Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:34, 2 September 2014

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 September	3 September >

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 no consensus. An unsatisfying result, like kissing one's sister, but it doesn't look as though a clear consensus is going to form here. I recommend that someone try to track down the English and German sources listed in the article and, if they turn out to lack substantial information about this person, renominating the article. (And if they do contain substantial information, adding inline citations, with titles of specific journal articles, page numbers, etc.) Deor (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N. Samuel of Tranquebar

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

Delete. Completely fails WP:NOTABLE. Article completely unsourced, and therefore violates WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Nothing about this character anywhere on the net as far as I can see, except what refers to this article. Supposed photograph of Samuel in article listed on Wikimedia Commons as 'from family sources' (therefore WP:OR and not verifiable). Not even a suggestion as to what the 'N.' may stand for. Supposed book references on Google (e.g. "Lutheran Theologians") appear to be reprints of this Wikipedia article. May perhaps be a complete hoax. Smerus (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- In a period when Christian missionary work in India was domonated by white missionaries, being the first Indian professor in a theological college is notable. His list of works, presumably in Tamil (or other Indian languages) is also substantial. Whether the photo is of him or not seems immaterial to me: if it is not, it can be deleted from the article. Since most sources on him will not be in English and there was no Internet (or even computers) in his life, the lack of on-line sources is not surprising. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this comment does not deal with the fact that the article is totally unsourced, totally uncited, and does not meet the criteria for WP:NOTABLE. There was no internet around for the many thousands of historical figures in WP, but that has not prevented there being information about any who were notable by WP standards. Taking the material in the article (which for all we know, or all that can be demonstrated, may be a total fabrication) as read does not provide a justification.--Smerus (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails verifiability. We can't even argue about notability until we have reliable sources that can document the claims in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I count 16 "references". Many are not very well expressed, in that the cite the journal, not the article. Most are contemporary ones from the subject's lifetime. You do not have access to them, not do I, but the likelihood is that the WP author did. You are expecting standards of sourcing that may be appropriate in Europe or America, but are too high for India of that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If the 'references' quoted indeed exist (for which there is no evidence), they fail these criteria. See comment by User:David Eppstein. The issue under discussion here is not Indian standards vs. European standards, but the standards of Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I did find an online copy of one of the supposed references [1] and linked it from the article. It does include mention of an "N. Samuel". But it's written in German in a difficult font so I wasn't able to get much more than that from it. Maybe someone else who reads German can get more. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Peterkingiron.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did find one of the Books written by the subject in 1922 in Plain talk of a plain Christian and found this page 8 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly not WP:HOAX or WP:OR .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your source is a transcript form the Wikipedia article and therefore fails WP:RS. Samuel may or may not be a hoax - but if he is WP:NOTABLE how come no one can even find his first name?--Smerus (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your question about first name is based on a misunderstanding of South Indian naming conventions, in which one often sees names of the form "X. YYY". In names of this form, "YYY" is the individual's given name, and "X." is the initial of the father's given name. So "N. Samuel" would be the proper way to write this person's name, "Samuel" is a given name not a surname, and the question you are really asking is "what was his father's name". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this clarification, but the first name question was by the way, the issue remains notability.--Smerus (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply I agree the link is not WP:RS hence did not add to the article ,just added to say it was not a hoax.Some of his books are available online found one in Google books Plain talk of a plain Christian.The subject died in 1927 and hence most if not all are not available online and in other languages including Tamil Language and it is a kind of Systemic bias Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is one copy of a book by N. Samuel in the British Library and this seems to be the one found by Pharaoh of the Wizards on Google. Unfortunately none of the rest of the article on N. Samuel is verifiable, and a single book in the British Library, without any WP:RS secondary references to support it, fails WP:NOTABLE. It is not a question of systemic bias (of the sort which that rather contentious essay discusses), but one of the absence of encyclopaedically verifiable evidence. Best,--Smerus (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the current verifiability concerns. If valid sourcing can be found later, I don't see any objecting to reinstating the article at that time. Silverfish8088 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ (changing to strong keep per rationale given below) due to numerous mentions in book sources. [2][3][4][5][6]. Although there is nothing in depth there, several authors hint that the person is notable, especially Francis who names him as a successor to Sastriyar. I suspect that a search of Tamil sources or Indian newspaper databases may well find something more substantial. SpinningSpark 10:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To say there is 'nothing in depth here' is a notable understatement. Editors who check these references will find nothing but a name mentioned in passing, with not the slightest relevance to WP:NOTABLE criteria.--Smerus (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a 19th century American poet or a French poet then you couldn't blink faster than I would be typing "delete", but the subject comes from a sub-continent that had no tradition of publishing prior to independence. Sources are going to be an order of magnitude harder to find. On top of that the subject is from a minority language group and the systemic bias here for English language sources makes it another order of magnitude harder. In view of that, I am prepared to cut this one a lot more slack. SpinningSpark 12:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I find User:Spinningspark's sources persuasive. See below.ShulMaven (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Even stipulating that the sources exist and contain what they describe, I'm not seeing enough evidence of notability. There are many things that might be notable (He was the first this (somebody has to be first), he wrote this, he was considered that, etc.) but the article doesn't make their case well enough. - Richfife (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Based on the new information that has come to light, noted above by Spinning, I do not think it is a complete hoax. That was one of the initial concerns when listed to AfD. Consider tagging up the article expressing concerns regarding verifiable sources. Consider finding a translator to review Tamil language Wikipedia? —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above. The 'references' found by Spinning scarcely consitute 'new information which has come to light' - as reading them will testify.--Smerus (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Saying that they may have notability simply because their name appears in a few articles does not a notable make. There is nothing that goes into depth on this subject that makes me feel they are notable on their own merits. Tagging this article is not going to miraculously place sources in ones path. If there are none, then there are none. I have searched everywhere and have only come across the ones mention above. Delete away! --Canyouhearmenow 11:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There is a list of sources in the references section (the first one, not the second one, which should probably be renamed "notes" or somesuch) none of which are available online. They are not inline citatitons, but lack of inline citations are not grounds for deletion. Per the WP:AGF policy, we should assume that these sources do indeed have sufficient depth of coverage until shown that they do not. None of these sources are online and there is no indication whatsoever that any of those calling for deletion on the basis of the WP:NOTABILITY guideline have actually examined these sources. Those !votes should therefore be discounted as not policy based. The nomination suggested this may be a hoax. While there is nothing in depth online, there is sufficient information to show that the subject existed and the cited sources exist in libraries. Come back here after visiting the libraries. SpinningSpark 12:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and try to get a Tamil-speaker to improve it. Tranquebar was a Danish outpost, and the Lutheranism to which he converted was therefore most likely the Lutheran Church of Denmark, so it is may well be that in the period in which Samuel lived, sources, the church records - and such histories as have been written of Protestantism in Tharangambadi are in Danish (or in German or in English). Moreover, there is no certainty that the name "Samuel" was spelled "Samuel" a century ago. However, googling the Tamil name given in this article: ஞா.சாமுவேல் produced links in Tamil (a language that I neither read nor speak) However, this one has some English and looks authentic: http://dhyanamalar.org/hymns-spiritual-songs/who-is-gb/ and http://dhyanamalar.org/2010/04/05/about-us/ and http://dhyanamalar.org/hymns-spiritual-songs/5-yesu-en-neysar-sagaayarumaam/ The difficulty of producing articles on the non-Anglophone world is endemic to Wikipedia. Is there a system for contacting a Tamil -speak re: articles of this sort?ShulMaven (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2014 (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. After being relisted twice there is no consensus to delete (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International

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

fails WP:GNG as most google hits are related websites or social media; or refer to the individual participants/local versions. The Banner talk 13:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well surprisingly there is evidence after all, Anyway per Northamerica1000 passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Source examples include:

New Straits Times
The Observer
Daily Monitor
Daily News
The Organization of Asia-Pacific News Agencies
[7] - News search on Google has many articles from reliable sources reporting about winners

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is all you could find? Just because the articles in de Daily Monitor and The Observer are about a local version, not the international pageant. The Banner talk 09:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:59, 17 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CssQuery

