest are "independent of the subject" in fact, they are what establishes notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, in the Phelps case, notability is established not only by multiple interviews in RS, but by widespread coverage of his many true crime books (some of which is on the page), by hosting a TV series that has been renewed for several years and covered in multiple RS articles, and by the fact that several of his books have been made into movies and, according to RS news reports, others optioned for movie rights. Breadth as well as depth of coverage established notability here. User:Northamerica1000, it may be time to close this as keep despite or because of User:EEng dogged opposition, which began with a verifiably mistaken afd nom ("no apparent secondary coverage other than reviews panning his TV appearances. If I'm wrong, please someone point to such coverage") and has continued not only by recruiting to the page a fellow editor similarly wiling to misstate reality re: coverage of Phelps,("None of the cited sources really discuss the author,"), but with broad misstatements of both reality of coverage of Phelps and of WP policy ("interviews (Hartford Courant, Writer's Digest) have zero notability value because they're not independent of the subject")E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I based the nomination, and my comments, on the sources in the article plus what I found on a quick Google search. I think you better watch it with the "recruiting to the page a fellow editor similarly willing to misstate reality" bullshit. How do you feel about that comment, The Blade of the Northern Lights? EEng (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are new to this page I advise you to skip the discussion, just go to the article, and take a look at the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are new to this page I advise you to skip the discussion, just go to the article, open all the sources, and see how many you can find that are actually about the subject of the article, and independent of him. EEng (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tho library holdings are not a formal criterion ,the';re indicative, because libraries buy on the basis of public interest plus reviews

Nathan Hale is in 771 libraries' "The devil's rooming house :" (on Amy Archer-Gilligan) is in 711' Murder in the heartland on Bobbie Jo Stinnett in 688; others in 544, 313, etc. These figures are characteristic of a notable author. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Of note is that promotional content and tone can be removed by copy editing the article. As per this discussion, adding a {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AWS Truepower

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

Fails WP:NORG, reads like an advert with no third party citations JMHamo (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADMASQ. Pax 06:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of third-party coverage online, here's a sampling: [56] [57]/[58] [59] [60] [61]. Current problems on the page are surmountable, since spammy prose is easy to fix. You just, like...hit delete and save. (mindblowing) Earflaps (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ADMASQ. Above-mentioned third-party coverage is not enough. From this sources first and fifth are reprints of the press releases and other sources (except the last one) only mentioning the company which is not enough for WP:GNG nor WP:CORP. If there are really enough independent sources to satisfy WP:CORP, it would be better to recreate this article from the scratches. Beagel (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of the sources in the article seem to be from the company, and it is rather promotional in tone. However, there is a good deal of third-party coverage. Looking only at Google News turned up these, which are are all solid news stories, not press releases.
- [62] North American Windpower: Are Fitch Ratings' Claims About Wind Farm Underperformance Unfounded?
- [63] Measuring the Wind and the Sun : Greentech Media
- [64] Change in wind hurts future - Times Union
- [65] Waning Wind | EnergyBiz
- [66] Cherokee Chronicle Times: Local News: The art of building utility-scale wind farms (01/27/14)

These say enough about the wind forecasting business to write a decent article. A quote from the second one: '"We're the leading provider of wind forecasts in North America to ISOs and utilities and provide assessment services to all of the major wind and solar developers throughout the world," was as specific as AWS Truepower would be.' – Margin1522 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - added in the ones you found. Earflaps (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. (even after discounting the ed. mentioned at the end) DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur India Magazine

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

I can't find any sources discussing this publication and so I do not believe that it is notable. I don't think there's a notability guideline for magazines, but WP:NBOOKS can be used as a general comparison, and those criteria are not met. I am also concerned that the long "Awards" section is used as a way to promote those people (one prolific serial spammer of Wikipedia is mentioned in the section with a link to his website) when the awards themselves do not appear to be at all notable. There is no source for the claim that the magazine's awards are "[India's] most prestigious awards in the Entrepreneur area", and I very much doubt the veracity of that statement. bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - bonadea I got your point of view and on your note I have removed the reference you mentioned. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Few reference added. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Four references have been added (actually five, but one was to a Wikipedia article, so I removed that and added a Wikilink instead). This one is a brief bio of the editor-in-chief and, interestingly, does not mention this magazine at all; this one is about the Entrepreneur India awards, and again doesn't mention the magazine; this is a list of award winners, from the magazine itself (primary source) ; and the [67] last one is about one of the winners, and it mentions the award but not the magazine. So there is really no indication at all that the magazine is notable. --bonadea contributions talk 14:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just have removed the ridiculously long list of awards and awardees. WP is not a web hosting service... I fully agree with Bonadea's analysis of the references. Those that are independent are just in-passing mentions. One of them reads like a news release and one other is a portrait of an awardee in some vanity journal. In addition, I can't even figure out what exactly the name of this publication is, their website is rather confusing about it. Given the lack of reliable sources, that's irrelevant, though. --Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 2 References Added. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More press releases. One is about the "Small Medium Entrepreneur", which is an alternate name of the magazine (??) --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes Randykitty, the magazine have the alternate name as well. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article looks stud to me. Moreover google search does not adds any value to this article proving it's notability. It looks a piece of advertisement of an unpopular magazine. Dormantos (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Only two keep votes, but both of them provide many sources to prove the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAP Fiori

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

Unremarkable software which lacks coverage in reliable sources. A search only results in affiliated websites, promotional material, and press releases. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of SAP products. Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Refs provided are a blog and company PR, not WP:RS. Redirect to parent company product list as the company is certainly notable.Dialectric (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This seems to be the new user interface for SAP apps. Which is a big deal if you are a user or developer, as SAP is the world's leading business app vendor. There was enough third-party coverage to tell what it is:[68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75] And a controversy over whether it should be free... that seems to have been settled recently (it will be free). So enough to write about. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: [76], [77], [78] (pp. 134-136), [79] (pp 62-63), [80] (pp. 19-20). See also WP:BEFORE, section D. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timing delay in vlsi circuit

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

What can I say? The article has no sources, and it is not clear what it is even about. It is not clear to the casual observer that it is even about a real subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just one specific type of delay in Very-large-scale integration systems, for which is very improbable to warrant a WP:SPINOUT of any form. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The understanding and approximate calculation of timings and delays is an important topic in circuit design, enough so that we already have several articles on it: Delay calculation, Static timing analysis, Statistical static timing analysis, Elmore delay, etc. It is conceivable that one could write an article on timing issues in VLSI design using books like Static Timing Analysis for Nanometer Designs: A Practical Approach and class lectures like [81]. But this article has only a barest, confusing, unannotated list of delay types. I don't think there is compelling reason to keep this less than a stub of an article just for its suggestive title. There is no prejudice to someone creating a proper article on this notable topic. --Mark viking (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K.N.Taylor

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

Okay I Had this as a unsourced BLP tag until I just found out its not a BLP. Anyway this page is more of a "how great this person is" as opposed to what made him great. Hard to find this guy also searching considering how many results you get fro K N Taylor! Wgolf (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note an alternate spelling of the subject's name as referred to in media sources.

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

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. A source example includes: [82]. Furthermore, these sources were published after the subject passed away, and provide overviews (to various degrees) of the subject to qualify a Wikipedia article: [83], [84], [85], [86]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all moreover one source isn't sufficient to prove it's notabilityDormantos (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough good sources for notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – How so, and what is your definition of "good sources"? Did you see and view the sources I posted in this discussion? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, per Northamerica1000. He's the winner of multiple awards for cinema (I've added two more to the article, with references), and there is good coverage online from WP:Reliable sources in English alone. I haven't searched yet for online coverage in Tulu or Hindi. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-well this will probably be closed as neutral given the 50/50, but it is tough to find someone with the name KN Taylor though as I said before. Wgolf (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Totally unconvincing deletion rationale, sources found clearly demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep on the basis of the awards Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self Destruction (film)

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

Unotable web film that I can't find anything for (no luck looking up Self Destruction (film) on google as I keep on getting 50 Cent youtube videos instead!) Wgolf (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is almost ten years old with no improvements in sourcing. The "Official Website" no longer exists. Thus, it fails WP:GNG MarnetteD|Talk 16:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: I am not willing to say either keep or delete just yet. Specially as it develops that this 2001 Taiwanese film is not unsourcable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Well it would of been nice to know the alternate title of it in English not using Chinese characters since I couldn't find it under this name. But oh well, still seems unotable. Wgolf (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Access to Taiwanese sources for this Chinese film not released in the US is difficult. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I managed to turn up these Google Book sources (The Animation Business Handbook and Historical Dictionary of Taiwan Cinema), which both make mention to a Taiwanese animated character named A-kuei. Note that this article is saying A-kuei was the film studio, not a character, and that the the Animation Business Handbook names the film studio behind the A-kuie character as Spring House Entertainment. So it's not a perfect match by any means. Still, the books also say that the A-kuei character was created for a website (Self Destruction was apparently a web film) and the ABH highlights 2001 as a notable year for the character (Self Destruction was apparently released in 2001). I don't know how common of name A-kuei is in Taiwanese, but these shared details seem too similar to write off as mere coincidence. According to the ABH, the A-kuei character inspired merchandising, appeared in advertising and even as a guest on TV shows, and was set to be the focus of a feature film. So this character actually seems fairly noteworthy; whether it has any connection to Self Destruction though, I can't say for sure. I'm inclined to think that this topic actually is notable, but sadly, between the incredible length of time that's elapsed and the language barrier, I doubt that any quality refs will turn up to display that notability. There very well may be some Chinese-language sources out there, and there might even be a few English-language sources archived in the Way Back Machine - but without knowing the original url, I'm not sure how we could locate those, even if they do in fact exist. --Jpcase (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually just discovered a few more refs about the A-kuei character and Spring House Entertainment (Bloomberg Business, Taiwan Info, Variety) Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is notable and deserves its own article. But does it have any connection to Self Destruction? I still don't know. A-kuei doesn't seem to be a character in Self-Destruction and the refs clearly indicate that he is aimed at children - Self Destruction includes a "serial killer" as a character, so yeah, draw your own conclusion ;) - Still, A-kuei is a digital animated character created for a Taiwanese website; Self Destruction is a digitally animated film created for a Taiwanese website; not all of Spring House Entertainment's content includes the A-kuei character and some of it is aimed at adults. Could A-kuei Production House (the studio behind Self Destruction) be a subsidy of Spring House Entertainment? Or could Spring House have even changed its name somewhere down the line? Or maybe A-kuei Production House doesn't even exist and was just entered as an error. All possibilities. But none of them can be proven at this point. And even if Self Destruction really was produced by Spring House, there's nothing that makes it noteworthy enough for its own article. So my vote would either be Delete or Redirect to a newly created Spring House Entertainment article. Either way, I strongly support the creation of an article for Spring House Entertainment. --Jpcase (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This film does not meet notability guidelines - that's all that needs to be wrong with it (and there is plenty more wrong with it). There's been no shortage of time to remedy. Elephantbronze (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've gone ahead and created a basic article for Spring House Entertainment. I have no real preference as to whether this article is redirected over there or deleted, since while it seems highly possible that there's a connection between the two of them, nothing has actually been proven to that end. --Jpcase (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 00:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ipa-Nima

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

Page that has been long tagged for notability. As well as a advertisement-the only ref was for the site which is a dead link now. Wgolf (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The dead link was the old site. It was in the Wayback Machine. This is the about page, which seems to have been the source for most of the text in earlier versions. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A quick google search does reveal numerous references from international media to "Ipa-Nima", including Time Magazine ^[1], Usa Today ^[2], Les Echos (French) ^[3], South China Morning Post ^[4], to cite a few. Mentioned in Who's who in fashion ^[5] and some other books as well. Lack of notability seems like a stretch, the article just needs some work. (Imho what happened is that the "anti-advertising" brigade reduced the formerly more comprehensive and more useful article to just one sentence, thereby preparing it for deletionists to jump on. Also smells of wikipedia bias: if the average wikipedia user was an asian female with an interest in fashion, and not a white western male with an interest in technology and war, the article would be more comprehensive by now. Just my five cents.) ReidarM (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a ridiculous account of what happened based entirely on a groundless assumption of bad faith. When I tagged the article as an advertisement is was blatantly promotional in both its tone and its content. When I tagged it with needing independent sources to establish notability, it had no independent sources that established notability. You have no reason to assume some nefarious intent. Later, when another editor removed the promotional content, much of which was plagiarized from the subject's own website, that was an absolutely appropriate thing to do according to Wikipedia policy. You should apologize to User:Epeefleche for accusing him of intending to merely "prepare it for deletionists", especially considering that no one nominated it for deletion for more than three years afterwards. Edgeweyes (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Deletion of material that does not comport with wp:v is not "preparing it for deletion"; nor is the addition of non-RS-supported material preparing it for non-deletion. Two separate issues. Articles are assessed at AfD based on what sources exist, not based on what unsourced-text appears in the article. Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

one of the deleted sentences was "Ipa-Nima is regularly featured in fashion magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, Marie Claire, Star Style, Latina, InStyle, Personality, Linda, Glamour, Upscale, Glow, and Neo". While not a perfect citation, that sentence certainly gave a few clues to existing sources. ReidarM (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed. Sources identified above are adequate to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources given above. Pinging Edgeweyes who first tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wgolf, are you satisfied that the new refs show it meets notability and feel you could withdraw the nomination or are you still concerned? Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newgen Software