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

Notability has been doubtful since 2009; nothing has been done to establish it since then. Article was deprodded with the reason "7 pages of results in GBooks" — there are actually only five hits, three of which are bogus and completely unrelated, and the other two are passing mentions. — Keφr 14:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Very few functions calls warrant their own article, and right now we don't even have an article for the much-discussed (and much maligned) strcpy(). I'm sure many passing references can be found, but I'm not seeing any discussion of why this particular function is significant or worthy of note. Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Article now rewritten to focus on the library, not the function. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My idea of a passing mention is an entry in a phonebook or a cite or perhaps a single sentence. It certainly does not include a passage that continues for nearly a page: [8]. Nor does it include this. And there seems to be something on 7 pages of this. This topic does seem to me to satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James500, I appreciate the legwork, but the first two links you've given refer to the CssQuery library, not the function call (I can't tell what the third link refers to). The library may well be notable, and I'd have no objection to deleting this article and creating an article based on the library. If you're up for skipping that process and rewriting the article now, I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I probably lack the expertise to rewrite this article. I think I've just demonstrated that. James500 (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this a bit more, the library cssQuery appears to have exactly one public function, called cssQuery(). So you're within your rights to call me pedantic. And.... the article is a WP:COPYVIO of [9]. Eh, l'll see if I can figure out how to rewrite this. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC copyvios should be expunged from history, so we might as well WP:BLOWUP this article. But for me, this function barely deserves a footnote in the article about Cascading Style Sheets. — Keφr 20:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keφr, I agree with you that the function is non-notable, but I think the notability of the library is at least arguable. I reread WP:COPYVIO and didn't see anything about copyright violations having to be expunged from the history, but this isn't my area of expertise. Can you point me to the page you were thinking about? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim that the "library" is notable but the "function" is not? They are one and the same thing! How much are you going to write based on the sources that exist? Three sentences? It barely deserves a redirect. Together with querySelector this function/library can be just as well covered in [[Cascading Style Sheets]]. — Keφr 09:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keφr: My Ph.D. is in computer science, so from where I'm sitting libraries and functions are chalk and cheese. Functions tend not to be notable because they (should) do exactly one thing, and beyond a bare description of how to do that one thing there isn't much to be said. Libraries are collections of functions, and are much closer to the level of abstraction used in thinking about the actual problem we're trying to solve. It's not a great analogy, but while we don't have many articles on sentences, we do have a lot of articles on books (even though they're just collections of sentences, they manage to be more than the sum of their parts). I count 62 functions in the current version, not one of which is notable on its own. Taken as a collection, I see a historically-significant library that had a strong influence on jQuery. If you'd like to expand the article, we could really stand a background section on the problem the library is trying to solve (and why the problem wasn't initially addressed in the design of CSS) as well as a mention of what other solutions are available. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I know what a library is. This library consists of a single (user-visible) function, which makes distinguishing the two silly. If this library had an influence on jQuery, this only shows it deserves a mention at [[jQuery]]. Which can be put there without keeping apparently copyright-infringing revisions around. — Keφr 18:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, this topic clearly satisfies GNG. The sources contain a lot more than three sentences, and the article can be expanded. James500 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC) And there are 49 pages of results in Google. How many of those have you looked at? James500 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC) At the top of this page you appear to assert that the library and function are not the same thing. You are not being consistent. James500 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that there was any infringing material in the earlier revisions of this page. As regards the removal of material from page histories copyright infringement is criteria 1 of WP:REVDEL. I am not sure what would happen in this case. James500 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Say it with me: de-le-tion. — Keφr 09:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of comment isn't likely to convince anyone that you are right. James500 (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—per James500 and a refocusing of the article from the function call to the library proper. And cleaning up the copyvio. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have unstruck my "keep" !vote above on the assumption that the copyright issues do not require the deletion of the article. James500 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the nomination, Lesser Cartographies and James500 have refocused the the article on the library. The three books now referenced in the article show multiple in-depth coverage sufficient for notability per WP:GNG. In my opinion, that this is the first public lib to support CSS1, 2, and 3 also contributes to notability. The article itself has been purged of copyvio and while but a stub, is well formed and referenced. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2014 (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 and redirect to Miss Tourism International. Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International country rankings

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

fails WP:GNG and relevance The Banner talk 13:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, a content fork of Miss Tourism International. The Banner talk 13:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss Tourism International. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 24 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbad

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

Unreleased film, little information available in reliable sources, fails WP:MOVIE. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Tumbad Rahi Anil Barve Anand Gandhi Sohum Shah

Delete (or userfy) until filming is verified to have begun, then allow undeletion of recreation. The project IS getting coverage, but until filming is confirmed, we have a fail of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have not yet found anything saying this is filming yet, but Screen Daily tells it is not expected to be completed until July 2015. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 23 September 2014 (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) 14:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABCD: Any Body Can Dance 2

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

An as-yet-unreleased film. The coverage in the sources provided is passing at best; no in-depth discussion in reliable sources. fails WP:MOVIE. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Clearly fails WP:NFF. The filming hasn't begun.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC) See Below.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. CutestPenguin ^discuss 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this searchable/sourcable title to ABCD: Any Body Can Dance#Sequel where this sequel can be written of and sourced in context. This production has been receiving coverage for it planned filming,[10] but as we have no confirmation that filming has actually begun, WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is failed. Simply a bit TOO SOON. Allow recreation/undeletion once filming commences. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC) STRUCK my !vote. See below. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Filming has now begun, per this source. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

And through WP:INDAFD: [11][12]

Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3),[13][14][15] and continue improvements through regular editing, as production of this sequel HAS received coverage to meet WP:GNG AND filming is confirmed to have begun. Wikipedia will benefit though improvement using regular editing, but not deletion. My thanks go out to Krimuk90 sharing a source confirming filming. I have struck my "vote" toward a redirect. Well done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep shooting has been started as per These souces [16] [17] [18]. Babita arora 10:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several high quality sources say that the filming has begun and hence the article meets WP:NFF.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2014 (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. I don't see any refutation that there is not sufficient third-party significant coverage about the subject itself. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hype Magazine

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

Calls itself a magazine but it's really a PR service. Want a "featured article placement with The Hype Magazine", buy the platinum package [19]. Want to be featured in the "Who Is" section, buy the Featured Client package [20]. Is this a notable PR service? The awards are not major. There is a lack of independent coverage of this service in the article and a search found nothing better. So not notable. This article should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duffbeerforme, The Hype Magazine is sold in major retail stores across the United States including Barnes and Noble, Target, K-Mart, etc., and store locations can be found via the locator link provided by their distributor Kable Distribution Services. ^[1] The fact that they offer promotional services, which is standard amongst entertainment magazines, like the source magazine which charges over 10k for a spread in their outlet according to their media kit, XXL and other urban based entertainment magazines seem to follow a different business model when it comes to attracting advertisers, etc.Chastized (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Distribution Services, Kable. "Where's My Magazine". thehypemagazine.com. Kable Distribution Services, Inc. Retrieved 2 September 2014.

I am not certain why a magazine that markets itself and its pricing would be considered a PR service rather than what it is.Chastized (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most magazines offer PR services, that's not new. The sources indicate that they have been involved with celebrities (like, Nick Cannon and Jody Watley), as well as been nominated for awards "The Southern Entertainment Awards" and "SCM Awards". There doesn't really seem to be a reason to credibly doubt the notability of this article's subject. XiuBouLin (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously trying to suggest they are notable because they wrote about notable celebrities? WP:NOTINHERITED. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the "awards", Southern Entertainment Awards and SCM Awards are clearly not major awards. They don't even look like credible awards. The nomination for best ballot stuffing magazine goes to Hype. "You may nominate yourself as many times as you want every 24 hours." SCM Awards [21]. "Anyone w/ a “valid” email address can nominate an individual. Spins, Sales, etc. do not dictate who makes or doesn’t make the ballot!" SEA [22]. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable hype service with a print component and no evidence whatsoever of actual notability as we define it. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a national print publication available in major retailers like Barnes and Noble, Marsh's, Target, 7-Eleven, K-Mart AND is one of the few American Magazine distributed in foreign countries such as Germany it its original language. The magazine is of the same ilk and importance as Rollingstone, Vibe, Jet, Billboard, Music Connection, etc. While it DOES sell adverts, so do each and every other magazine, newspaper or periodical listed in Wikipedia. Not sure why the persecution of this particular magazine, which interviews not only celebrities but is active as a community resource. Check their Hype Cares link, this is not just another fly-by night magazine and its awards and accolades are reputable.Chastized (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THM don't just sell adverts, they sell articles and on at least one occasion given the cover to a PR client. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's not much reliable third party info available about this "magazine", which is primarily a web site ("digital version") based on their own circulation numbers. They haven't won any awards; they're just on a long list of "nominees" for them. The reference from AudioMack is labelled, on AudioMack, as "Uploaded On Aug 17, 2014 By: The Hype Magazine". The Nick Cannon interview is a link back to AudioMack. Just about everything online about Hype originated with, well, their own hype. They've been publishing for less than a year. They might be notable someday, but not yet. John Nagle (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current sources are mostly garbage. Passing mentions or blurbs from wannabes who are bragging about appearing on the cover. Looking for sources, it appears that there is a huge amount of self-promotion from the magazine, and a lot of artists using the magazine as a PR platform, but very little independent coverage of the magazine. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2014 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Noëlle Ada