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

Not notable. The Economic Times article is apparently PR, for this is a minor company with no significant products. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a news search returns a LOT of hits, but I think all of them are press releases, and therefore unsuitable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the previous AfD less than 5 months ago, significant reliable source coverage exists and therefore notability is established. Really it isn't even close. Pinging previous AfD participants: @VMS Mosaic, ShulMaven, and Lakun.patra: --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Timtrent: who accepted the article at AfC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. DGG has a point regarding the promotional nature, perhaps press release material, in the Economic Times article. At AFC we do sometimes make mistakes. If I have, so be it. If I have not, so be it. So thank you for pinging me. I will let others decide. Fiddle Faddle 15:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom for the first AFD I prefer to remain neutral. But I seriously doubt its notability. Most of the sources are press releases. There are some references but are just passing by remarks or about Carlyle group investing. Other than that could not find anything worthy. Will let other editors decide. Thanks for the ping ThaddeusB. Lakun.patra (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as last AfD. Including searches on the company's products turns up endless hits (mostly minor but not all) including books, case studies on the software, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? All I could find was trivial passing mentions or press releases. Certainly nothing to write a neutral article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are a few substantive mentions: [87] [88] [89] [90] Though I'd like to see more coverage, I think being covered by Forrester Research and Gartner are pretty good. Cinteotl (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the closer of the previous AFD that looks like it was closed perhaps a little too early, Meh we're human and all make mistakes, Anyway Keep per most of Cinteotl's findings. –Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I've got a minority opinion on this one, but of the sources provided by Cinteotl, the only one (in my view) that is not a press release is this one, which relegates Newgen to a single quotation from its founder, saying nothing about the company, what it is, or what it does. That's not really suitable to be able to write a balanced article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope you're right - that one is useless but IMHO the rest are generally fine. –Davey2010^Talk 10:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. Article can be recreated after any notable invention is launched and secondary sources become available Dormantos (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it isn't a biography, so your rationale makes no sense. Perhaps you accidently commented on the wrong AfD? Also, being a stub is not a reason for deletion and secondary sources are already available. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will Brooke (businessman)

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

Non notable. failed politician, with vague claims for having been involved in various movements. Relatively minor executive position--not head of the firm DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is determined by coverage, not importance of accomplishments. Brooke has significant coverage is multiple reliable sources, as demonstrated by those already in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the handful of RS already in the article, many more exist: [91][92]. By the way, Brooke may not have taken the "CEO" title, but he is the co-founder of the (notable) firm, not some "minor executive". --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that media coverage exists of a candidacy does not make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article — it makes them a WP:BLP1E. All candidates in all elections always generate some media coverage, so a person has to win office, not merely run in a primary, to qualify for a Wikipedia article on that basis. He might potentially be notable for his business career, but that hasn't been adequately demonstrated here — not a single source here covers him in the context of his business career in its own right, but rather is sourced entirely to either primary sources or passing mentions of his business career as background in coverage of his candidacy. That is not the kind of coverage it takes to claim that he gets over our inclusion rules for businesspeople. And for that matter, even the company's article is completely unsourced, and fails to properly demonstrate that it passes WP:CORP for anything — so he doubly can't claim an automatic notability freebie as a cofounder of a company, if the company's notability is also debatable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not true that all candidates generate coverage, but in any case what confers notability is biographical coverage, which few political candidates generate. "Horse race" coverage may well do zip for notability, but biographical material always shows notability (even if it was generated because of a political candidacy). Brooke did generate biographical coverage and is therefore notable. Our general notability guidelines are quite clear that accomplishments can never count against someone, only for them (i.e. the specific guidelines can confer notability, but failing them never conveys non-notability). BLP1E quite obviously does not apply here - the guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news story, not same people notable for one thing can't be notable. Additionally, Brooke is back in the news this year for reasons unrelated to his previous candidacy (his involvement in a political scandal, see provided news links), so even the "1" part is false. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, it is true that all candidates generate coverage — they don't necessarily all garner equal volumes of coverage, but media have a public service obligation to grant some coverage to all candidates in any election taking place in their coverage area. If I wanted to (which I don't), I could write and source an article about every single person, winner or loser, who ran for any office in the Toronto municipal election, 2014 — they wouldn't all be good articles by any stretch of the imagination, and most of them wouldn't have any substantive reason why an article should actually be kept on here, but not a single one of them (not even the fringiest freaknuts) would be completely unsourceable. Whether the amount of coverage is enough to satisfy GNG is another story — but no candidate in any election ever goes completely uncovered. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's not really relevant to my argument anyway so I'll concede the point. Certainly, most candidates do not generate quality (biographical) coverage, which should be the standard for notability. IMO, that has occurred here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to have received much media coverage other than for running for office, and that's not going to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, much less WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GNG only requires a few sources and dozens exist here. Can you explain why you feel the guideline is not met? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them are about him specifically (and substantially), and how many are WP:reliable sources? Not many. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that is simply not true. Of those in the article already, Businessweek, Yellowhammer News, and Biz Journals are clearly reliable and articles about Brooke that are biographical in nature. Additional sources such as Tuscaloosa News, CNN, Huntsville Times, Politico, Roll Call, and so on also qualify. It is true Brooke did not win his election, but he did attract considerable local and national reliable source coverage - well beyond all reasonable expectation of what all/most candidates routinely generate. In other words, the GNG is clearly met. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made me waste several minutes checking out campaign drivel? Shame on you. Lots of candidates get media coverage. None of yours are suitable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And lots of politicians are notable... Please show me the part of the general notability guideline that says sources related to an election are invalid for considering notability. Until you do, your argument is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What actually matters is the quality of the source, not the reason it was published. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that arguing that sources related to an election are invalid is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - presented with more evidence, he might be notable. However, right now he fails all our our relevant notability guidelines (WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG) as well as my standards for lawyers. He came in fifth - an "also ran" - in a single race, in which he made an ad shooting a copy of the ACA. I don't see how any reasonable person could find that notable. The story in Politico by itself doesn't prove notability as we define it; it's about a campaign tactic, and not about him. Again, if we had more information on his law school and bar association activities, then I would re-consider. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request - If consensus is to delete, I would like to request the closing admin userify it instead so that I may reuse some of the material in an article about the election where it surely not improper to cover Brooke and the other candidates. Alternatively, a redirect to Harbert Management Corporation or United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama, 2014#District 6 with the history intact would serve the same purpose... I don't think anyone would object to a redirect to either of those places where Brooke is mentioned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is quite a bit of coverage of this this guy including coverage of his political future in Alabama and beyond. So, he has received and continues to receive coverage, which clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN #2. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians says:
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
The sources provided by ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) above:
Of those in the article already, Businessweek, Yellowhammer News, and Biz Journals are clearly reliable and articles about Brooke that are biographical in nature. Additional sources such as Tuscaloosa News, CNN, Huntsville Times, Politico, Roll Call, and so on also qualify.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Will Brooke to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
WP:BLP1E does not apply because Will Brooke is not a low-profile individual. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual (which is linked to in BLP1E) says:
A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.
Because condition 2 of BLP1E is not met, BLP1E does not apply because the policy requires that "each of three conditions is met". Condition 1 is not met either per ThaddeusB's comment above at 00:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC).
Cunard (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Micromax Canvas Hue

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

no apparent evidence for importance DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG. Source examples include:

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable enough for a standalone article (as per Northamerica1000's provided sources). Esquivalience ^t 23:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSeems to pass WP:GNG as Northamerica100 pointed out. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 15:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syswox

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

no reliable third party sources for notability. Refs 1 &3 are from their own web site. The Businessweek ref is just a directory entry. The nasscom article cannot be located, but is apparently a mere PR announcement./ DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After several source searches, does not appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple sources. As DGG notes, refs provided are incidental mentions or not WP:RS.Dialectric (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 00:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shunaid Qureshi

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

Unreliable sources, fails to meet notability guidelines, promotional piece Cada mori (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually, it seems to be more of a magnet for potential defamation than anything else, due to allegations against him. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources currently in article are in-depth, multiple, independent, focusing on the subject, and yes there may be a motive of some contributors to defame the subject, but there are sufficient sources in the article (as of March 31 2015) to justify notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--- ------------------Source number 1 is a private company page that is hosted by the same corporation Mr. Qureshi Owns, Source number 2 is blank, Source number 3 is a pdf file with no verifiable information, Source 5 is a dead link, Source 6 is a blog entry with no author, Soruce 10 is a CNN iReport link that was never actually published, Source 12 doesn't even mention mister Qurashi.Cada mori (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tomwsulcer and passes WP:GNG per various Directorship held. The Subject is the chairman of the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association. Bloomberg here The Dawn here and subject is also the Chairman Pakistan Ethanol Manufacturers Association (P.E.M.A.) as per Directorships here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Free content#Copyfree. Nakon 21:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyfree

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for lack of notability for more than since August 2013. The only references listed in the article are to the organisation itself. No evidence of notability in reliable, independent sources. — Keφr 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't start to think why anyone should think WP would be improved by deleting this article. If someone wants to see what Copyfree is shouldn't they be able to look it up? Also, the answer they would expect is beyond a dictionary definition. This is one of the (rare) cases where the notability criteria lead to an inappropriate result – they are guidelines, after all. And if there were to be consensus we should not have an article, surely this is a (highly) likely search term so should redirect to Free content#Copyfree and whatever would be wrong in merging some of the clearly verifiable information here? Deletion is the wrong thing to be aiming for. Thincat (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is one of the many situations where the notability criteria measure a subject's prominence quite well. You did not even attempt to refute it. — Keφr 19:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a recreation of a previously deleted article, and still remains non-notable. (Even the section Free content#Copyfree ought to go, for the same reason, but that's a different discussion.) Shreevatsa (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (else ThinCat's suggestion above if !voting leans the other way). If we can have Beerware, then we can have the larger set in which Beerware belongs. (Given the relative lack of participation in previous AfDs, I'm not lending their results much weight.) Pax 08:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Notability is determined individually. The above is an WP:OTHERCRAP argument. — Keφr 09:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a good and honourable project, but at the moment still completely irrelevant. Unlike beerware, I can't tell if "version 42" and the alleged history make sense, but software authors use(d) a license with this name for their (almost) freeware. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Free content#Copyfree. This seems to get some mention in independent reliable sources (quite enough to make it a viable search term), and the suggested target does cite one of these. PWilkinson (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slightly obscure web page of a slightly obscure initiative. For comparison, if Freedom would be limited to http://freedomdefined.org I'd support a deletion of Freedom. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Free content#Copyfree - The subject has too little coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article. Esquivalience ^t 14:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Free content#Copyfree. I understand why it is notable but as of now it has not gained enough prominence to be its own article. Very few references to it. If it is gains traction, article can be restored and expanded. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Free content#Copyfree, as a functional WP:ATD in this case. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Of note is that concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ClearTax

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

Advert for a Non notable website. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first India-focused Y Combinator startup which is fairly significant. Notability is also clear with multiple instances of coverage in reliable sources like TechCrunch, NDTV, Times of India, The Economic Times, and similar. Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian has talked about ClearTax on CNBC India. (Trustandhonesty) — Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page cites sources that are legit by wiki standards. As far as tech startups in India go, I think ClearTax is notable enough. Instamojo_Inc. has a page for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.21.101 (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the nonsensical 'my competition has an article, why can't I' excuse. Not a valid reason. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instamojo_Inc. is not a competitor, or a company in the same industry. It is an example of another Indian startup that has a wikipedia page that passes notability & neutrality guidelines. The page is written in a completely neutral way, there is absolutely nothing advertorial or superlative about the copy. There are multiple prominent news articles (Indian and International publications) covering ClearTax. So, according to Wikipedia's own guidelines, ClearTax is notable enough.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADMASQ. (Some of these egregious cases could go with speedy tags rather than AfDs.) Pax 21:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article cites a full story by NDTV and a paragraph in the Times of India, among other sources. Granted, most or all of the coverage seems to be about their connection with YCombinator. Still, WP:CORP requires significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, and the case can be made that they meet that standard. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Web Company