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Beauty pageant contestants. WP:POINT this nomination, along with more than a dozen other Noms that have been found by the same editor, were poorly researched, or more specifically, additional sources (apparently from discussions with this individual) were just assumed to be worthless. I suggest it is deliberate ignorance of WP:BEFORE to make their point. I added a little to the article. There is extensive publicity about the contest and each contestant. Many countries, including Gabon, laude over their nominee in the press. Lots of other factors at play. Media is different in each country. Sources that look unreliable might be the outlet of highly reliable sources in that country due to the technology of the press and its readers. Gabon also speaks French. Trackinfo (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- You can continue attacking me personally, but the fact is that she just gets 134 unique Google hirs. And that is including Wikipedia, related websites and social media. At best, a redirect to the pageant itself is warranted. The Banner talk 15:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is sourced properly and she is worthy of notability based on WP criteria imo. Orasis (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2014 (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. No showing that the subject meets the inclusion guidelines. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Krásný

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

This article was twice deleted, once for unreferenced BLP, and once speedily for lack of importance. Author recreated it again. The main issue is the lack of notability. There are no reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt: Delete for lack of notability. Salt for user's persistence in re-creating. Bazj (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as up and coming but not yet prime time. I could find zero online reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2014 (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) 11:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Godoy

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

fails WP:GNG. No independent sources to prove notability present in the article. Google hits are mainly related websites or social media. The Banner talk 12:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some sources - some from around the time of the Miss Universe pageant and some from later. There are more, but I think this should do it as far as notability. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 07:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, if you can find me a sport-related source about her volleyball career, I will withdraw the nomination. Because than I am convinced that she is not an one-event-notability person. Unfortunately, up to now I failed to find one. The Banner talk 11:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nominator is making a bad faith, wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. Furthermore, this contestant won Miss Congeniality All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. Trackinfo (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact the bad faith is entirely yours, Trackinfo. I am still convinced that the 73,400 Google hits (that boils down to just 181 unique hits) and the failure to prove her volleyball career, is not enough to prove her notability. The Banner talk 09:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't read well do you? Maybe that's your problem. Where did I mention volleyball? She is notable for THREE accomplishments, all very sourceable: 1) She won her national pageant, 2) she participated in Miss Universe (and got a lot of coverage just for doing that 3) she WON Miss Congeniality out of all of those contestants. Your repeated and aggressive defense of your move to delete all of these articles is reprehensible. Where does 73,400 or even 181 unique seem like a small number of hits? Each and every one of these contestants got a ton of coverage during the pageant and were on worldwide television. You are on an aggressive and misguided mission to delete appropriate content from wikipedia and fail to retract from that stance now that you have had time to think. I do not understand your motives. You are seriously wasting my time to try to figure out what damage you are trying to do to the wikipedia project. Trackinfo (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 10:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourcing in article already confirms she meets WP:GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:15, 14 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Jazz Alliance

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Makhuli

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

fails WP:GNG, no independent sources present to prove notability The Banner talk 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Davey2010. I looked at several pages of Google and found nothing reliable except one photo from the Los Angeles Times. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco D'Agostino

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

Francisco D’Agostino is a businessman with nothing about his life and work which appears notable. There is no information that I could find about this man, other than his being accused of racketeering. In addition, the sources which discuss the charges only mention him in passing, as he is only one of three people accused along with their company. All three sources only mention D’Agostino one time. I would say that even if the charges of racketeering had been upheld and the suit was indeed going to court, it would still be a very weak reason for this man to have a wiki page. Now that the charges against him have been dropped, http://online.wsj.com/articles/judge-dismisses-racketeering-claims-against-venezuelan-businessmen-1408489055?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj I would say that there is nothing at all wiki-worthy about him, and this wiki article should be deleted. Secretsources (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (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) Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Molhem Barakat

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

I believe that this is a case of being famous for only one thing, being a young photo journalist. Also feel that this could be a case of WP:NOT#NEWS Gbawden (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a cursory Google search can show, there is wide coverage of his death, not being a young photojournalist. Furthermore, many of the articles discuss how Reuters was irresponsible for putting such a young life in harm's way. Namiba didn't give a reason when they contested the deletion, but they also don't find this a case of NOTNEWS. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Ktr noted, Barakat's death has been profiled by international publications, policy journals and other verifiable sources.--TM 13:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expanded per the above. Widespread non-trivial coverage easily establishes notability in this case. Nik thestunned 16:10, 10 September 2014 (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 keep. Very dodgy looking nomination. No indication of any copyright violation. If there is another organisation with the same name it can have its own article if it's notable. This one clearly exists and is well known, obviously not a hoax. Ged UK 12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Shōnen Jump

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

This article is a copyright violation. Its notability is also very questionable. It is also a hoax - Weekly Shōnen Jump is a terrorist organization, not a childrens' manga magazine. Lovestolive2014 (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2014 (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/2014 September 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is an extremely bad faith nomination by a persistent vandal who is already the subject of a sock puppet investigation for vandalism to the article.SephyTheThird (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Sephy. Really OP? 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:03, 2 September 2014 (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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Doan

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

dubious claim to notability, single source Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with sources such as this one and this one and this one suggests she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given diverse sourcing provided by User:Tomwsulcer, clearly meets WP:BIO. BusterD (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Tom, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2014 (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 Zone 66. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 05:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance (demogroup)

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

No evidence of notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content to Zone 66, their only notable product. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other activities listed in the article are notable, such as reverse-engineering how the Gravis Ultrasound worked and releasing the information ahead of Gravis' own SDK; also, creating the PMODE and PMODE/W 32-bit DOS extender was an open-source activity before the movement was formally defined. Article should stay, but with additional references. --Trixter (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer any reliable sources that confirm this? --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources in online diskmags, BBS file archives, etc. from the 1990s when the group was active. References to these online files can be obtained; whether or not those are considered reliable sources, I am not sure. --Trixter (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Trixter, reliable sources will have some sort of editorial control and therefore come from some position of vetted authority czar ♔ 15:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the demoscene time period in question (1990s) was only documented on BBS discussions and files, and IRC chats and Usenet groups, I can't imagine what a reliable source would be from that time period. Demoscene culture was only rarely mentioned in magazines. Clearly the events and achievements occurred; the files themselves are evidence. But I can't make those sources fit Wikipedia's definition of what a reliable source should be. --Trixter (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trixter, we are not doubting the existence of the events and demogroups. But merely existing is not enough to establish notability in Wikipedia. Please see WP:N. Also, don't forget that there are many demoscene-related topics that have been covered by reliable sources. The demoscene itself, for example, is clearly notable, because it has been discussed by multiple reputable sources. Unfortunately, Renaissance doesn't seem to have had the same fate. --Λeternus ^(talk) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this list is going to need some revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles Numtek (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could make the same list for any subfield. Article topics without coverage in reliable sources (?) are invariably deleted (or redirected). WP has articles about all sorts of things, but the minimum requirement is that we can at least source them to some expert facts with some editorial backing. czar ♔ 03:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go https://www.scene.org/search.php?search=Renaissance&start=0 and http://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=544 Numtek (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are lists of files as far as I can tell. It would take original research to say anything about them. The page on reliable sources explains more about this. I also recommend the links off of WP:42. czar ♔ 22:05, 12 September 2014 (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) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zone 66. Finding nothing from reliable sources or a WP:VG/RS search. Current article is all unsourced fan stuff. Title is useful, however, as a redirect term to their only notable game (as Salv put it), though I'd add that I wasn't able to find much on that game either (it'll likely end up deleted if print sources don't show up). Anyway, though I see nothing to merge, redirects are cheap, and that's the way to go when no sources are available. czar ♔ 17:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks for the useful and civil discussion. Unfortunately, WP:WHYN is persuasive here. There is not adequate reliable coverage to write a verifiable article on this topic. ~KvnG 16:17, 21 September 2014 (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scivelation

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

This article is on an unreleased video game in development. There is no substantial coverage about this game that would establish notability. The two references in the article are not substantial. One is a trailer, and the other is basically a note saying the game is coming as they got a press release. My own searches turn up the similar stuff. For example, this item in Giant Bomb. Whpq (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2014 (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) 01:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Might be unreleased, but it has significant coverage. E.g.,

http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/another-dystopian-future-awaits-in-scivelation/

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01/23/scivelation-is-the-name-of-a-game-for-some-reason/#more-139433

http://www.gamesradar.com/e3-2011-scivelation-preview-what-on-earth-is-a-scivelation/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/scivelation-unveiled-for-pc-and-consoles

http://www.vg247.com/2009/11/25/scivelation-hitting-360-along-with-pc-during-q3-2010/

http://www.vg247.com/2009/10/10/indie-and-other-games-of-interest-gray-matter-great-battles-free-stuff/

Press releases (posting so as not to be construed as coverage): [23][24]

I usually recommend searching WP:VG/RS's custom Google search before bringing an item to AfD. Also, since there are pages for this game's dev, it might have been a good idea to try even redirection as a minimum before bringing the topic to AfD. Anyway, given the above sources, I recommend withdrawing the nom. czar ♔ 17:47, 6 September 2014 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lords (demogroup)