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

Not a Notable company. No citations to Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Web Company (SWC) has been a leading provider of Semantic Web technologies since 2004. SWC has published at Springer the first books in this field for the German speaking community ever. See: https://www.semantic-web.at/springer/
SWC is actively participating within the Open Knowledge Foundation since many years, and has been a founding member of the Austrian Chapter, see also: http://okfn.at/experts-team/
SWC is actively developing and supporting Open Data Portals with many projects, e.g. https://www.opendataportal.at/ueber-odp/ or http://datahub.io/dataset/socialsemweb-thesaurus
SWC is actively supporting the DBpedia association, see: http://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/Leipzig2014
SWC has generated a significant footprint within the Drupal community and a variety of contributions to the Drupal Project, see: https://www.drupal.org/node/1983364 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABLVienna (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SWC's Martin Kaltenboeck is member of the Steering Commitee of the European Data Forum (http://data-forum.eu/committees), which is a significant community for Europe's Big Data industry and research, see for example Neelie Kroes and Martin Kaltenboeck talking at EDF 2014: http://2014.data-forum.eu/program — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABLVienna (talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its product PoolParty is used by various large global organizations like Worldbank, Council of the European Union, IAEA, Roche, Boehringer, Daimler, Credit Suisse, Wolters Kluwer, Pearson, British Medical Journals, Healtdirect Australia, The Pokemon Company, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, etc. see: http://www.poolparty.biz/some-of-our-clients/
KMWorld reports about SWC's ongoing progress with its products: http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/News/News/Knowledge-graph-management-and-text-analytics-from-Semantic-Web-Company-101697.aspx
Semantic Web Company is the main organizer of Europe's larges Semantic Web Conference, which takes place the 11th time this year, see: http://www.semantics.cc/ - last year the event attracted over 250 people in Leipzig/Germany.
Semantic Web Company is part of some of the most significant and largest Linked Data and Big Data projects in Europe. E.g. http://www.big-data-europe.eu/ or http://aligned-project.eu/ - which consists of a consortium with Trinity College Dublin, University of Oxford, University of Leipzig, etc.
Semantic Web Company and its product incl. open source components have generated a significant footprint and many references in scientific papers and publications. Here is a list of articles and papers referencing to PoolParty: http://www.poolparty.biz/papers-and-articles/

I leave it up to you if this is "notable" or not. --ABLVienna (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ABLVienna (talk • contribs) 10:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of these, as far as I can tell, were posted by SWC itself. Wikipedia needs third-party sources, because any company with sufficient capital can make a bunch of pages. Also, 250 people? That's not very many. Blah2 (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the sources are primary, so even if the org were notable, we would still have to delete everything in the article to remove primary sources, so we might as well delete the page. CorporateM (Talk) 05:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Howe

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

He does not seem to have a notable film career - most of his bio is puff about people he worked with. It seems to imply that the film he is most known, Going Back, was a cult classic, but I've never heard of it and it doesn't have an entry on Rotten Tomatoes. I was unable to find sufficient references to establish notability for his stage career. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marco Mazzi. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager, a Journey through Time and Water

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

Some indications of WP:NOTABILITY, but not enough for me to establish it. No Japanese or Italian articles. Has been tagged for notability for seven years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Part of the problem is linguistic, hopefully someone can help there. Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those who have looked at its notability before (it has been nominated for speedy and prod): Gillyweed who tagged it for notability in the first place, BigDunc whonominated it for speedy deletion and then prodded, Moonriddengirl who looked at the speedy nomination, DGG who rejected the prod. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't even find an IMDB entry. Is that the correct name? —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though some do, art installations films rarely make it to IMDB. Different audience and expectations. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to the artist article. The exhibition is mentioned there, and I've added the name of the film, but I don't think we really need a merger so to speak. It would overwhelm the artist article. The original source that supported the article is still visible via Wayback - the name is correct. But standalone notability seems really doubtful, and it's been hanging out in this shape long enough. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to and a slight expansion of its information at the Marco Mazzi artist's article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marco Mazzi as per the comments above--not notable as an independent work but worth a little expansion in the artist article. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Student Association

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

Claims to notability are unsubstantiated. I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for 7years; time it was resolved. Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Never heard of it, but 191 results in Google News Search and its dating to 1947 seem to mean it is notable. It's just a very weak, poorly sourced article. —Мандичка^YO 😜

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, appears to pass WP:GNG, see Glenn H. Utter (12 September 2011). Youth and Political Participation: A Reference Handbook: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 216. ISBN 978-1-59884-662-1. The subject also has received multiple mentions in a multitude of reliable sources (whether those mentions are significant or not is a matter of debate).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this used to be important, when I was in college, but that's anecdotal. We may need to userfy or fix it quickly. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on a quick web search, seems to meet WP:GNG. often mentioned by AFL-CIO Moonboy54 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Thanks for convincing me, Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 00:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshana Rudiakov

AfDs for this article:

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

There are some (mainly local) sources but I wasn't quite convinced that she meets WP:PROF, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. AfD last year resulted in no consensus, but had only two comments, a delete and a keep vote. This was tagged seven years ago; time for it to be resolved. Pinging Kingturtle who tagged it for notability, and LaMona and 24.151.10.165 who commented in last AfD. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - she has sources in multiple languages, so it seems she had an international career that had some merit. I think an issue may be spelling of her name. Does she have a corresponding article in Hebrew? Her name in Russian would be Shoshana Rudyakova (Russian: Шошана Рудякова), but I suspect Shoshana is her Hebrew name and not birth name. It's unclear when she left the USSR. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Schulman

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

Does not fulfill Notability standards for creative people. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but TNT. He appears in news sources as an "acclaimed artist" etc and his work was described as "important." Additionally he appears in a few books about ceramics. Not a lot, but a few. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 21:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Colon and Rectal Surgical Associates

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

Not notable. No awards. No specific contribution to science. References go to non-Reliable sources. Never has treated any Notable people. Sheer advertising. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If this is spam...then WHAM! (sorry, I've wanted to do that for a long time) Bfpage |leave a message 21:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable references. Most of article written by original editor, plainly a PR plant. This is spam. Tapered (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa Labs

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. It did land a large client in 2010, the AFL-CIO,[93] and lost a co-founder in 2012.[94] Meanwhile, the existing references are just announcements and a minor dead link. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FEU Advocate

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

Written like an ad, only cited to itself, ViperSnake151 Talk 00:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because: "Advertisement + Lacking additional citations for verification + Original research = Bad article". In other words, the article seems to be an ad, lacks enough sources for verification and seems to contain original research. --TL22 (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bloods. Given that this has already been relisted twice, I think it is not very likely that more participants will appear, so I am closing this with the two opinions voiced up till now. There is no consensus to keep or delete, but both participants in the debate suggest merging to Bloods. So done. Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double II Set

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

Non-notable street gang set. No indication of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Closest thing to notability seems to be a federal indictment. Only reliable source used in the article is a dead link to a govt. document. Fails WP:ORG. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unknown gang's sect whose only reference is a broken link. Not notable enough to warrant a page. Psychotic Spartan 123 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Topic meets WP:GNG. Simply clicking on the find sources links above provides some sources. Source examples include:

East Orange police raid apartment building as part of crackdown on Bloods set, authorities say. Nj.com.
East Orange crime crackdown leads to nearly 60 arrests. Nj.com.
To Be an FBI Special Agent. p. 85.
Preteen Gangbangers Go Digital. KTRE. (has what equates to a paragraph)
Combating gang violence in America. p. 10. (snippet view)

Another option is to merge to Bloods. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I considered some of those. They are more news reports that something occurred than significant coverage of the set. In other words, almost any gang name could be substituted and you'd never know the difference. Redirecting to the Bloods article would be fine. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full country rankings for Miss Grand International

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

unsourced fancruft and content fork from parent article The Banner talk 01:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is WP:Fancruft. –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Les Illusions de la Psychanalyse

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOKS. There's one reference that endorces the book, but multiple are required per the referenced standard. I'm having a hard time finding more, and think the article doesn't meet WP's guidelines for notability. Mikeblas (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known that there is a lot of interest in (and controversy over) psychoanalysis in France. I would be surprised if there were not sources to show that the book is notable, even if they are in French and even if they cannot be found straight away through a simple Google search. Is the article to be deleted simply because not enough work was done to find sources? I was able to rapidly find a review here and another here, and probably more exist that might not be so easy to find. Jacques van Rillaer himself certainly seems notable, since there is an article about him on French Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe this AfD discussion has been miscategorized by being placed under (Organisation, corporation, or product). The relevant page states that the category is for "all businesses, schools, government agencies, non-profit organizations." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in case it isn't obvious that what I wrote above is a keep vote. The source already cited in the article and the two reviews above should be enough to establish notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I only see one reference in the article. WP:NBOOKS demands "two or more". Adding the additional references to the article certainly would help it; you should do that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I should be able to do that within the next couple of days. In the meanwhile, I do hope no one deletes the article because I didn't move quickly enough. Not everything needs to be done at breakneck speed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources added. What more need I do? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So far as I am concerned you need do no more. The independent coverage is sufficient. Thincat (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Management: Co-operatives and Credit Unions

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

This article is about a single (mostly online) master's degree program at a single university. The article mostly explicates syllabus- and directory-like information (e.g., program info, admissions criteria, and areas of study). I do not believe it meets the general notability guideline. While there are references, and the topic plainly exists, the references that I could access (there were a number of 404 errors) seem to consist of a few short pieces in trade publications about the program (without any in-depth coverage), plus a number of cites to mere passing references (or directory material - e.g., "GradSchoolFinder.com."). The program should probably be mentioned at Saint Mary's University (Halifax), but it seems to lack independent notability. Neutrality^talk 03:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a more detailed dive for those interested - Ref 1 is a brief article in a trade magazine. It contains about four paragraphs on the program itself and then several more paragraphs not related to this program. Ref 2 is a 404 error. Ref 3 is a trivial passing mention in a trade publication. Ref 4 is a blog-type reflection from a student in the program on a website of trade weekly email newsletter (not an independent source). Ref 5 is another brief article in the same trade magazine as #1; it contains only a few pieces of hard info on the program itself, and does not explain its notability. #6 is another 404 error, but seems to be another cite to a coop newsletter. #7 is a two-page article in a trade journal from the director of the program itself (again, not an independent source). Ref #8 is simply a directory listing from the accreditor. Ref #9 is another 404 error. Ref #10 is simple directory material from GradSchoolFinder.com. Ref #11 is a 404 error, but appears to have been a cite to a digest one a co-op federation website. Ref #12 and Ref #13 are also both 404 errors, but appear to be links reflecting localized, non-notable awards for the program. Neutrality^talk 04:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG with in depth coverage in sources like the National Post article, the Rural Cooperatives article, and the book Cooperation, Community, and Co-ops in a Global Era. I agree that the unnecessary detail could be purged from the article though. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 06:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Post reference is brief. It has a few sentences on the program and a quote from the prof who founded it as part of a broader discussion of the "countless" varieties of MBA programs out there. The Cooperation, Community, and Co-ops reference is literally a passing mention, citing only to the program's own newsletter. The article in Rural Cooperatives (from a freelance author) does have somewhat more detail, but standing alone it does not seem significant. If something with this level of coverage is deemed notable, the literally tens of thousands of individual MBA programs (or indeed, graduate or undergraduate programs) will be notable. I recognize that the focus of this particular program (co-ops) is unconventional, but the coverage is extremely run-of-the mill. Neutrality^talk 19:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

There is a claim of notability that is compelling and probably should be in the lede: "the only English-language master's degree in co-operative management by a business school that is internationally accredited"
The following are enough for me to accept as significant coverage:

Four paragraphs in the National Post[95]
Three pages in Rural Cooperatives[96]

It is also helpful to the article's case that the director of the programme had a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal[97]

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ONLY, though: "Notability is not about being the biggest, the best, or the only of something." Neutrality^talk 21:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that it both meets the GNG and is the only something. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

,

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

The result was keep. Nakon 00:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toradex

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not notable. Still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is press releases and a blog. Last afd found no suitable coverage and a search found nothing since then. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wasn't notable in 2014, Isn't notable now, Won't be notable in 2016, 2017 or 2050. –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Still not convinced on keeping but meh sources have been added and it's been improved rather alot so meh keep .–Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure if it qualifies for G4, but there's still no indication of notability. Plus, it really seems like WP:ADMASQ here. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 04:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article is consistent with articles under Category:Multinational_companies_headquartered_in_Switzerland and Category:Embedded systems categories, it has undergone intensive rewrite to include more citations with more independent reliable sources. If there are problematic areas of the article trim them down but the article should stay. Sunil (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The advertiser who wrote the first keep above claims "it has undergone intensive rewrite to include more citations with more independent reliable sources". In reality it was bombarded with more bad references, making it more promotional. My nomination stands. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:Notability The article in discussion has a pretty good reference/content ratio and there is coverage in independent sources.Jonathan 4:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The article was "nominated for deletion" with this reason "Still not notable. Still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is press releases and a blog". Now the article includes citations from independent reliable sources such as EFY Times, CNXSoft News, This Week Bangalore, Gizmag, EE Herald etc. and also the article information has been published on Biggest Embedded Industry leader's websites such as ARM, Freescale, Microsoft etc. As per WP:Identifying_reliable_sources guidelines the citations are enlisted. I still vote to Keep the article on Wikipedia. Sunil (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil is lying about sources. Let's look at "citations from independent reliable sources". EFYTimes, press releases, see quote "Visit us at http://www.toradex.com and get to know more about our products & services. We believe in building long term partnerships where ever we go." [98]. CNXSoft, personal blog, see quote "I aim to share some of my knowledge though this blog and possibly learn from others as well." [99]. This Week Bangalore, press release, see the quote "Press Release" [100]. gizmag, repost of someone else's content, lacks any depth if coverage about the company. EE Herald, press release, see quote "Source: Toradex" [101]. etc? such as APN News, press release, compare it [102] with This Week Bangalore [103]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now let's look at "Biggest Embedded Industry leader's websites". ARM? who? that goes to a disambiguation page? How about the link? Just a company listing. Freescale, just a listing, nothing independent. Microsoft, blogs.msdn.com, "Partner Spotlight", not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbling Cat