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

An article about a non-notable demogroup. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is unfortunately very little online information about The Lords. This is not in itself reason to flag the non-notability card. If nothing else, notability is established by association with The Judges. --Frodet (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The problem with the nature of demogroups in general and their activities, the time period and the target audience makes it very hard to find sources which are online - or not online for that matter. I keep adding sources as I find them ("The Lords" crops up in an awful lot of places...). I still believe they are notable due to their early arrival and the volume and quality of releases (released internationally by Outlet, see also [25]). --Frodet (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll add this to the list as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles Numtek (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we have a newspaper article especially noting their sound-chip skills and at least two of their productions was published as covermount of the Outlet magazine. They thus fulfil WP:NONPROFIT. // Liftarn (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It will be difficult to assess notability using internet searches of a group that started in 1986 and is no longer with us. ~KvnG 16:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As it is the article is supported by six newspaper articles and a handful of other sources. Not that bad. If someone could read trough the Demo&Co columns in old issues of Advanced ZAT Programming we could probably expand it. // Liftarn (talk)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Judges (demogroup)

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

Non-notable group. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel notability has been established. If you look at [26], The Judges are among the top-15 rating demo groups, and the (one of two) earliest. --Frodet (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only reliable sources can establish notability at Wikipedia. --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please give feedback on which of the sources I have edited in are not reliable. --Frodet (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of the sources in the article qualify as reliable, per WP:RS. Also, The Judges are only mentioned in passing, which is not enough to establish their notability in Wikipedia per WP:N. --Λeternus ^(talk) 11:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned on a number of pages of this book. I suggest they are at least a plausible redirect to Demoscene, Demogroup or some related article. James500 (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see [27] from 23:40. --Frodet (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this demoscenen nonsense must be terminated from wikipedia. noone gives a damn about those hippies 62.143.156.22 (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ok it seems this list is getting out of date very fast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles Numtek (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they are noted as early C64 demoscene pioneers as supported by reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - There may be pre-internet sources out there but given they only existed a couple years, I doubt it. ~KvnG 16:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary. --do ncr am 16:05, 28 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Gray Doane

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

lots of puffery and namedropping, of which only one has an article on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: not in Internet age so sources may be hard to find. That said, his google hits are either WP mirrors or not useful, the two Gbooks hits are namechecks in a philately journal. The input of someone with access to American newspaper archives would be helpful. BethNaught (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This: http://stamps.org/HOF-1946#Doane shows that he was once thought very important and suggests that pre-internet sources should be available to justify the article. Probably in old copies of the American Philatelist. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: APS Hall of Fame seems notable enough for me. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamika Miller

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

Apparently non-notable by our standards, does not meet WP:ARTIST. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Tank Guitar

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

An instrument which doesn't appear to be notable. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing I could find doesn't rise to ... leaving me confident that it even exists. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 19 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DOS 0

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

First, Wikipedia is not a changelog. Second, searching for "DOS 0" on the Web or Google Books gives only white noise. ~~View statistics show literally zero hits before this page was created. Nobody looks up "DOS 0"~~ (On second thought, this may not be a good argument; this tool measures articles hits, not searches. Though Google Trends notes about seventy searches per month and declining, but only from Portugal, so these are probably false positives.), because nobody uses this name. It has been contrived by the page's creator. — Keφr 10:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be a WP:PTM violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page has so many problems and violates so many policies that I don't know where to begin. All of them stem from the fact that the article has no purpose. For example:
1. It groups loosely related links because they are all preview releases and have DOS in their names. (WP:IINFO violation.)
2. Although it is plausible to refer to 86-DOS, QDOS and FreeDOS as DOS because they are all disk operating systems, it is aberrant to use "DOS" to refer to the title portion of a specific version of them. (WP:PTM violation.) It is analogous to saying operating system 3.1 to mean Windows NT 3.1.
3. The title is inventive. (WP:TITLE violation.) Let's assume that a computer program titled "DOS" actually exists. It is uncommon to use "DOS 0" to refer to its prerelease versions.
4. Even if we ignore WP:PTM violation, the number of links is artificially increased. Most of these links refer to one article and the whole page can be summarized into three links.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Codename Lisa. The entire premise of this page is that various pre-release versions of MS-DOS are referred to as DOS 0. This is a dubious claim. Reyk _YO! 23:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:38, 15 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Robot

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

I can find no significant coverage about this robot kit that would establish notability. The article itself is unreferenced. Whpq (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2014 (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. Even when mostly discounting SPAs, I do not find consensus to delete. There are good arguments for a merge but no consensus on a target, so this should probably be further discussed on the article's talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC Master Race

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)

Though the term is fairly widely used I can't find any reliable coverage of the term or its importance. There may be a place for discussing the benefits of PC gaming, but I don't think this is it. Sam Walton (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final note to Wikipedia It's September 9th now, and it appears that the article is a nearly complete replacement from what it was at the time of nomination. Someone generously went through and absolutely filled it with popular sources, which really helps out with the notability and such. Wikinium (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Wikipedia admins This page has changed since the nomination and continues to change each day. I'm going to work on stripping garbage out of it some more. A lot of this garbage is the reason so many people feel so negative towards it and want it deleted. Wikinium (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the PC Master Race started as satire it has become much more than that. It is a reliable source of information. PC gaming has been overshadowed during the last years based on misconceptions and false information. Unfortunately we, as PC gamers do not have large companies like Microsoft and Sony to spend millions on marketing and 'getting the word out'. This is a legitimate move that is aimed to fix this. Potential users/gamers can find information that will help them make more informed decisions. It has grown insanely popular and has provided information on the subject to a lot of new/potential users. Let's not be fooled by the satirical name, this is something serious an useful! Soupias (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Soupias (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate ideology and term, and should be kept as a reliable source for information on the ideology. PhoenixGamer (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— PhoenixGamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presently, fails WP:NEO. It might be sourceable but the bulk of sourcing is from not the best RS that we can provide. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ideology is fairly new and therefor sources must be given a fair shake. Sources can not be expected to come from normally reputable places as the article is culture based and, again, fairly new. It fits just as well as any other ideology and has the following and devotion normally attributed with such. As well WP:NEO does not work with this entry as the reason for the entry's creation is to give overall consensuses to the view provided not to increase its' use. Lord_Anorak 10:55, 2 September 2014

— Lord Anorak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a neologism. I am officially in favor of keeping it, even if it means leaving up the citation and incomplete notice until all the correct sources are gathered. This term is real, this term is popularly used, and this term is notable. This is a brand new article, and it already has a very nice selection of sources (some of which arrived after the nomination for deletion). Give this article a chance to obtain sources and it'll be indisputably notable soon enough. As for the claim of it being a neologism, it most certainly isn't. This term is part of gaming pop culture and has been for several years. There are plenty of sources now in place that back this all up, and likely many more to come.Wikinium (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't give notability opinions anymore, but these sources are not used: Escapist (I can't remember; is this the blacklisted one, or is that The Guardian?), Kotaku, Pulp365. Tezero (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Escapist article is written by the guy who coined the term FYI. Sam Walton (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand if writing out the reasoning for each point in the ideology seems out of place - as maybe this isn't the place for justifying PC gaming. But I do believe that the term deserves a page. It's already used by - at the very least - hundreds of thousands, more likely millions. It doesn't need a page to increase use. But simply having a Wikipedia page rather than just "Know your meme" being in the Google results would, in my opinion, be an improvement. Teaearlgraycold (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading those, I can definitely see that this term/ideology is documented enough to have its own page. I understand the concerns and fear of vandalism, but I created this article in good faith. There are a lot of people out there who would love to see this article deleted due to disagreement, but if we can put one together that well-cited enough, it will be safe from vandalism via the opposing voices. This term is real, and it's everywhere. It's just not covered extremely well by reporters, Kutaku and a handful of others have written on it though (it appears). I vote against deletion, although there's a lot of unneeded stuff on the page right now (there's even an article on mods). Wikinium (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also an article here: http://www.2d-x.com/the-ps4-and-xbox-one-are-here-now-what that actually refers to them as "The" PC Master Race, which could be a good source for use on anything that tries to explain it's more than just a term. It doesn't necessarily say ideology, but it kind of paints it out as a group, which is good source material for sure.Wikinium (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also want to further explain the article. It's not intended to be a neologism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#NEO. There are people that are generally curious about the term, and this article could help explain that right off the bat. Creating a small article about a term as massive as 'PC Master Race' really wouldn't even make a dent in its usage. This term is indeed popular (as seen by the 200k users of the subreddit alone). I hope this helps clarify for those who suspect it to be a neologism.Wikinium (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to... somewhere? I was going to say console wars but that seems to have been deleted. Maybe PC game? It deserves a section of a larger article at best. If you deign to give it its own article, internet mouthbreathers will make it balloon to a 300kb monstrosity of every instance of a PC game being better than a console version AND all the times they've been "screwed by the Man" with their PC ports. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When people Google "PC Master Race", they're going to want to learn what it means and why it exists and why it's used, not some article on a fight between consoles.Wikinium (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I understand the concerns, if there are enough sources to back up the fact that this term, and/or group of people(the subreddit) are notable, I think it would be a neat article. If the use of the term is incorrect, maybe the article could be renamed to "PC gaming superiorority" or something similar. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the entire idea with neologisms. There of course will be sources that mention it, but if it is not widely adopted across the industry, it's a niche aspect. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is why I propose making the article not about the word itself, but the group of people it represents. Although, there would still have to be articles describing why they are notable as a group. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what it's worth, at the Midwest Game Developers' Conference (I think that's what it was called?) this past summer, a speaker who'd worked on numerous notable games (like one of the Far Crys, IIRC) unironically used the phrase "PC master race" as an interjection. It was hard to sit still after that, but surely that shows something. Tezero (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a legitimate usage of a widespread term and it should be an article that is kept. 81.108.161.238 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Console players need to learn PC superiority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenofnine24 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Sevenofnine24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also a troll response. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick introductory note for the newcomers here: Console gaming is shitty compared to what PC gaming offers, but that does not automatically mean that a catchphrase related to the issue is worthy of an encyclopedia article. Articles on Wikipedia need to demonstrate notability and that they meet the project's scope; if you wish to convince the community here to keep this article, you will have to make your arguments and reasonings so that they specifically address Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, instead of simply spouting in-jokes. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Same as above, plus this is a legitimate term. Sulphuric Glue (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has nothing to do with discussing benefits of PC or not. The Wikipedia page is for those, who want to learn about the term in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeitgeist1911 (talk • contribs)