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

No evidence of notability. The article was created to promote Potions: A Curious Tale, a non-notable game. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 03:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Psychotic Spartan 123 03:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP: GNG. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 03:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No longer fails WP: GNG User:RikuKat (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in use are not reliable, independent sources. (?) czar ⨹ 08:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. RikuKat's attempt is appreciated morally here, but a business registration (not in-depth by nature, only proves existence) and a link to a ~~non-notable~~ previous project by one of the founders is far from satisfying the notability requirements. It is unsurprisingly hard to establish notability when the company's only product listed in the article has still not confirmed its release date. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah AirMech is okay (in notability), but still notability is not inherited just by sharing common key people. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. The1337gamer (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to the related Potions game would be worthwhile, but that's also at AfD and I don't think it will stay. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 08:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Piar

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

Mission Piar has since been discontinued and changed names several times since 2003 (Plan Piar, Misión Piar, Reconversión Minera, Plan Caura). There are no sources and the mission is no longer as notable as other Bolivarian missions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiaLater (talk • contribs) 02:38, 28 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that notability is not temporary if you haven't already: Even if the project is defunct, notability is established by sources from its time, in whichever name it used to be in. For full consideration, adding more {{Find sources AFD}} for all the past names. I see a few plausible hits, but I don't read Spanish well enough to say for sure. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 03:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NTEMP. Amortias (T)(C) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potions: A Curious Tale

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

Unsourced article with no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. In addition, WP:CRYSTAL applies. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 02:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been looking forward to this game, why delete the entry only to put it back when it goes live? - dennisandvicki, 02:02, 31 March 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisandvicki (talk • contribs)
Delete No references. Not enough people have heard of it. Possible self-promotion, because only the creator(s) and their friends have likely played this game. Psychotic Spartan 123 03:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the user, RikuKat also made the page Stumbling Cat which promotes the video game company that produced Potions: A Curious Tale. WP:SOAP. Psychotic Spartan 123 03:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References exist. Credible claim of significance, has following of several hundred people. User_talk:RikuKat — Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article maintains neutral tone, so WP:SOAP does not apply. User_talk:RikuKat03:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to make this notable. WP: TOOSOON. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 03:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The development blog for this game has hundreds of followers: [104] As does the development stream: http://www.twitch.tv/rikukitty The lead developer is extremely active in the game development community has a large following [105] and has appeared as a guest on game development talks with Rami Ismail [106] 03:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RikuKat (talk • contribs)

comment Youtube, forums, and blogs aren't reliable sources. Psychotic Spartan 123 04:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck your bolded !vote above. Comments are unlimited, but you can only !vote once in an AfD czar ⨹ 08:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, there's no independent coverage at all of this game. The1337gamer (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets since its parent company article will similarly be deleted. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 08:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to M. Padmakumar. Closing early as both nom & MQS prefer redirect and no one's !voted or objected so speeding it up. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanal Movie

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

Non notable film that is yet to be released-the only refs were to Facebook. Wgolf (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect for now as TOO SOON to director M. Padmakumar where it can be spoken of and sourced as a planned project and his first with Mohanlal in five years. As the topic is getting coverage, we can allow a return once filming begins. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-A redirect probably does sound like the best Wgolf (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mokhtar Jomehzadeh

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on what presumably meant as a claim that the Azadegan League is fully pro, a claim not supported by reliable sources at WP:FPL or elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud Poormohamad

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. De-PROD rationale was I don't get this nomination either. Article states he appeared many times last season for Malavan F.C. in Iranian Pro League listed in WP:FPL. A claim I in turn don't understand, since the infobox pretty clearly says that he has played for Rahian Kermanshah F.C. since 2013. His appearances for Malavian were all in the 2nd tier of Iranian football. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be notable - thanks to @Nfitz: for the research. @Sir Sputnik: you might want to withdraw seeing as there are no no remaining 'delete' !votes. Giant Snowman 17:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the info box says he had 19 appearances from 2010 to 2012 (oops last team, not last season) for Malavan F.C. in Iranian Pro League listed in WP:FPL. Malavan has been continually in this league since 2004. What confuses things is that there seems to be 2 Soccerway entries, both [107] confirming 14 appearances at Malavan and [108] showing recent play. The keeper who played for Malavan clearly and easily meets WP:FPL. But is this the same player as this article claims? Nfitz (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found an interview with him that mentions his play both at Malavan F.C. and Rahian Kermanshah F.C., so it is the same keeper and [109] confirms that he had many appearances for Malavan F.C. who are in the Iranian Pro League listed in WP:FPL. I also found [110] and [111] which list two entries for him, though the first also links Malavan F.C. and Rahian Kermanshah F.C.. So definitely meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As nominator. @GiantSnowman:, you may want to re-evaluate your !vote. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kenneth Ferrier

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

No secondary sources, no articles about him, article reads like a resume. Page was setup right around when he went into private practice and has links to his business. mikeman67 (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No position that he's ever held constitutes any sort of notability freebie on Wikipedia, if reliable source coverage isn't there to support it. For the record, this was created as part of a larger project of creating almost-entirely primary sourced articles about all past treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada, out of the misguided notion that it was a notability freebie even in the absence of any actual sourcing — so the timing vis-à-vis his private practice is purely coincidental, rather than the crux of why it happened. Delete unless RS coverage can be located. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada ended in no consensus, there being no consensus that the office (as the highest office within the gift of the practitioners of a country, state or province or the highest office in the governing body of the practitioners of a country, state or province, or something to that effect) was not inherently notable. James500 (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Judge of the General Division of the Ontario Court of Justice, and of the Superior Court of Justice: [112]. Treasurer of the aforementioned Law Society. Adequate coverage is likely to exist, even if we cannot find it (NRVE). Some coverage in GNews. James500 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From NRVE: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. IOW, it's not enough to claim that sourcing is likely to exist; even if you don't add it all to the article in one shot, the onus is still on you to prove — not just assert, but "show your work here and now" prove — that a GNG-satisfying level of RS coverage does exist. As well, a WP:BLP is required to have at least one reliable source in it right off the top — but this has none, which means it was technically eligible (and still is) for an immediate WP:BLPPROD. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I disagree. NRVE also says that if coverage is likely to exist, deletion is per se not appropriate, whether that sourcing is produced or not. NRVE also says that if sourcing exists, it need not be directly cited at AfD. What that means is that I don't have to produce a webliography of sources that come up immediately in GNews, because asking me to do so would clearly be a time wasting tactic. Because if you want to see that sourcing, you need only search for "Lee Ferrier" in GNews, and it takes you straight to it. I haven't claimed that unspecified sources exist. I have claimed that specified sourcing exists in GNews, and I have told you exactly where to find it, and other sources are likely to exist because of the nature of the office (what I had in mind was biographies, law reports and other discussion of his judgements). What that passage you cited from NRVE is talking about is sources that are claimed to exist in cases where the nature of the topic (ie very trivial, obscure, etc, which this one isn't) makes it unlikely that any sources would exist. This, as a government source, is clearly a reliable source. As is this from the Law Society. So BLPPROD isn't available. James500 (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the links you posted are pretty clearly trivial coverage. Nor are they independent of the subject (both of those are bodies that he was apart of). I don't believe that every Ontario judge is automatically notable. I haven't found any coverage of him, beyond a passing mention of him in some news articles. mikeman67 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think ordinary judges of the court (there are well over 200 of them) qualify as notable. They're just your ordinary court judges, and we don't usually have articles on those for Canada or any other country. The senior judges are notable, but not those at his level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

200 is not a number that is obviously too large. I would need some point of reference in order to assess that number anyway. The Ontario Court of Justice and Ontario Superior Court of Justice would appear, at first sight, to satisfy POLITICIAN as province-wide courts. I'm not sure what "ordinary court judges" means. Are they capable of setting binding or persuasive precedent? Do they have appellate functions? Can they try the most serious offences, and especially treason and murder? (Not all judges can). James500 (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm struggling to understand why those questions have any bearing on notability. If notability is meant to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of reliable sources to create an article, then whether or not the court itself can try serious offences seems to be irrelevant. But to answer your questions: yes Superior Court justices are capable of setting precedent (to other members of the court and to the Ontario Court of Justice, to Small Claims court, family court; persuasive authority to other provinces's inferior courts). The Superior Court has a few, restricted appellate functions (such as hearing appeals from the Ontario Court of Justice). However, the central appellate court in Ontario is the Ontario Court of Appeal. Yes, the Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear criminal trials, including murder or treason. mikeman67 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that it has always been our practice (established many times at AfD) to keep judges at the higher level (e.g. US state supreme/superior court, English High Court), but not the lower level (e.g. US county and municipal court, English crown court). All these judges can try all cases and set precedent. It just so happens that (unlike the USA) all Canadian judges are provincial officials and members of the provincial superior court - that doesn't give them a free pass (all British judges are national officials - that doesn't give them a free pass either). If it did give them a free pass that would show clear bias in favour of Canadian judges against judges of other countries, and I have no idea why this should be sensible. Unfortunately, WP:POLITICIAN when referring to judges is clearly only really referring to US judges (where state judges are a level above ordinary trial judges) and not Canada (where most provincial judges are ordinary trial judges) - it should be rewritten. The senior judges of the provincial superior court should be seen as falling within the category defined by WP:POLITICIAN and therefore as notable, but the others should not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to briefly add some info, all judges of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice are appointed federally, not provincially. Their authority derives from inherent jurisdiction, which is enshrined in the Canadian constitution. It's not correct to say they are "provincial judges," per se. That would be true of the Ontario Court of Justice, which is something else. Administrative aspects are carried out at the provincial level, however. mikeman67 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 19:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to set a binding precedent is suggested as a test for notability by WP:JUDGE. The other tests I suggested appear to me to be common sense indicators of both (thinking of the introduction to BIO) significance and (thinking of NRVE) the likelihood of coverage (precedents tend to be covered by law reports and trials for the most serious offences tend to receive coverage anyway). I'm not aware of reliable statistics for practice at AfD. I agree that the concept of "national/sub-national office" poses problems, but I don't think the test proposed by Necrothesp is any better. I'm not sure how the two levels he refers to are being defined. I also notice a number of apparently erroneous assumptions. There are other "levels" in the English system (eg magistrates and Court of Appeal). Not all British judges are national officials. IIRC, whether the Crown Court can set a binding precedent is disputed. High Court judges sit in the Crown Court and the 1998 practice direction on allocation of business ([1995] 1 WLR 1083, amended by [1998] 1 WLR 1244) gave them most class 1 offences exclusively, though cases of murder and incitement, attempt or conspiracy to murder could be released to a circuit judge approved for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor (now changed). And then, to blur distinctions and make things really confusing, circuit judges and recorders can sit as High Court judges as a part of their office as a circuit judge or recorder (Courts Act 1971, s 23). And I am told that the circuit judges and recorders usually get good coverage. James500 (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be evidence of his judgements being cited ("Ferrier J" is an abbreviation for "Mr Justice Ferrier": Searching for citations of case law of a particular judge poses serious problems because citations don't normally include the name of the judge, on the relatively rare occasions when his name is used it will often be cryptically abbreviated to something like "per Ferrier J" (and, no, that particular search won't return even the majority of citations because that expression isn't normally included, though it does return some), and GScholar doesn't seem to include all reported cases (I know this because I tested it with Crown Court decisions reported in the Criminal Law Review and cited in the table of cases of the 1989 edition of Clerk and Lindsell on Torts and couldn't find all them). However the citing documents do indicate that the cited cases of Low v. Low, Smith v. Robinson and Fryda and Johnson were indeed decided by "Ferrier J". I am sure there will be many more that I can't find because of the cryptic way in which cases are cited.) James500 (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, nothing erroneous on my part. All British judges are indeed national officials - no judges are appointed at a county level (maybe you are confused by the term "county court judge"?). And I was referring to the judiciary, not the magistracy (who are obviously the lowest level). I also said higher and lower level and not highest and lowest level, an important distinction. Obviously the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court are higher. We have indeed always held that British circuit judges and American judges of a similar level are not generally notable by virtue of their position. So you do seem to be arguing special status for Canadian judges, which will allow far more of them to be considered notable than other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't see the basis for saying that the American, British and Canadian judges are analogous. It is not clear what characteristics they have in common, and what sources support that proposition. Higher and lower level is not a meaningful distinction. Judges at a lower level in one country might have much greater powers than judges at a lower level in another. In that case they would not be analogous. In order to be analogous, they must, to begin with, have the same powers. That has not been demonstrated (and it would require the production of sources). I'm not convinced that judges were not appointed at the county court level before those courts were "nationalised" by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Although circuit judges and recorders could, by virtue of their office, sit as judges in any county court, my reading of section 9 of the County Courts Act 1984 and sections 50 and 51 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 is that a person could be appointed as a district judge if, roughly speaking, he had been a barrister or solicitor for five years. If there was a provision requiring that he also be a judge of the Crown Court, or providing that he becomes one as part of his office as a district judge, I haven't seen it. So I am not convinced that district judges were "national", particulary as they could be assigned to a single district (s 6(2)(a)), whereas the circuit judges and recorders could sit anywhere (s 5). That is another apparently erroneous assumption that causes me to further doubt this line of argument. And I can't remember a single instance of an English circuit judge being deleted at AfD, despite watching DSLAW for many years, so I doubt that there is such a practice. James500 (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you probably don't realise that English "district judges" until very recently used to be called stipendiary magistrates (formerly police magistrates) and were members of the magistracy and not the judiciary (which are distinct in the English system). They are therefore not on the level we are considering here. So once again, no error on my part. And circuit judges have most definitely been deleted at AfD, as have many American judges. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am, and was, well aware that some "district judges" (who are technically known as "district judge (magistrates' court)") were formerly called stipendiary magistrates: [113]. But others (strictly called "district judges") were formerly called county court registrars and district registrars: [114]. If someone's title is "district judge", I'm afraid I have to infer that he is indeed a judge, at least for the purposes of any guideline of ours, in the absence of a actual definition in that guideline. This book, from Oxford University Press, says that even DJMCs are part of the judiciary. Law Notes, a periodical for students, has the aforementioned county court registrars as "clearly and firmly" part of the judiciary in 1988, before the advent of "district judges". If English circuit judges have been deleted at AfD, kindly identify the AfDs in question. Even if they exist, I may still conclude they are outliers or too old to be relevant. James500 (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Suttungr (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You might like to read WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, which is one of the "arguments to avoid". James500 (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took the trouble to run this through LexisNexis, only 1 mention in Supreme Court of Canada decisions and 22 mentions for Ontario Court of Appeal and Superior Court of Justice decisions. Lack of secondary reliable sources establishing notability is also a major issue. If there is any landmark cases brought to my attention, I am more than happy to consider. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if you mean regular LexisNexis or their Quicklaw legal service, but I searched his name as a judge on Westlaw Canada and came up with 495 results. Some of those are probably appeals of his decisions. I believe his most famous decision is this one, which is publicly viewable here: http://canlii.ca/t/205dq. It's been considered over 50 times by other courts, but I'm not sure if it would be considered a "landmark" decision. However, I believe the central issue is a lack of reliable sources to make a page. mikeman67 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CS#A7 (I changed my mind). Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keyaira D. Saunders

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, candidate for city council without any other signs of notability. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Needs to get elected first. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the article, but I improved it, and I believe the stub was created in good faith.

Additional references will be added LATE tonight and tomorrow to establish notability. If you are looking for a reason to delete, any one will do. If you are looking for reasons not to, you can find them. *Disclaimer-Editorializing- Our system is messed up with rules so strongly favoring the establishment that nobody running for office is given the chance to establish notability unless they have already been elected. I'll go cite a couple more sources for you and put them on the talk page. There is no need to arrogantly delete everything right away, since there will be about a thousand people who find the Wiki article useful if you just let it stay up until May 9th.DCdanielcaldwell 03:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwaysremember (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not an election hustings. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete.Advertisment and no indication of significance.Nicky mathew (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN. The only information I can find is routine election coverage. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason to keep it. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People "running for office" are not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Caldwell article was tagged for speedy delete, and I deleted it. Caldwell (who is Alwaysremember above), vigorously complained on my talk page here. I'm tempted to speedy delete this article as recommended by RHaworth, but I'll let another administrator deal with it, either through the usual week-long AfD or whatever they think is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, and Ballotpedia is user edited, and not a reliable source. The other reference is a routine list of candidates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7: "Candidate for … City Council" is not a claim of significance or importance. If a credible claim is added, then Delete as non-notable. —teb728 t c 06:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Election campaigning is an abuse of Wikipedia. This should have been speedied, instead we are now forced to waste several days on going through the motions just to get rid of a blatantly spammy non-notable topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Taylor (actress)

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

Fails WP:ACTORBIO, "known for" role has not aired yet, all non-notable shows (all redlinks). Created by possibly a promotional account given the user name. WP:TOOSOON. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A handful of credits in a really obscure film and TV series --> way TOOSOON. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 05:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above after a quick scan. I could change my view if new information emerges.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This actress is currently airing on Netflix on Richie Rich and filming Best Friends Whenever on Disney Channel which will be airing in August. There is no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.118.37 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - way way TOOSOON. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Ilie (footballer, born 1995)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that article appears quite significant. This is not a policy based argument. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to this brief mention by a local news outlet, he almost made the team in a friendly tournament, but was placed on loan at a team in a lower league. It also suggests he was at the time a member of his country's U19 national team, but I can't find any details about that.- Andrei (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leeza Mangaldas

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

Was going to put this on a prod but someone did over a month ago and it was removed by the article creator. Anyway unotable actress who falls under way too soon. Only 2 roles (and one was a short film) to date. Wgolf (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't establish notability, but I don't have the linguistic skills to feel confident I haven't missed anything. Pinging Athachil who applied the prod. Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I proposed this article for deletion as the subject has acted only in one movie, the movie itself is not a notable one. I couldn't find any sources which backs WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. Athachil (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With the additional Farsi sources, the recent comments to the discussion moved towards the consensus that the relevant inclusion guidelines have been met. Der yck C. 20:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abolfazl Bahadorani

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on a claim that he has played in the Iranian Pro League. A claim not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - before I spend too much time on a wild goose chase, which reliable sources do you have that indicate that Bahadorani didn't play in a fully professional league. Also, can you relist Yampi and Poormohamad in separate AFDs? There seems to be ample evidence that they played professionally ... unless I've once again confused Iran and Iraq ... :) Nfitz (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source listed in the article only lists appearances in the Azadegan League. Absent sources confirming it, we can't assume he has played in the Persian Gulf Pro League (or any other FPL for that matter). Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one appearances a few years ago (to technically meet WP:NFOOTBALL) is not enough when he fails WP:GNG. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takumi Ogawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Fish (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Giant Snowman 09:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why do you persist in claiming he only has 1 appearance when 2 appearances have been documented. [115] shows 2 appearances in 2009/2010 (1 whole match and another match where he started but did not complete). These matches are August 2009 and October. Nfitz (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Farsi version of this page fa:ابوالفضل بهادرانی says that he used to play with Foolad F.C.. And old edit of that page from 5 years ago does show him in the squad - [116] and he does appear in 2009–10 Foolad F.C. season. The question is, did he make an appearance? Are there any good sources of line-ups or stats from that period? At the age of 36, I do have to wonder where the records of the rest of his career are. Nfitz (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence he ever actually palyed for Foolad FC, so he does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually User:Johnpacklambert he did make a start for Foolad F.C. according to [117]. It was on the season opener August 6, 2009. Thus he has made at least one appearance in a league listed in WP:FPL meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this certainly raises some interesting questions, it is still not enough for notability in my opinion. There's a fairly well-established consensus that older footballers who are at or near the end of their career with only a small number of WP:FPL appearances fall under the part of the lede of WP:NSPORT which says meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept (emphasis theirs), as evidenced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Nițu and other afd's listed by GiantSnowman in that discussion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there is consensus at a large number of AFDs that one appearance is not sufficient when a player so comprehensively fails GNG. That applies here as well. Giant Snowman 20:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've freqently kept the article of an active player as soon as evidence of a fully professional start has been found. The goal post is moving here. You prodded the article claiming he hadn't played in a fully-pro league. When challeneged that the linked Farsi version claimed he had played in fully pro league you then nominated for deletion with claim that there were no reliable sources that he had played in fully pro league. When provided with a reliable source that he had played in a fully pro league and thus meets WP:NFOOTBALL you are now trying to ignore WP:NFOOTBALL. The basis of the nomination hasn't been met. I'm also curious as to where he was before his 2009 pro appearance. He was already in his 30s then - it seems unlikely he appeared from nowhere. It would be nice if people would research these players properly before nominating or voting delete. And it would be nice if people didn't falsely claim that WP:NFOOTBALL hasn't been met, when it has. Nfitz (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we traditionally allow greater tolerance when it is a young player at the start of their career. But a 36 year old whose sole professional appearance came 6 years ago?! C'mon... Giant Snowman 23:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sole~~ documented appearance on a team listed in WP:FPL. But we can't document where he was for the previous 10-15 years ... it seems odd that he's the starter for top team one season, and can't be found the year before. I think we are missing something. I'm also trying to verify he is really that old. And surely he's still a professional player - he is playing for the reserve squad these days, for the team he made an appearance for in 2009. It's not like his career is over ... 36 is often when keepers hit their prime. Still, I'm not sure why you haven't deleted your comment about the player not meeting WP:NFOOTBALL - which he does. Nfitz (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote above clarified. Giant Snowman 09:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your clarification above is based on a "sole" appearance, which isn't the case. The examples you cite above all appear to be either for players who only had a sole appearance (often for only a few minutes), or have retired; the only exception I can see was since recreated and kept. I don't see any examples of players who had multiple-appearances in a national highest-level league who are still active (heck, I'm not sure there's even any examples for someone who had a sole appearance in a national top-level league and are still active!) Nfitz (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he didn't have a "sole" appearance. He also played an entire match on October 27, 2009 - [118]. Nfitz (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we don't even know how many appearances he made? Seeing as this which 'you provided says only one, now you say two...? Giant Snowman 09:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I initially misinterpreted that table. I thought it said he had 1 appearance, and 1 game where he left during the match. What it says is that he played 1 "Whole" match and 1 other match which he did not complete (if you read down, there are players who had 0 "Whole" appearances, but many games where they entered or exited matches). After I realised that, it was just a matter of finding that second match. I think there were only 2 appearances that season ... though he was almost 31 when he first appears out of nowhere ... I'd guess he was bouncing around the lower leagues and reserve squad before that, but it seems odd that I can't find any record of it. Nfitz (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AZADEGAN IS A PROFESSIONAL LEAGUE! (unsigned comment by User:Perspolis-ghermez)

If User:Perspolis-ghermez could provide a reference supporting that, it would really help the debate. Nfitz (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is mentioned in the Foolad F.C. official website that he has played in 16 games as a goalkeeper for this team. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the sources he is notable.Samək^Talk 10:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per mehran Hhplactube (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mamikon Mkrtchyan

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

I put a blp prod on this but I'm starting to wonder if this guy is even notable at all seen kind of a slanted bias too which it might be a complete COI Wgolf (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources found from a Google/GNews/GBooks search. --Michig (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per several source searches, the subject has not received coverage to meet WP:BASIC, and not finding any evidence of meeting WP:CREATIVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Edge

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

A user who seems to be Paul Edge has requested deletion of this page here. I believe we should honour that wish. After all, this article is basically unsourced anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not going to comment on the user's request, but I think it can be deleted as completely unsourced, and the notability is also questionable. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 00:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person would have to verify their identity through the WP:OTRS process in order for us to give weight to their request. So, I will look at the article only on the face of it. This article is referenced only to IMdB, which is insufficient in itself for establishing notability. So, delete unless we see a dramatic improvement in sourcing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the request, subject seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO or at least I couldn't find enough sources that could put him past it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 09:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this unsourced (except for the unreliable IMDB) BLP article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found an AllMusic page but nothing else. This is a serious BLP violation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia Magazine

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

Promotional article that does not establish the subject's notability; no coverage in reliable third-party sources. Huon (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain as stub. Remove all the unsourced stuff. Appears to exist and might have coverage in the future. (I basically am a WP:Deletionist.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note.Could just be a matter of time before it gets noticed. See https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Mafia+Magazine%22. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice Madegray, the creator, has blanked it, and no one else has added any substantial content. Is this a G7? ekips39 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reverted the blanking. IMO this magazine is probably notable given that it's been around for ten years. Let's let the AfD run its course to see if anyone can find RS. Pax 08:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides no evidence of notability, and I have been unable to find any. Ok, "might have coverage in the future" and "Could just be a matter of time before it gets noticed"; if it does become notable, then an article can be created. Maproom (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask, where are the citations/references for this article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Is_%28Nitzer_Ebb_EP%29 and I am sure I can find several others in just minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madegray (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Pax 22:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But he's right, that is another strong candidate for deletion. Maproom (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No; he's wrong, because that's not the point he was trying to make. The essence of WP:OTHERSTUFF argumentation is that non-notable material be retained because there are other inferior articles on the encyclopedia. While that may be true, the argument is invalid. Pax 08:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep and rename as Utoy, Georgia. Already renamed; I asked Carrite to do further rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utoy Village

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

Apparently there was a Native American village at Utoy Creek, but that doesn't mean much. There were Native American villages all over North America back then; few, if any, were officially recognized. Fails WP:NGEO. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There does appear to be evidence that the village existed. Officially recognized is irrelevant because Native American villages were never under the jurisdiction of US law. The treaties recognized territories, not villages. Doesn't matter, they were inhabited places. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. According to NGEO, being inhabited isn't enough; "populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis" and revert to the standard "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources". See any? I don't. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that a guideline about the notability of places "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc." is inappropriate when we are talking about a place and a culture that was never legally recognized until after the inhabitants had been forcibly relocated to somewhere else. There is enough material to write about the original inhabitants of what is now Fulton County, Georgia, e.g. here. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. There may or may not be enough material for Native Americans in Fulton County, Georgia. There is none for one specific village; all it says is "Garrett denoted 20 villages, most concentrated along the Chattahoochee River, Peachtree Creek, Nancy Creek, Utoy Creek and Camp Creek." Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is a problem that occurs in AfD discussions – the nom suggests a narrow definition of the topic and wants to delete the article because he can't find sources for that topic. I'm assuming here that this article was created by someone who took the bus tour and visited the village. Granted, that is pretty weak in terms of WP:V. But there are sources for other things mentioned in the article, such as the local Native American culture, the Sandtown Trail, the treaty, the Civil War battle, the post office, and the postwar suburb. If we want sources for that stuff, let's tag it for sources. The article claims that this was the first area in the Atlanta region to be settled by Europeans, because the land had already been cleared by Native American farmers. If that's true, it seems notable to me.