— Zeitgeist1911 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Been using this term for a long time, a quick Google search shows many, many, many, many, many results dating back to 2008. MajorDesync (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— MajorDesync (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI: The above, along with assumed further keeps, originate from this reddit thread. Sam Walton (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Common term to describe an idology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.226.41 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - been thinking a while on this one, and I don't think there is enough coverage and usage of the term in independent and reliable sources for it to warrant an article. No doubt that the term is legitimate and that it is widely used within the community - but the question at hand is of its coverage in reliable and independent sources. Of the sources that actually cover the term 'PC Master Race', the majority are unreliable and self-published (Urban Dictionary, reddit, Know Your Meme, etc.). The most reputable sources provided that cover the term appear to be Kotaku, Pulp365, and The Escapist, which I don't think is enough to have an article. That being said, I think a mention of the topic on another article (such as PC game) and having a redirect there would be appropriate. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Those media outlets (as well as the many others that are being located and added to the page every day) are certainly enough to allow it to have its own page. There are lots of people out there who search for this exact term, curious as to its meaning. Merging it and burying it in a barely related article seems a bit over-the-top for a perfectly notable term/meme such as 'PC Master Race'. Lesser-notable terms and memes have their own pages, I just think that this one is more attractive to vandalism, censorship, and hatred due to its controversial nature. This page deserves to exist. Wikinium (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough on your analysis of sources - that's something editors will always analyze differently. However, I wouldn't call any merged content "buried". Assuming the article is merged and redirected, any content worth mentioning (ideally the term's definition and history) would still be wholly available, just not as an independent article. Regarding the existence of other articles, that's not really a good argument for the notability of this one - though I'm curious about what memes have pages out there that are less significant than PC Master Race. As for the article matter being prone to censorship and hatred, I can see the logic behind that, but I think that's definitely non-issue at the moment. I'm going to throw out there that I myself am big into PC gaming, and also frequent the respective subreddit which, if anything, has driven more support here than any 'gut instinct' arguments for deletion or merging based on the dislike of the subject. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to PC game#Contemporary_gaming or a new subsection on PC gaming culture. Not sure I'd go so far as to say it's a non-notable neologism, but the subject of discussion is clearly something related to PC gaming culture and not a phenomenon of an actual "PC Master Race" apart from PC gaming culture. Thus it should be merged in with other aspects of contemporary PC gaming culture. Furthermore, "PC Master Race" does not have significant coverage as a term on its own (per a WP:VG/RS search), so it would be impossible to write a full article on the topic: it does not warrant its own article. This is to say that WP is not a dictionary and this neologism has no coverage about rather than using the phrase. My condolences to the closer of this beast. czar ♔ 02:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems contradictory. You won't accept the term being covered as a neologism, yet you disallow any evidence for its notability not related to the term itself. Tezero (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. I'm saying I don't think it's non-notable enough to be deleted outright. It's a useful search term, but I think its main scope is PC gaming culture (under the PC game article) and not a separate "PC Master Race" article as a separate concept. I don't see any sources covering such a separate concept in depth. This is the closest I've found other than it being used as a phrase in headlines. The last sentence is a reference to NEO in NOTDIC, that neologisms aren't bad per se but the coverage needs to be about the term itself rather than a bunch of articles that use the term. (If it's the latter, all you can do is make a statement to the effect that "it's used", which is not enough to build an article around.) I don't see the contradiction czar ♔ 02:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: At its current state, the article doesn't seem like it can stand by itself. Some parts consist of original research, and the page overall needs work before it can meet article standards. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete as per above. The sourcing in this article is also very misleading as many of the cited sources in fact do not reference this term at all, such as [28], [29], [30], [31]. Additionally, [32] cites a comment on the article and not the article itself. There is definitely not enough - actual - coverage in RS to warrant an independent article. The AfD is also attracting a ton of SPAs/socks/meatpuppets whose comments do not give any legitimate, policy-based rationale for keeping and their !votes should therefore be discarded. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of those sources were put in due to someone saying certain points needed to be backed up, they were added as evidence to specific claims on the wiki page (such as Sony misleading gamers) but as the article has been condensed since they were added and some of the content had been removed, I agree that the sources themselves should probably be removed. Plokinub (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Question about merge/redirect Does anyone know if people searching on Google for the term will get what they're looking for if this redirects to a subsection of another article about PC gaming? My biggest concern is that the information will remain inaccessible to the majority of people who are trying to learn about it.Wikinium (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't really predict search engine results, but I'll say with confidence that, given time, the merging of 'PC Master Race' to another article will cause that article to appear for search results on 'PC Master Race'. Note that redirect pages themselves don't show up in search engine results. Regardless, SEO of our articles aren't really something we should be worried about for a deletion discussion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT, namely, WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is not a neologism.Wikinium (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Sergecross73 msg me 10:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Czar; as amusing as it is, it does seem to not be notable enough for its own article. Ansh666 01:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO. Jucchan (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is not a neologism.Wikinium (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is widely accepted and has been noted by celebrities and well known people quite a bit in the past year. There should be a section added that shows some of the famous people that have referred to it. (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup on opinions and all, but it seems notable enough to me. It's both a neologism and an ideology, while we don't cover the former we do cover the latter. (We also cover notable memes) ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 22:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat reluctantly because of the negative associations with Master Race and Nazism, but the term has become "ubiquitous" in the computer gaming community by many well-sourced accounts such as here and here and here and here. It started as a quasi-satirical joke in 2008 and caught on BIGTIME in the computer gaming world -- for example, there are 6000+ pageviews on this Wikipedia article alone. What has been happening is that mainstream computer gaming writers tend to avoid the term (so there are fewer references than one might think in respectable publications), although there are so many mentions of the terms by gamers, posting anonymously on blogs, that suggest the term is well past the neologism stage, and that there is no risk that Wikipedia, by posting this article, will commit original research by foisting the term on the public; rather, the term was first foisted (sorry couldn't resist) by Croshaw. Further, the article has been 'edited' by numerous first-time Wikipedia contributors, who don't understand rules about sourcing, neutrality, who play rather lame jokes such as redirecting someone who clicks on video game console to potato, and so forth. The article now is in rather good shape but I expect that further neophytes will muck it up, so if the page could be blocked for a bit would be a good idea (until the deletion debate subsides), or signs posted inside the article advising users not to add junk. So, a reluctant keep, although it is my personal hope that gamers might find a less offensive way of describing themselves and their battles over platform superiority.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the term is a neologism but whether there is enough coverage about the neologism as an idea that would justify its own article. For a more accurate page count, see the views here. The four links mentioned above are a forum (unreliable source) and three mentions. There is no actual significant coverage of what a PC Master Race is apart from its role in PC gaming culture, which is worth perhaps one or two sentences in such an article on gaming culture given the current sourcing or else be weighted unduly. czar ♔ 16:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is extended discussion of the concept here in Escapist magazine which is a reliable source, even if it was by the term's coiner, written because he's responding to the term's (unfortunate, in my view) popularity. The term is making its way (slowly) into mainstream media such as Forbes magazine here and the New York Daily News here, and I think it is evident why the term, given its dark associations with Nazism (I recently did a lecture course on pre-WW2 Germany), has been reluctantly touched on by mainstream publications. The pageview statistics, 6000+ on one day, and getting 8651 views over five days again suggests the term is notable, even if pageview counts of course is not an official test of notability. We can think of pageview numbers in another way: there are 8000+ readers who are curious enough to click on the page, who want to know more about the concept, what it means, perhaps battling whether the PC platform is better than the console platform, who will be either (1) upset that the article gets deleted or (2) will work towards restoring it if deleted. While I'm not a big fan of pop culture here in Wikipedia, I've learned to shrug my shoulders, accept it, and at least try to cover it adequately when we can rather than try to disinfect Wikipedia with the ole' cleansing option.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Escapist piece is written by the person who coined the term, it does not help establish the subject's notability. The Forbes article is misleading because it is written by one of some 1500 Forbes "contributors" making it little better than a blog (that it is written by someone who could be considered a video game journalist makes this source debatable however). The third source is merely a mention; it does not contain any real sourceable content. Sam Walton (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Escapist piece was coiner-written but that does not undermine the credibility for me since it was clear that Croshaw was trying to explain the term's popularity, and for him to comment on how the term's usage has changed over time, from barb directed at 'elitist' PC gamers into a general term of superiority by all PC gamers. Further, the article is further referenced by the 2008 video-review by Croshaw. It makes sense. A quick test: do you believe the article? I do. It is not phony-baloney. Further, Forbes contributor Paul Tassi is not just some blog writer, but he knows enough about gaming to have been trusted by Forbes' publishers to have his thinking published in a mainstream business magazine; after all, there are 35+ articles in Wikipedia using Tassi as a reference; why would you choose to discount one Forbes-Tassi reference when he is accepted as a trusted reference in 35 other Wikipedia articles? It is all legit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This logic is very confused. No one said the term (the neologism) is not in wide use. The question is whether there is enough discussion about the idea to which the term refers to substantiate its own article. All of the mentions you just described other than the source that actually coined the term do not go into depth about the phenomenon of a "PC Master Race" other than mentioning the term. This is because "PC Master Race" is actually about PC gaming culture, which would be the article topic anyway, if there were even enough sources to substantiate a full article on that topic. Since there are not, it makes sense to cover both PC gaming culture and the PC Master Race (as merged) in the topic on PC gaming. czar ♔ 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are more sources such as this one plus a prominent discussion in a Spanish-language gaming magazine here and also here and here and here and here plus there's a Facebook page with almost 12,000 likes -- again suggesting major interest in this subject. Many magazines using "PC Master Race" in the title of the article, as if the magazine's editors know that this phrase will attract readers interested in the PC-vs-console debate. It is discussed prominently in the influential gaming blog named Kotaku and in know your meme website. There is so much coverage in forums that it is sometimes difficult to find the good sources; I used the "-forums" addition into the browser bar and found this was helpful while searching. And while PC Master Race is part of PC gaming culture, the term, in itself, has a history and a story, and is encyclopedic in its own right, as numerous references show. See, a reader wanting to know what PC Master Race means, or a journalist, and they type that into their browser, if they get redirected to PC Gaming culture, they'll be confused -- they will want to know, what does the term mean, so I do not think a redirect is a wise choice here. Another thing: there is a counter-culture aspect going on here, as if the term with its Nazi associations is deliberately used with kind of a wink, so that users know they will not be covered much in the popular press, kind of like flying under the radar, but this is my POV. Still, I believe it is a disservice to Wikipedia's readers not to cover this topic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those links show that the term is in use, not that there is a discussion around the term. I could source by source but suffice it to say that no one is discussing the cultural concept of a PC Master Race—they are just using the phrase in their headline slugs and telling readers how to build their own PCs. Inclusion in Wikipedia is not based on how many Facebook likes something has or even how many zillion times it's mentioned anywhere but on the depth of reliable sources, which is to say that if a term is used a zillion times it doesn't matter at all unless there are reliable sources we can use to actually write an article about it. Everything pointed to above does not provide that depth of coverage. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we don't cover things just because people want to know about the term (which, to be honest, isn't even being argued, because the term is going to be referenced within the PC game article anyway...) Nothing else I can say here without repeating the policies again czar ♔ 19:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources do discuss the term prominently--its origin, how it evolved, what it means--so I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What independent source has discussed the term's origin, evolution, or meaning for more than a single sentence (a passing mention)? I looked through all the sources and I don't remember seeing a single one, but I'm happy to be proven wrong czar ♔ 12:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here and here and to a lesser extent here. Further, the WP:BASIC rule says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources (in the article) may be combined to demonstrate notability so the other references can be combined to further establish notability. Just for the record, it is my personal POV that the term is inaccurate since there is only one true Master Race.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2014 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Race of My Life

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

The book fails WP:NBOOK. I and User:Sitush have tried redirecting it to the subject of the book, Milkha Singh. But some IPs keep reverting it. Hence requesting deletion or redirection and salting/locking. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt as per nomination. CutestPenguin ^discuss 13:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This request should have been made at WP:RPP. Vandalism is not a grounds for deletion. James500 (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum Nomination states that there is a history of an attempt by the nominator to redirect this article for non-notability, but there is no consensus for that view, and that the lack of consensus is the reason for the attempted deletion. This is a dispute that can be resolved without admin tools. As stated at WP:BEFORE C1, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." As per WP:Deletion policy, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination says there is attempt by nominator plus one other editor too in redirecting it rather than going through the lengthy procedures of AfD which probably might result in redirect. Plus, the redirecting in the nomination is just an option. Participants at Afd can very well form a consensus to delete it and not even redirect it especially given the history of promotional re-creations. So i don't think its a wrong forum. Btw, your opinion, other than it being the wrong forum, is not clear to me. Are you saying it should be deleted or redirected or kept-and-edited or what? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per [33], this article has never been deleted, so it has never been re-created. Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your position seems clear to me that you think that the issues here can be resolved with normal editing. Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discussion on the talk page, which is also mentioned in WP:BEFORE. I see no argument in the edit history, either, that suggests that the article should be deleted. IMO, this dispute does not need to bind the time of AfD volunteers. Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that there are uncivil comments in the edit history. I support an incivility block for [34]. This is not a reason to take an article to AfD, especially as it makes it appear that retaliation is a component of the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that my opinion is not clear to you and asking whether or not I think this topic should be deleted is not a well-considered question, as I have already stated that this is a dispute that can be resolved without admin tools. I have also quoted from WP:BEFORE as follows: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." I have also quoted from deletion policy, as follows: "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not created only after they are deleted. An article can be created from a redirect also, which has happened here twice, which in English would be called re-creation. What normal editing? If the topic fails WP:NBOOKS, howmuchsoever abnormal editing would also not make it notable. I never nominated it because some IP used abusive language. Its you presuming that. Yes, there is content dispute here in the way that i believe there should be no content in it. And re-read what i wrote. I didn't ask you only if your opinion is to delete it or not. I also asked if should be kept. That's giving all possible options. And lastly, WP is not compulsory. So you can very well choose to save your time and eventually of others too by not making them read all this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are replying to my !vote. If you didn't want others reading my reply to your reply, I don't know why you would start asking questions. You can also withdraw the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Introducing the concept of "abnormal editing" makes no sense to me, as "normal editing" is a term quoted from WP:BEFORE, and means editing that can be done without admin tools including redirecting and reverting a redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware that you listed options other than delete. The fact that I didn't explicitly mention those other options does not mean that I didn't respond. Please see the statement, "IMO, this dispute does not need to bind the time of AfD volunteers." I hope my position is now clear. Unscintillating (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your position is still not clear but its clear its not worth clearing either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the book is notable on its own: [35], [36], [37], [38] etc. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented by Vejvančický, this seems to cut the mustard for WP:BKCRIT #1. Roberticus talk 13:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I too find the sources above convincing as far as notability via GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be improved in terms of references and coverage in reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:48, 1 October 2014 (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. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Shi-min

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

Non-notable artist. Suspected case of self-promotion. The only reliable-sounding source found for this subject during a Google Search is the "Museum of Contemporary Art, Asia", which turned out to be a nonexistent museum which appears to be connected with the artist. Therefore, I have also listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museum of Contemporary Art, Asia, apparently created by the same group of sockpuppets. The Lee Shi-min article was previously listed for deletion in 2008, but the result was "Keep" even though the majority of the "keep" votes came from single-purpose accounts which are obvious sockpuppets: User:KWongtawan, User:Bream1, User:Kreisler, possibly associated with the banned User:Abd. Other probable sockpuppets include User:Toraya and User:Kirovsky. I also need to list March of the Dolls for deletion, also a non-notable subject associated with this guy...all in all, a big web of sockpuppets and self-promotion to sift through. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by nominator and reasons I myself gave back in 2008. --Nlu (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a hoax, just like the associated "museum" article. -Zanhe (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A7 at best, G3 at worst.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2014 (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. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Contemporary Art, Asia