I'll add that I'm especially reluctant to !vote delete because of the wording of the nomination. This may have been unintentional, but it seems to be suggesting a general principle – that Native American villages all over North America were insignificant and can be excluded from WP for lack of legal recognition from authorities who came later. I'm really reluctant to agree with that. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see a problem with verification? Nothing in the article is sourced (I wouldn't call an anonymously written paragraph or two reliable), and very little of the unreferenced stuff even has anything to do with the village. Nobody back then seems to have written much down about it or 99% of the other Native American settlements of the time. "In 1521, the village was likely visited by ... Ponce de León" simply because he was in the area?

A "narrow definition"? The article is titled "Utoy Village", not Things that happened or possibly happened somewhere in the vicinity of Utoy Village or where it used to be. "August 267th [sic] 1864 the Entire [sic] US Army moved down the Fairburn Road in the vicinity of the town of Utoy"? Somehow, I doubt the entire Union Army was on the move, but even ignoring this inaccuracy, so what? I'm pretty sure Sherman and his men marched past a lot of places on their March to the Sea. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is actually an interesting question. There is no doubt that there was a village or villages along Utoy Creek. Whether they were named "Utoy Village" is more dubious; this strikes me as modern nomenclature. I see that we have a Battle of Utoy Creek on WP, from the American Civil War. I see that there is a Utoy Cemetery that may well have enough sourcing in the world to merit a GNG pass. But "Utoy Village?" That I sort of doubt. While there were hundreds or thousands of first nations in the US and Canada and each different from one another, I know that in my region of the country "villages" were fairly temporary, with seasonal changes of location and probably moves of the winter camps from one place to another over time. It strikes me as unlikely that the same "Utoy Village" which "may" have been visited by Ponce de Leon was the same as the locale of later village or villages in that general area. There is evidence, I SEE, of an 1821 Utoy post office. So I think this is probably a "named inhabited place" in WP terms, albeit perhaps a ghost town. If you put all these things together, I think there is probably enough material for a piece on Utoy, Georgia. But "Utoy Village?" Not so sure... Carrite (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is starting to look like my above hunch is right. Here is Herr's Episodes of the Civil War, pg. 280: "...While these movements were being made the army of the Tennessee marched to the vicinity of Utoy village [note capitalization. -t.d.], where it was massed facing south, and forming the right of the army." — This is highly indicative of an inhabited place called Utoy, Georgia — and it would be very easy to integrate the aboriginal history of the vicinity into a historical narrative about the place. That strikes me as the correct decision under our notability rules, in which consensus has traditionally regarded all named, inhabited places of confirmed existence as presumably notable. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Utoy, Georgia. Rewrite existing content to form and integrate post 1820 history of the place (ghost town?) into the same page. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THIS indicates the Utoy cemetery is on the Georgia list of historic places and mentions the existence of a Utoy Primitive Baptist Church (now renamed). Apparently Utoy is part of Atlanta today. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Clarityfiend and Margin1522 to see if they find my argument persuasive. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I would be fine with that. The cemetery definitely exists, see also here. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit flimsier than I'd like, but the Herr mention and the various other bits and pieces are, I suppose, enough, barely, maybe. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this closes as a Keep, will the closing administrator please ping me and I will put the full rewrite on my "to-do" list. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Jhaveri

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

Fails WP:BIO - non-notable individual with no significant coverage from third party sources. A summary of the sources can be found on the article talk page. KH-1 (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered as significant sources? Being published in a major magazine or being founder of multiple companies and a charity is not considered notable? There are many examples of similar profiles on wikipedia such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepen_Shah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Cuffe

The profile follows guidelines of WikiProject Biography.

KH-1 has been biased on getting the profile deleted without any major constructive criticism or research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.11.53 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate accusations of bad-faith. According to WP:BASIC - 'People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.' The existing coverage (as outlined on the talk page) simply does not meet this criteria. -KH-1 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bailey

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the claims in the article can be sourced - the subject either fails WP:BIO or might simply not even exist. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, the only source that I can find is this one, and I am not even sure if that is a reliable source. Therefore, unless reliable sources can be found that give the subject significant coverage, the subject appears to fail WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 15:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridie Goldstein Run for Children

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

Non-notable and no reliable outside sources to be found. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not establish notability when I tagged this in June 2014. Kvng (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article per WP:N. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Core stability. Nakon 21:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Core muscle training

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable. One of the references is to a book by Oswaldo Koch--the page was created by Oskoch (clear COI). It's been 10 years and nothing has been done to confirm notability of this subject, likely because it just can't be. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried to confirm notability of this subject? Siuenti (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Siuenti: I've looked into it more and it seems like this essentially blends Core stability and Abdominal exercise. It is fairly clear that the original Core muscle training article was intended to promote the creating editor's own work, which is likely why this redundant article was created. I don't believe it provides any more information than either of the articles above, however, it may be better to do a merge and/or redirect than a straight AfD. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those. I'd be happy with a redirect to core stability while hoping someone knowledgeable comes along to improve it. Siuenti (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems to claim that the notability of the topic can't be confirmed. That is quite false. For example, see:

Delavier's Core Training Anatomy
Core Assessment and Training
The Complete Book of Core Training
Core Strength Training
Developing the Core
Push-Up Progression Workout for a Stronger Core
Core Strength Workout
Effects of core muscle strengthening training on flexibility, muscular strength and driver shot performance in female professional golfers
Core muscle activation during Swiss ball and traditional abdominal exercises
Core training: stabilizing the confusion
Does core strength training influence running kinetics, lower-extremity stability, and 5000-M performance in runners?
The effects of preseason trunk muscle training on low-back pain occurrence in women collegiate gymnasts

Andrew D. (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to core stability Wgolf (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't find much info on the page that can be merged. It's better if redirected. Dormantos (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Projector PSA

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

The few sources that can be accessed are not true third party sources, or, like ref 3, press releases. Given the very minor prizes, Iwouldn;t expect more DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many source links were broken. Updated source links with current URLs. Added additional source from third party (ref 4). Ref 3 is article written by industry analyst, not press release as stated. TimeThief123 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reference #3 in the current version is definitely not a press release, but maybe numbering has changed. What it actually is is a trivial mention in an article about a broader subject, and thus doesn't convey notability. However, references #1, #4, and #7 are reports by industry experts which appear to be reliable sources. Reference #5 is a professional editorial review. Combined, these sources show that the GNG is met. For the record, there are zero press releases in the current version of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep the writeups I looked at were independently written, so WP:GNG is met OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qualex-Landmark

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

promotional article for non notable firm. The prizes are minor--either very narrow categories or local. The references are o routine announcements or press releases DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - teh article's language could definitely use some weasel word cleansing and the awards may well be unimportant and perhaps should be removed from the article. However, AfD is not for cleanup and the company is notable as a new search shows - there are a few trivial/routine stories in the mix, but plenty of good ones too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough claims of importance outside of any awards. Although referencing here is mostly to press releases and its own website, I can see there are plenty of other available references in newspapers like the Calgary Sun and Calgary Herald. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment as far as I can tell by he references, essentially every one of the awards is local to the Calgary region. the article says "The majority of Qualex-Landmark projects have been designed by architect, Foad Rafii, described by The Vancouver Sun as one of the 10 architects who have shaped Vancouver today" So he did, but he's notable for his other work, as the article on him makes clear, and primarily in Vancouver, as even the sentence in the article makes clear. Looking at the Google Rreferences, most of them mention him in the context of a general discussion (as this or are pure press releases , such as this, which is closer to an advertisement than a press release . DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyme Skool with Katrina Kaif

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

The article was previously subject of an AfD (refer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nursery Rhymes Audio CD) but was deleted as the editor blanked the page and re-created the article under the current title Rhyme Skool with Katrina Kaif. The article does not satisfy any of the criteria under WP:NALBUMS and has had a notability tag since June 2014. Dan arndt (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fairly notable, I do not see where it is written like an advertisement. Though some more secondary and tertiary citations like [119],[120], [121], [122] needs to be added. Mr RD 15:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm rather on the fence at the moment but almost inclining to a a "weak keep". I was the one who had tagged it as an advert back in 2014 when it contained stuff like this. I'm surprised that the` later editors who cleaned up and copyedited the article didn't remove that tag. The references found by Mr RD are from considerably better sources than the ones currently in the article and do comment on the music, not just the launch publicity , plus there's this one from the Indian Express. It might scrape a pass on GNG. I just don't know enough about the Indian music scene to know what kind of music charts they have, if any, and whether this album or its Vol 2 ever placed on them. Thus, I'd be reluctant to apply the criteria at WP:ALBUM too stringently or exclude the article solely on those grounds. Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, I believe the article passes on GNG from some of the facts about the personalities associated with it as well as the coverage it has received in Indian media. Since Indian media news do not get crawled much efficiently in Google news therefore sometimes it becomes difficult to search for them. Talking about the persons associated with this album, A. R. Rahman is a world renowned music composer-singer while Katrina Kaif is a famous actress. In India, not much reliable and famous music charts are there therefore notability can not be judged on that behalf. Also as these are the nursery rhymes therefore coming of them in any charts is not possible either. For India related articles, please use this tool to search for notable media citations. Mr RD 16:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure notability can be inherited to this extent. If A. R. Rahman himself had composed the songs, it would different. Instead, they were composed by his students. But I agree that it may pass GNG on the coverage you've found. Still thinking on this, but I may well !vote "Keep" in the end. Voceditenore (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Abel Pintos

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

I know there are a lot of these type of lists (see Category:Lists of songs by recording artists), but not all musical acts have them so I am wondering what is the criteria to have one. I am nominating this one because none of the songs or albums by the artist have their own articles and all of the sources are primary. According to WP:LISTN, none of the songs have to be notable but the collection of songs here would have to be discussed in independent reliable sources. So in this case, the discography section on Abel Pintos should suffice. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fine example of list-cruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None are sourced, None are wikilinked, As Lugnuts says this is a fine example of listcruft, I'm beginning to wonder if Abel Pintos should be up here too but perhaps that's jumping the gun. –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar ⨹ 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Mungello

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

Doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC White Whirlwind 咨 16:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mungello is a full professor at Baylor. He has published a long list of book with university presses, several of which have been translated into other languages. The books have been respectfully reviewed in major journals. both his books and his scholarly articles get cited. Even on wikipedia itself, multiple pages on China-related topics link to his page. A full professorship at a major university, along with a string of well-received books that, along with your articles, are cited by scholars who follow you is what notability consists of for history professors. More can quite easily be written about how his work has influenced the field by anyone with the inclination to do so who can access JSTOR and other caches of scholarly book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it helps, the academic's:

h-index is 11.
g-index is 28.
total number of citations is 812.

Don't solely use these figures for voting: they are only indicators of significance under WP:NACADEMICS#1. Esquivalience ^t 23:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- His CV (cited as a reference) lists large numbers of publications, smany by reputabale academic publishers. Terhe should be no question of doeing anything else. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inadequate article for highly notable academic author. According to WorldCat, his principal book, The forgotten Christians of Hangzhou is held in 1700 libraries; The great encounter of China and the West, 1500-1800 is held in 1491 (and translated into Chinese and into Korean) ; Drowning girls in China : female infanticide since 1650 in 663; Leibniz and Confucianism, the search for accord in 608 (and translated into Chinese) ; Curious land : Jesuit accommodation and the origins of Sinology in 546 (and translated into Chinese); The spirit and the flesh in Shandong, 1650-1785 in 266 (and translated into Chinese) ; Western queers in China : flight to the land of Oz in 223; The Chinese rites controversy : its history and meaning in 149 ^[1]. I've copied this sentence into the article. There aren multiple reviews for most of these listed in Worldcat [123]. Meets WP author because of the reviews; meets WP:PROF because clearly an authority in his field. h value is almost meaninglessmeaningless in the humanities ,as our article on it explains. it only works in those fields of science that depend upon journal articles and in which many people are publishing. Nonetheless, 812 citations to his works overall is quite high for this subject. . DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

José Martín Sámano

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

Does not meet notability under WP:BIO. All references currently provided in the article simply link to Samano's work (presumably because the creating user, Jmsamano, may have had a COI in writing this article). A search returns primarily links to Samano's work and IMDB-like sites. There does not seem to be any significant third-party coverage of the subject. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source One Television

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

Non-notable. Only references in the article right now are to the channel's own site and related content. A search returns no reliable, third-party sources that could make this subject meet WP:N. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete-per nom Wgolf (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'-actually I think a redirect to something else the more I look at it-not sure to what though. Suggestions? Wgolf (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay redirect to Faith TV. Wgolf (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayo Kaan

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

Delete: as non-notable, nonsensical, and mostly conjecture-ridden pablum. Quis separabit? 19:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G3) by MelanieN –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wynn

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

As it is, does not meet WP:GNG. For a person who allegedly owns so much and has done so much, there really ought to be more sources. There are a lot of claims to significance here, but none are backed up by sources. ubiquity (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why it pays to stay anonymus?