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

Entirely nonexistent museum. Website hasn't been updated in years. Listing for deletion in tandem with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Shi-min (2nd nomination), an article apparently created by the same group of sockpuppets for promotional purposes. Can find no evidence that their "major collaborating organisation" exists, nor their award-winning artists, nor their supposed "prominent exhibits". A hoax. Citobun (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be also noted that based on that own museum's own Web site, the last exhibition appeared to have been in 2010 - at a gallery not owned by the alleged museum. This suggests that this "museum" was entirely a ruse. (Also, there is no evidence I can find of its publication's existence.) --Nlu (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Citobun (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've visited Hong Kong numerous times and have read multiple editions of Lonely Planet and Rough Guide books about the city, but have never heard about this "museum" before. Tellingly, the museum's own website looks amateurish and does not even provide a physical address or phone number. Almost certainly a hoax. -Zanhe (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 or A7--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch Lions

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

Clearly fails the test imposed at WP:CORP for organizations. No depth of coverage in reliable sources and no citations in article Valiant Patriot (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2014 (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 Glena (film). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glena Avila

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not come close to meeting WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glena (film) Obviously not notable as an MMA fighter, but being the subject of a documentary is different.Mdtemp (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mdtemp's comment above. Non-notable MMA fighter. The existence of the documentary film makes this easy, even if the subject were marginally notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It's clear that her notability is tied to the film and that she wouldn't be considered notable without it. Papaursa (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Yuncza

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

Non-notable martial artists - wrote a few articles. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair it might be worth looking at the page history. Quite a bit of information was deleted for being excessively promotional (I see copyvio issues also). The stub that remains does not say much. I don't think the deleted information would change the situation but the SPA creator may have been confused about tone and formatting. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources are articles he's written. Nothing shows he meets WP:MANOTE, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a one line article with no claims of notability. I agree with the previous comments that he doesn't meet GNG or the specific criteria for martial artists or authors, which are his stated fields. Papaursa (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks independent secondary sources to support notability. Cult of Green (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2014 (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. I'm don't normally like incrementally adding additional articles to an existing AfD, because it's sometimes not clear which comments apply to which articles. In this case, the additional articles were added almost immediately after the original nomination and there seems to be clear consensus that they should all be treated the same way, so calling this Delete All. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australia at the team sports international competitions

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

Entire premise of article is original research. It is a synthesis of uncited published material (which appears to be Wikipedia itself) that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. The conclusions, such as comparing the Australian men's cricket team's silver medal at the 1998 Commonwealth Games to the Australian men's basketball team's 17 continental championships (incidentally, this number is out-of-date and counts only one particular continental competition), are fundamentally flawed. The table form is too simplistic to provide any meaningful comparison given the varying levels of competition and organisation. Hack (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to nomination - since my nomination of the Australian article, articles in a similar style have been bundled below. The sole sources are to http://sports123.com/ a currently inactive sports results site which doesn't not appear to be a reliable source. The articles should be deleted for the same reasons as the Australian articles. Hack (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom (thanks for putting this through the right channels for me).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For all the above reasons, plus the fact that the name is grammatically gruesome, and makes almost no sense. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict x2> adding;

all part of the same set of articles which were prod'd but due to commonalities and prior discussion AFD was suggested. Gnan garra 09:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting:

Also;
Support for reasons above. --Falcadore (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While all these articles seem silly, I am primarily here to argue for deletion of the Australian article. It will be disappointing if the existence of the other articles gets in the way of deletion of the Australian one. They should probably all be deleted, but I don't see why they have to be treated as a package if that's going to make things more complicated. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments for keeping and deleting any of them are identical. Grouping such articles together is commonplace and routine. --Falcadore (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe. I still cannot comprehend why they have lasted as long as they have. I already believe that the existence of multiple articles has delayed the deletion of any of them. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obscure wording of the article titles. No-one would look for an article with a name like that and they don't really link to anything. Just obscurity. --Falcadore (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have to agree with that. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AlanS^talk 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. AlanS^talk 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AlanS^talk 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. AlanS^talk 23:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Delete all as per nomination. AlanS^talk 23:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support/delete all. Mess of original research, poorly sourced at an incomprehensible title on a topic that doesn't make sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, not sure how these have managed to survive for so long, but quite clearly massively flawed from the title all the way down. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

QuestionWhat happens next? Who does it? HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- answer an independent admin will review and make a decision based on consensus and then take the appropriate action Gnan garra 04:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When? HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Sport_in_Australia#International_competitions especially the tables where they have some relevance similarly for the other articles. While the content is currently sourced to WP articles its clear the information meets notability requirements and has reliable 3rd party sources available otherwise those articles wouldnt exist. They arent WP:OR all they appear to be is a fork of Sport in Australia Gnan garra 09:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if you must. Just get rid of this idiotic name and stupid comparisons. Now. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- The nature of the compilation of the data is what is WP:OR. The article is grouping together events that are not grouped together otherwise. The raw data is of course not original, but presenting it in this manner, and particularly drawing connections between sports where none exist, is very definately OR. --Falcadore (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2014 (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. Deor (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of places with the ZIP Code 90210

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

NN and uncited. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:IINFO. This one is pretty clear cut, and the article comes of really as some sort of joke. One of the sources is Wikipedia, further undermining the article's position. Valiant Patriot (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as info is already at 90210 and there's no call for a separate list. The title is not a likely search term (certainly not something someone is going to try before just typing in "90210") so it wouldn't be a useful redirect. Don't even waste your time on the "uncited" argument, as if the fact of a zip code is somehow not verifiable. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the points above. There's also no mention of why this ZIP code is special enough to warrant a list of any length. Sure, it's featured in a TV show, but what hasn't? mol uɐɯ 17:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In support of keeping this article alive: '90210' gets around 368,000 searches every month as confirmed by just using the Google Keyword Planner. ZIP Codes are not permanent. Countries may change them every 50-60 years. It would be quite useful to have a page documenting the same ZIP Codes across various countries as a form of confusion avoidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svram (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You've basically made three unrelated assertions, the first two of unclear significance to why this separate list should be maintained, and the third an unsupported conclusion that does not logically follow from the first two. Why, in your opinion, is 90210 inadequate to list the two locales that have this zip code? postdlf (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - We already have 90210, I was actually expecting a long list ... not 2 areas that already at 90210 anyway. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary fork. No evidence has been presented that any country ever has changed the substance of its postal codes. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2014 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holzer Permaculture

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

Wholly unreferenced. No evidence of any special notability. Difficult to actually understand what the article means (and the article acknowledges this) Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is poorly written and unsourced. However, there are significant sources available, and this seems to be notable within the general subject of permaculture. Article needs rewritting and references, not deletion. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs more sources and better writing but definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 04:09, 19 September 2014 (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). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bug Genie

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

non-notable software. Google search only turns up one useful source, while the rest appear to be distribution or demo sites. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additional sources available at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bug Genie (2nd nomination). ~KvnG 16:36, 21 September 2014 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Billot

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

Not notable Elguaponz (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of my original post on the article's Talk page: Victor Billot doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. Co-leadership of a party outside of Parliament isn't enough (see WP:POLITICIAN), which leaves a standard comms job, editing a student magazine, and two un-notable bands. Even his official site is empty except for an email address. Elguaponz (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alliance (New Zealand) article NealeFamily (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quite q bit of coverage, both direct and passing mentions in http://www.stuff.co.nz and http://www.nzherald.co.nz Stuartyeates (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these mentions establish notability? If he's simply quoted as Alliance co-leader, I don't believe that's enough (see WP:POLITICIAN) Elguaponz (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2014 (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/2014 September 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:40, 2 September 2014 (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/2014 September 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Billot is from Dunedin, so I've had a look through the Otago Daily Times archive. They have 61 articles on him, but I grant that some of those are opinion pieces written by himself. Their archive goes back to 2008 only, so it misses the period when he was co-leader, when no doubt there would have been even more coverage. I concede that he will not have anywhere near as high a profile outside of Otago, but suggest that he's (just) notable enough to warrant his own article. I've expanded the article a bit. Schwede 66 19:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Schwede, but would it be possible to make it clearer what he is notable for? Maybe the Otago Daily Times makes it clearer. If he's notable for having been a politician maybe the article needs to lead with that fact, not what he is doing now.CoronaryKea (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmich

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

Singer with only one album, looks like a too soon issue. Wgolf (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2014 (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) 05:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Zarrilli

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not really seeing anything "notable" here able being a critic of the Big Dig. Many people have been critical of it, but this also reads like a promotional piece for the man, with an entire bibliography slapped onto the end. Furthermore, of the sources that are linked, only one mentions Zarrilli, and that one doesn't really go into too much depth other than a few mentions in relation to the story. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I haven't seen a "Back the BB" sign in years, but they were very common in the 80s and 90s, and the Pot Shop is a pretty common presence in tourist trap shops around Boston. That said, I can understand the nomination, as Zarilli hasn't had much to say in years, but he was a notable, if minor, figure in the controversy over the Big Dig. Haikupoet (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous AfD produced no delete !votes. There are reliable sources to show that this topic is not a hoax or something made up. AfD is not cleanup. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a search on HighBeam and there are about 20 articles on him in The Boston Gobe during the 80's and 90's as oddly noted in the article. There are also a couple of Associated Press articles from that time. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katerena DePasquale