Becoming a newly minted millionaire comes at a personal price. You lose your anonymity. . Friends, family and random acquaintances alike, will try to get a piece of this windfall. Everyone is different. Some people will enjoy the spotlight, others won't. .. A lot of rich people come to realise latter in their lives, that there were better off if they stayed anonymous and avoid fights between family members after they passed way. Other reasons should also been taken in consideration: personal and family security, political reasons, etc…. Becoming a rich and famous person comes with another price: no privacy, or very little...

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in my searches I found a couple of trivial mentions and a bunch of false positives (including a professor of anthropology at the University of Colorado, a musical band - "Thomas Wynn & The Believers" - and the victim of a firearm) but nothing substantial or significant about this businessman. Fails GNG. Cavarrone 12:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Wynn "is reportedly building a private museum for some of his artwork on his Greenwich property. In the winter of 2005, it became known that in 1999 Wynn had bought Edvard Munch's Madonna. Reportedly, this was for $11.5 million." Meanwhile, apparently in a parallel universe, Steven A. Cohen "is reportedly building a private museum for some of his artwork on his Greenwich property. In the winter of 2005, it became known that in 1999 Cohen had bought Edvard Munch's Madonna. Reportedly, this was for $11.5 million." In fact, Wynn is pretty much copied from the well-referenced Cohen article, with a few changes here and there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagged for speedy deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Inspection 12. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Shad

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

Non-notable individual musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Early life section is a copy-vio/copy-paste from Inspection 12 with references about the band, not the subject. Death section makes little sense, and is uncited. Suggest redirect to band. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this tragic story of young death into Inspection 12.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criizter

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

Does not appear notable. The sources used in the article all appear to be social-media based and written by the subject or a fan. A search on Google did not reveal any reliable sources discussing the subject in depth (or at all even). SQGibbon (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodphil

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

While two articles about the event have been found both appear to be primary sources. I have not found in-depth persistent coverage of the multiple events associated with this article from non-primary sources, therefore the subject appears to fail WP:EVENT. Furthermore, this article can be argued to also fall under WP:ADVERT. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ben Jones. Nakon 00:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Root

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

Apparently non-notable band. No suitable sources found through a basic check, all the sources in the article are passing mentions, non-independent, or sales sites. A7 tag removed by IP (presumed to be the article creator while logged out, but for the sake of argument...), so I'm bringing it here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Band features Ben Jones, who already qualified for a Wikipedia page 3 years ago. Whilst a relatively new band, the members have established independent notoriety. Cartersengland Cartersengland

WP:NBAND requires that a band contains two or more notable musicians in order to become independently notable. Whilst Ben Jones has a Wikipedia page (and I'm none to sure that article actually meets the inclusion guidelines itself), Andrea MacGee does not, nor do sufficient sources appear to be available to warrant one. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ben Jones. Non-notable, fails WP:NBAND. The one independent source in the article, the Belfast Telegraph, mentions neither Jones nor the duo. I'm curious: why are they notorious? The article makes no mention of any wrong-doing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Justlettersandnumbers. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AR-Ab

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

Okay so I put a BLP prod up then I noticed that it kind of does have refs. Not sure if this is a page to have or not or if he can be redirected to Cassidy (rapper) (Almost comes along a news story) Wgolf (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - maybe being an artist mentioned on Complex [124] makes it important but not (yet) notable. Can't be redirected to Cassidy (rapper), they are way different stories and people. WP:TOOSOON. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 20:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitachi Content Platform

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

A huge advert, a full brochure, with specs and all, of a proprietary database. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have the following questions:

What specs do you see on the page? I do not see any specs.
As far as I can tell, the page contains general info. Can you please point out the reason(s) why you think the page is "a huge advert"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thergon (talk • contribs) 17:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC) — Thergon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Unreferenced spam. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Spam. No cited references, let alone 2nd or 3rd party references. Thergon, who commented above, is the primary author trying to protect his creation. This has been around far too long. Tapered (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are still no references whatsoever--for a large size article. Plus a graphic that's almost certainly copied and pasted from promotional/technical literature for the product. Tapered (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Weyi

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

Weakly sourced promotional article fails WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN. There is a real lack of independent coverage of the subject and connected entities--I searched. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Cowboy, I responded to your COI comment and just wanted to reiterate the challenge of sourcing third parties in the developing world. Do you have any tips on this challenge? And I do believe that his western notability will greatly pick up based on what I saw in Africa. But it may not. I removed the part about his policies (which to me did seem a bit promotional) to be maintain neutrality. -Jcruise Jcruiseonya (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a real challenge. But are there any newspaper articles about hi? That's the sort of sources we need. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like something between a campaign advertisement and a hoax. The Congolese Central Party gets almost no hits on Google, other than Facebooks and Twitters. [125] Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a candidate for election to an office that the topic hasn't won yet does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article. And that's not a "third world double-standard" thing, as it's the exact same standard that we apply even in countries where unelected candidates can almost always technically get sourced over GNG. But that hasn't been shown here; this article is relying almost entirely on primary sources. Delete, without prejudice against recreation next year if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article may be a hoax or some weird advertisement. The Congolese Central Party gets almost no hits on google--does it actually exist? Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farouk Yousif

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

Contested prod (which the creator removed last week actually) unotable art critic. Wgolf (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I searched his Arabic name and he seems to have quite a few mentions. Seems he is also a poet and children's book author (if it's the same Farouk Yousif/Yousef). I linked it to the Arabic article on him (the one I think is him). So I would challenge the creator to improve the article considerably before deleting. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Oceans Ate Alaska. Nakon 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Isles

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

Okay so the page does say under construction But I am wondering how notable this is given that its the bands first and only album and it was just released. Wgolf (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now It appears there are quite a few news articles about the album, so even though it's the band's first one, they have probably released a few singles or had success as a live act to generate this kind of buzz. I would suggest giving it a few days or so and see if it's suitably improved. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oceans Ate Alaska. There are a few articles discussing the album, e.g. Alternative Press, Rock Sound, and Allmusic, but there isn't a lot to be said about the album and the article on the band is short, so merging there makes sense. --Michig (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique De Beau

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

This artist does not appear to have gained traction; one "studio" album and two EPs (all digital downloads) without any chart recognition. Insufficient reliable sources ("Obscure Sources" is a blog, and the Top40-charts ref is announcement PR). IOW, failing WP:MUSICBIO. Pax 21:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Cada mori (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO is upcoming but not notable at this point and lacks WP:RS sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bahou

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

A autobiography of one who is likely not notable. Yeah he won something-but from what I can tell its a website award. Too soon if ever (though I will admit he does sound interesting) Wgolf (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely obscure and recent, but just squeaks by in notability. He has coverage of his work in English, Dutch, Russian, etc... and not just sharing his cute photos, but things about him. The Russian one was an interview with him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I do have to admit I am interested to know more about this guy so if anyone can give references to show he does reach notability go ahead! Wgolf (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lü Zhenzhong's version of the Bible

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

I'm sorry, but I just can't convince myself this meets WP:NBOOK. I don't think WP has a notability guide for bibles, so that's all I have. It's not easy to find any references; I'm almost convinced the book doesn't exist. Can anyone do better? Otherwise, I think we must delete this article. Mikeblas (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — unless there was some kind of massively horrendous translation going on, and the Lü Zhenzhong Bible converted throngs of people to worshipping Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, this is a speedy delete. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Most Bible translations are notable. Since Chinese is the language of such a large proportion of the world's population, I would have thought this applied particularly to a Chinese translation. My one concern is that a translation publihsed in 1970 is probably inot the traditional Chinese script, rather than the simplified one used in PRC; accordingly, its importance is likely mainly to be in Taiwan. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (warning may be going off topic:)) bible translations are not inherently notable, they still need to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NBOOK, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Bible, similarly a book in chinese doesn't make it notable, there are heaps of english books that aren't notable, even though there are lots of english speakers. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) keep or Merge with translator article Lü Zhenzhong which definitely needs expansion, a quick google search yields an academic abstract [126] mention of translator in a book [127] probably more can be found Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sufficient number of reliable sources can be found on Google Scholar. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a pretty sloppy search, I am One of Many. Note that Google search will find articles which have one, two, or three of the different keywords you entered and try to sort them for relevance. You don't offer any specific articles as representative of your claim, so I don't know which ones you think provide the significant coverage that Wikipedia demands of references used to establish notability. When I search more carefully, I find only three references. A slightly looser search generates more results, but of those I sampled, none seem substantial enough to warrant inclusion in WP. They're mention of Zhenzhong himself, or uses of his text as a comparison. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than this too narrow search, three references, we have several academic sources, which are quite sufficient to establish WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. All three results are either pay-for, non-English, or both. Have you verified that they're non-trivial references? If so, I think you're obliged to sort out the referneces and add them to the article. Otherwise, your position seems to be nothing more than WP:LOTSOFGHITS. --- Mikeblas (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reciprocating electric motor

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

Not notable, is not used for any practical application, references do not amount to it being notable in its own right. GliderMaven (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this AfD is a bit premature as there is already a merger discussion underway which will solve the problem as per Talk:Reciprocating electric motor. - Ahunt (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, prod, kill it with fire WP:MADEUP. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given how it is has moved back today [128], where the totally non-notable variant has been returned and the rest of the undivided article is still a mish-mash of linear reciprocating shaver motors and the 1830s semi-rotative engines, it's still a firm delete Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have expanded the article to include historic motors. If it is to be merged, I suggest a merger with linear motor. Biscuittin (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in process of expanding the article further. Please give me time to complete this before making a decision. Biscuittin (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have knocked the article into shape. It still needs further work but I think it can now stand on its own so I request that the deletion and merge tags be removed. It is not just about linear compressors, it is also about machines with crankshafts. Biscuittin (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a crank on a linear motor changes the electric motor itself in no way.GliderMaven (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original article probably was not worth saving, but the work by Biscuittin has made this a worthwhile page. The thing clearly exists,[129] despite claims to the contrary. The design shown here is identical the driving mechanism of old fashioned electric bells (although I have never heard them described as motors) which at one time were ubiquitous in telephones and also used as door bells. There are also book sources [130] that describe modern applications for such a motor. SpinningSpark 22:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has actually managed to get worse by its expansion.

When it started, it had a simple and clearly defined scope (the kid's demonstration motor). It was a clearly non-notable scope, but at least there was one.

Since then, it has turned into a text match across a Google search. Anything with the words "reciprocating" and "motor" has washed up in here. Doesn't matter that they're unrelated, if the words appear, they go in. That is no way to write an encyclopedic article on a defined topic!

The early motors use a reciprocating solenoid and armature to turn a rotative mechanism. Yet thrown into this same article are compressors and fretsaws that are purely reciprocating. All this in an article that doesn't even have section headings to split them. There's now a proposal at Talk:Electric motor to merge this into linear motor - a motor that provides continuous motion in one direction, without reciprocating.

Articles are written by producing some form of editorial narrative around a defined scope – not by throwing a few keywords into Google and assuming that everything with a match to them is about the same subject. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley's comments remind me of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. A Reciprocating electric motor can provide either linear motion or, with the addition of a crank, rotary motion, but both are Reciprocating electric motors. Biscuittin (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reciprocating engine does not directly produce linear motion (in the sense of linear motor) any more than it can directly produce rotary motion. In both cases an additional mechanical linkage is required to convert the motion. For instance, a crank for rotary motion, or a ratchet for linear motion. SpinningSpark 16:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does a Reciprocating electric motor produce linear motion or rotary?

If even this simple definition can't be answered, it indicates that there is no valid scope for this article; it's merely a Google lookup for anything with the word "reciprocating". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary is round and round, linear is on and on, and reciprocating is back and forth. How is that not a simple definition? SpinningSpark 17:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That defines the terms, but what does the motor do?

If this article ends up stating "Reciprocating motors go either round and round or back and forth" (as it effectively does at present) that's a strong indication that the claimed scope is invalid and is no more than a trivial text coupling between motors of different concepts. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is standard Andy Dingley practice, which I have encountered many times. He tries to confuse us, in the hope that we will get bored and go away. Biscuittin (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is obviously notable.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That shows that the text string "Reciprocating+electric+motor" appears in several sources. However articles are about concepts, not about strings of text. Do these texts refer to the same concept? Is that concept described here?

This article has been expanded during the AfD. It started out around one concept (which couldn't demonstrate WP:N). It has since expanded to include the early Davis motors (of historical note and probably deserving an article) It has also gone in the direction suggested by Spinning Spark of the non-rotating electric shaver motor. That can demonstrate notability too.

The problem with this article is that it just lumps all three in together. They do not belong together, certainly not when not even described separately. Although the text "Reciprocating+electric+motor" has been used to describe all three, they have little in common beyond the "electric motor" aspect. Their function, design principle, physical principle, construction and direction of delivering power are all far too different to belong in one article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Much of the discussion around this has taken place at Talk:Electric_motor#Discussion_of_proposed_merge_of_Reciprocating_electric_motor_to_here Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:electric motor Andy Dingley wrote: "There is no more any such thing as a "reciprocating electric motor" than there is a "wiggly springy magnet motor". I am one of many has demolished this claim so Mr Dingley has changed tack and is now attacking the article because it "lumps three things together". The article Electric motor lumps many different types of motor together so would Mr Dingley like to delete this article as well? Biscuittin (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was in reference to the original article, when its scope applied only to the Fun With Magnets motor and the article treated it as if a reciprocating solenoid mechanism driving a cam was a credible way to build a rotating motor.

To stretch this article to make reciprocating motors look like a credible topic you've had to stretch it to also include electric shaver motors that are reciprocating, but don't even try to produce rotary motion. They might belong in their own article, but it makes no sense to bundle both types up together. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that a reciprocating electric motor has to produce rotary motion? Is a linear motor not a motor because it does not produce rotary motion? Biscuittin (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "motor" can wiggle any way that it wants to. However it's a pretty big distinction between rotary and linear motion, or between continuous and back-and-forth motion. This article has now grown to include three completely separate types of motor (i.e. three distinct topics) where two are continuous and rotary and one is linear and intermittent. All of no more basis than including the word "reciprocating" in a Google hit. That is no way to define an article#s scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So do you want me to split it into three separate articles? Biscuittin (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If so, please suggest names for them because I'm sure you won't like the names I give them. Biscuittin (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those topics would at least be coherent and notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which two, and what names do you suggest? Biscuittin (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Reciprocating electric motor works for me, if applied to the electric shaver motors that are linear, back-and-forth motion directly generated from a coil and pole piece acting against a spring. Either AC or AC/DC with interrupter points. Those are commonplace, easily WP:Notable and match the name.

The point is, as this AfD was originally raised for, is to get rid of the coverage of the Fun With Magnets motor that is in no way notable.

As to the historical motors, by Davis and probably others, then I can't think of a good name offhand. It should be something though that indicates they combine a linear attraction as a prime mover (and it's not reciprocating because they're only single acting) and that also indicates they're generating continuous rotary motion (albeit somewhat jerky) by means of a ratchet or crank. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "reciprocating" is excessively narrow. Per every online dictionary I checked, both of my print dictionaries, and our own article, Reciprocating motion is simply motion that moves back and forth in a straight line. "Double action" is not required. If the motor's prime mover—the armature in an electric motor—shows linear, back-and-forth motion, rather than circular movement, it's a reciprocating motor (or engine). Whether or not a crankshaft and flywheel are attached is also irrelevant. (Note that the double-acting steam engine illustrated at reciprocating motion has a crank and flywheel attached.) If you disagree, please find some references to support your position, don't just declare that your definition is the only one that matters. Jeh (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that your complaint about the "fun with magnets" motor, that it is not notable, is off point. Per WP:N, and in particular WP:N#NCONTENT, the notability requirement applies to article topics. It does not apply to content within an article. Individual examples of a thing do not have to be notable to be talked about in an article about the thing. Jeh (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the article stands, it's still not making a claim for independent notability. If you can find and reference at least another and preferably several real-world, non historical/non toy applications, other than linear compressors which we already have a separate article for, for example (if you can reference it) in electric shavers, then in my opinion it would be notable. But right now, as the article stands, it still isn't achieving notability.GliderMaven (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are history and toys excluded? Should we delete the articles Wimshurst machine and Model engine? Biscuittin (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wimshurst machines and model engines have lots of very good references, those at least are very notable; BUT THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC; Wimshurst machines are not reciprocating electric motors, they do not look like, work like or do anything else the same. You have been unable to establish sufficient notability for this topic.GliderMaven (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable toys aren't excluded. Non-notable ones are. There is no secondary coverage of the motor that started this article and remains at its core. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re. comment by Andy Dingley (19:41, 29 March 2015) - would you claim that a petrol engine is not a reciprocating engine because it is only single acting? Biscuittin (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference for electric shaver. Biscuittin (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeh and I have expanded the article. Please comment. Biscuittin (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "expand" it. I replaced the "overview" section, which was completely unreferenced and also (I will say diplomatically) not written to Wikipedia's standards, with better-written prose (but still unreferenced). And I want to state for the record that I wore gloves, and took a long hot shower afterwards. I still don't think it deserves its own article but at least it isn't blathering about "cams" any longer. Jeh (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the term I'd choose for it, but COMMONNAME has rather beaten me to it for that one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been greatly improved. Is there now a consensus for keeping it? If not, please give your reasons. Biscuittin (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete - see my comment to SpinningSpark some days ago. The article is now trying to cover three unrelated types of motor in one article. Two of these don't belong together, one doesn't belong on WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linear compressor, electric shaver and educational toy all use Reciprocating electric motors. Why do you say they are unrelated? Biscuittin (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a literal example of begging the question, thus a fallacy. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "three types"? They all involve magnetic fields generated by electric current (hence "electric") acting on an armature to move (hence "motor") it back and forth (hence "reciprocating"). Double-acting or not is irrelevant. Whether a crank and flywheel is attached to convert this to rotary motion is also irrelevant. Is the "electric motor" article invalid because it covers multiple types of electric motors? If we convert a rotary electric motor's motion to back-and-forth with a crank mechanism, does it cease to be a rotary motor? Nonsense. Jeh (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two notable types here are firstly (the 1830s motors) using a linear actuator with a ratchet or crank in order to produce rotary motion; the modern example is using a reciprocating actuator to produce reciprocating motion alone. Those are conceptually two very different functions and just don't belong lumped into one article. I agree that those two, and only those two, could at least demonstrate notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't find this topic independently notable. You can add the whole thing as a paragraph or two in linear motor, and you wouldn't lose anything, and you're done. The very few references to it seem very trivial, most electric razors don't work this way, and the ones that do, I wouldn't expect them to work any better, and nobody plays with these toys. The linear compressor certainly seems notable, but we have a separate article for that.GliderMaven (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The technology museum in Vienna (extremely good, by the way, I highly recommend a visit there if you're in that city) thought that the motor shown in the first photo was notable enough to be an exhibit. And remember that notability does not expire. However, I'd still support a merge to Linear motor - it seems incontrovertible to me that this is a type of linear motor. Jeh (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linear motors (simplifying slightly) use the Lorentz force between two fields to produce a continuous linear force over an appreciable distance spanning multiple pole pieces. They do not simply reciprocate around a single pole. They have nothing in common with these motors, based on reciprocating action and simple attraction from a single field. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Jeh: I don't think a reciprocating motor and a linear motor are quite the same thing. In a reciprocating motor the armature or coil moves back and forth over a short distance. In a linear motor (e.g. when used to power a train) the moving part moves over a long distance in a single direction. Biscuittin (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Andy Dingley: I don't understand your claim of "begging the question". Please clarify. Biscuittin (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that two unrelated things do not belong in the same article. Your response is that because they are in the same article, they are the same thing and so belong in that same article. Such logic is circular. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sure looks to me like all the examples mentioned currently a) are motors, b) are electric, and c) exhibit reciprocating motion. They are in the article because they fit the definition. So again we ask you: HOW are they unrelated? You keep saying they're not; that strikes me as what we used to call on Usenet "proof by vigorous assertion".

Regarding Linear motor and someone's made-up requirement for "a long distance in a single direction": Linear motor says "A linear motor is an electric motor that has had its stator and rotor "unrolled" so that instead of producing a torque (rotation) it produces a linear force along its length." There is no requirement mentioned that the motor exceed any particular length of movement. It also says "One of the major uses of linear motors is for propelling the shuttle in looms. Linear motors have been used for sliding doors and various similar actuators." Sounds pretty "reciprocating" to me.

Meanwhile, nothing I can see requires a reciprocating motor to have just one field.

Say, isn't a conventional loadspeaker driver a "reciprocating electric motor"? How about the linear "voice coil" actuators in older disk drives? Jeh (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a suggestion that might satisfy both of you. Move the historic motor with the crank to Electric_motor#Early_motors move the toy motor to Toy#Types and move the others to Linear motor. Reciprocating electric motor can then become a disambiguation page. Biscuittin (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the worst of all possible worlds.

How about this: Reciprocating electric motor becomes the modern shaver motors. These are well-defined, clearly notable and fit the title.

The early motors go to a new article (I'm out of ideas for it). They're notable and of some historical significance. The modern toy version becomes a labelled section at the end of that. Maybe a name that involves "rotative motor" (a term invented for the first steam engines 60 years earlier) maybe a name involving "crank motor" (although many used ratchets instead). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Reciprocating electric motor best describes those with a crank because it is analogous to Reciprocating engine. Why can't the shaver motor go to Linear motor? Biscuittin (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, yet again, the piece you've either failed to read or were incapable of understanding, they are not linear motors, "Linear motors (simplifying slightly) use the Lorentz force between two fields to produce a continuous linear force over an appreciable distance spanning multiple pole pieces. They do not simply reciprocate around a single pole. They have nothing in common with these motors, based on reciprocating action and simple attraction from a single field." Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider that to be definitive. They have 'nothing' to do with each other??? What happens if you make a reciprocating motor with multiple poles, is it no longer a reciprocating motor, even if it still reciprocates??? It seems it would still be a reciprocating motor. Some electric clocks have fake pendulums that swing with a little coil to power it; presumably they're reciprocating motors?

Under the rules for disambiguation pages, you're supposed to have one of those if completely different things go by the same name, but in this case the term 'reciprocating electric motor' are all being taken in the same sense.GliderMaven (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: To repeat the part that you've either failed to read or else decided to just ignore, Linear motor says: "A linear motor is an electric motor that has had its stator and rotor "unrolled" so that instead of producing a torque (rotation) it produces a linear force along its length." There is no requirement mentioned of any minimum length of movement, nor of "multiple pole pieces".

Linear motor also says: "One of the major uses of linear motors is for propelling the shuttle in looms. Linear motors have been used for sliding doors and various similar actuators." Sounds pretty "reciprocating" to me.

In other words, the definition you're insisting on for "linear motor", which would exclude the content in REM from Linear motor, appears to me to be something you just WP:MADEUP, and furthermore is directly contradicted by content already in that article.

We're also still waiting for an explanation from you of why you think the examples in REM are not all "reciprocating electric motors", or do not all belong together. They are motors, they are electric, and they reciprocate. Your claim of a circular argument is absurd. The article begins with a definition (one that is obvious to anyone familiar with the language) and lists several things which, while different from each other in some ways, do all fit the definition. If you want to claim that one or more of these things doesn't belong in the article you're going to have to show either a RS-supported interpretation of the article title, or other RS-supported argument, showing how they don't fit the definition. n.b.: Your own idea of what a "reciprocating electric motor" is, or is not, doesn't count, no matter how many times you repeat it. Same for "linear motor". Jeh (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer another oft-repeated point of yours, I checked several different dictionaries and not one of them includes any notion of "double action" in the definition of "reciprocate", so that definition of yours appears to be WP:MADEUP as well. Jeh (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'modern shaver motors'? The vast majority of shavers just have a normal motor and drive a cam. The reciprocating motor seems to be just a gimmick so far as I can see; but that is a use for reciprocating motors. Loudspeakers also seem to be legitimately reciprocating motors, although they're never referred to as that (neither are the reciprocating heads on shavers though.) Still, I'm starting to think that there is indeed a topic here, basically, it's about linear motors used to generate reciprocating motion, but I think it should be merged with linear motors given the tactical situation of the current articles, and general lack of really good references.GliderMaven (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we will ever get all parties to agree on this. I propose that the article be kept in its present form. Biscuittin (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too small and the subject is not notable enough to be an article on its own. Rotary electric motors were developed decades before the early examples mentioned here, and these motors were largely a dead end except for a few very specialized uses. So a merge to Linear motor, with of course a redirect left here, seems appropriate. It is clearly a type of linear motor, and that article already includes examples of applications of reciprocating linear motors. Jeh (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Need more opinions of uninvolved users--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CONCEPTDAB. See Historical development and theoretical principles of compressors driven by oscillating electric motor for more. Andrew D. (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems perfectly notable, even if it is not exactly the latest thing in electronics. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this process supposed to reach a conclusion or is it just a talking shop? Biscuittin (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, debates are closed by an administrator after seven days and a decision is made then. However, this one has been relisted. That often happens when the administrator thinks that more comments are needed to reach a consensus. Have patience, it will happen. SpinningSpark 22:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We're an encyclopedia and this is encyclopedic.... Not really seeing the point in nominating this but there we go. –Davey2010^Talk 07:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in North East India

^ WorldCat author entry

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrine_grammarians

[2] ttp://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1039782,00.html

[3] ttp://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2004-12-09-vietnam-luxury_x.htm

[4] ttp://archives.lesechos.fr/archives/2007/SerieLimitee/00053-007-SLI.htm

[5] ttp://www.scmp.com/article/498259/christina-yu-shin-yee

[6] ttp://bookshop.theguardian.com/who-s-who-in-fashion.html

[7] WorldCat author entry

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

@@ Line 121: / Line 121: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lü Zhenzhong's version of the Bible}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reciprocating electric motor}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism_in_North_East_India}}