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

Non-notable model / clothing designer. Coverage is insignificant, mostly found in blogs and other self-published sources. —Waldhorn (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As sadly can't find any evidence of any notability, There may be sources in Russian/Ukrainian but obviously I can't read Russian/Ukrainian. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Designing for Dior is quite a major claim, but having had a closer look at the sources and searched generally I can't verify notability. If she worked at Dior it was probably as an assistant designer rather than anywhere approaching a Galliano level. Cannot confirm notability. Mabalu (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2014 (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 G5 and G7. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benham Parsa

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

A character from the television show NCIS. Portrayed by Indian actor Karan Oberoi but myself didn't found any sources to meet WP:GNG. So as per Ravensfire nominated the page. Bohra Karanvir K (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jin, since you're the only author on the page, you can request a speedy delete. See the WP:G7 for instructions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable character of show not even listed in List of NCIS characters. Also some discrepancies between NCIS wikia and info on this page. Ravensfire (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of available reliable sources suggests that this character is not notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Character fails GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G5 Speedy Delete : Created by sock of banned user Howzat Utseya (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This NCIS character has not received commentary or analysis in multiple sources. He's no Leroy Jethro Gibbs, but has a home in the fan Wikis. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete also tagged as such (G7 & G5) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:37, 8 September 2014 (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) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ishaan Khattar

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

Not inherited issue. When it even says "Half brother" is what they are known for. And only in 1 film. Wgolf (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ONEEVENT. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ENT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:16, 22 September 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Himal Karki

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

Well the ref gave me nothing, so I looked up else where and can't find anything. The page is also confusing as well, just check the years on this page. Yeah....that does not make any sense at all. Wgolf (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, before anyone says it should of been a speedy, well it was apparently already. (And notice the page creator has the same name as the article) Wgolf (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Not notable youth leader. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a hoax. I can't find anything, no reliable source found. Totally fails GNG. It also qualifies for speedy deletion criteria. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I strongly doubt that this is an outright hoax; the one cited ref does indicate that he exists (although the nominator is correct that it doesn't contain anything of substance about him besides confirming his existence), and I'm willing to grant that there might very well be more substantive coverage of him in Nepali language sources than anybody's been able to find so far in English ones. That said, the role that he holds, according to this article, is not one that confers an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and one source confirming his existence is not sufficient to get him past WP:GNG either. And while conflict of interest isn't a reason for deletion in and of itself, it doesn't do the article any favours if there are other substantive reasons for deletion in addition to the COI. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can create a good version that cites enough actual sourcing to pass GNG, but this version is definitely a delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax. The information of being a district representative is true. [39] I searched for sources in Nepali language too but only I found was being a district representative from Nepali Congress, which credibly doesnot signify his notability. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:27, 8 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus: The Devil's Primate

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

The film has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. It fails WP:GNG A mention in the Sunderland Echo is the only source I could find. This film meets the criteria of WP:NFF at best. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 03:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to this completed and screened film lacking enough coverage to meet WP:NF. Sorry Versace1608... we look to WP:NFF only if a film is completed and not yet released. Allow undeletion or recreation only when WP:NF can be met. Okay with userfication. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 13 September 2014 (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) 07:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saradha Narayanan

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

She has written two books, but neither seems to have gained the coverage for her to pass the notability guidelines for an author. Nothing else about her seems to approach notability either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe speedy.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable writer with one NN book. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. Several sweeps did not find any sources. Her book Freedom of Choice on Amazon has been there since 2008, has no customer reviews.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2014 (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) 21:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anubha Bhonsle

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (people) Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 20:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, a non-notable journalist in India won a non-notable award? — Wylie pedia 16:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable so far. AAA3AAA (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a few refs. You decide. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: See [40], diffs of material added since last delete opinion was registered. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 2 deletes + the nominator. Does my delete make it any clearer. The 2 awards won by the subject are not notable. The occasional article does not confer notability. Delete, delete, delete. Op47 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2014 (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. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Srirama Navami

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

Well possibly outdated as it says will start shooting in 2008-yes 6 years ago. But then nothing ever indicates this even came out at all. No updates or anything. Wgolf (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

and WP:INDAFD: Sri Rama Navami Sri Vasu N. T. Rama Rao Jr. Tamanna Dil Raju

Delete A major issue is the many false positives caused by "Sri Rama Navami" being a springtime festival in India, celebrated for at least 108 years. So we look further. Yes, a film by this planned title received initial coverage in 2008 when NTR Jr. was signed,[41] but I have found no evidence that filming ever began. Perhaps they eventually used a different title. But THIS article fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI looked up one of the names on the IMDB (I think it was the director) who had a film in 2008 so I decided to see if it could be the same film with a different title, but I noticed that it looked different with who was in it so I figured it couldn't of been it. Wgolf (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 23 September 2014 (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 Dead Rising 2. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the Sound

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

This song fails WP:NSONG as it has not been the subject of discussion in third party media. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SilentDan (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dead Rising 2 might be a suitable solution. People may search of the song and having the redirect might be useful. PNGWantok (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dead Rising 2. Lacks coverage in reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a redirect is reasonable. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2014 (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). Of note is that this can be boldly redirected, and if reverted, then discussion could continue on its talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demo Vault Vol. 01

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

This album fails WP:NALBUMS because it has not been discussed in third party sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Celldweller is a solution I would support. PNGWantok (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 13 September 2014 (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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cinesexuality

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

This appears to be a concept that hasn't been developed by anyone other than its creator. Her book of the same name has gotten a few reviews,[42][43] but that's the extent of it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found some reviews for the work and I've added them to Patricia_MacCormack#Books. I can also see where the concept has been in some books ([44], [45], [46]) but it's almost always in books where MacCormack has been a contributor. If we can find more coverage for the book (I don't think that Media Culture could be usable as a RS) then we would probably be able to make an article for the book (which would be a way to include information on the concept itself). It's right at the cusp where we could probably argue for an article for the book. I can't find much for the coverage as a separate entity from the book, though. If all else fails, we could probably condense this into a small subsection's worth of material, merge it into the main article for MacCormack, and then redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Largely agree with comments above. I searched perhaps 15 SERP pages and found a few references, added them, rewrote article based on them. My sense is the term cinesexuality is highly similar to cinephilia, not clear whether it has been picked up by mainstream film theorists, but it is getting some attention from some critics (included, so why I am giving it a 'weak keep'). What I had trouble writing was what, exactly, is the difference between cinesexuality and cinephilia? The problem is that the term, as MacCormack wants people to use it, is almost a springboard for MacCormack's rather (extensive) and somewhat obscure theorizing about poststructuralist film philosophy -- which can bring in WP:OR -- so to keep that out, I think the strategy should be to stick to the term itself, avoid getting sucked into trying to explain her theories. There is a danger of WP:NEOLOGISM here, but this depends on whether the term catches on (and it might -- not sure). My sense is to revisit this topic a year from now and see how it plays, see whether more film critics are using the term, and to keep a watchful eye on this article to keep the original research out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a nonsense concept. If you really must, mention in Cinephillia and make this page a re-direct. Really and truly, Wikipedia is not a soap box for crank theories. Op47 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Ordóñez

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

Her father, husband and sons seem to have been notable bullfighters, but she does not seem to have done anything notable. While some wives of celebrities also become notable, we lack the sources to demonstrate this applies to her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPFAMILY. The one profile provided as a source does not seem substantial enough to save the article. TheBlueCanoe 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator is quite right and I cannot see any reason to delay deleteing this. Op47 (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2014 (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 Edexcel#Diploma in digital applications. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate in Digital Applications

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

No referenced content, article is too short 1999sportsfan (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edexcel#Diploma in digital applications, which has about as much info on it as this article anyway. No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, even after being tagged for over six years. Boleyn (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good nomination Op47 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edexcel. This is a particular course of study at a particular school. Inherently not notable. Just plain deleting it is a viable option too, but redirects are cheap. BTW, the fact that the article is too short makes it a stub, and that's not a reason to delete. But there are plenty of others reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2014 (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. Closing as no consensus, because the last two keep !votes are not based upon guidelines or policies. The last !vote, qualifying article retention per "the underlying topic is sound" is ambiguous, and doesn't qualify topic notability. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Doo and the Spooky Scarecrow

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

I found no significant coverage for this Scooby-Doo special. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used to source the article, my WP:BEFORE found DVD Verdict] and The Morton Report. Weak keep and improve accordingly. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a few sentences of coverage. The main topic is a DVD release that this is included on - not this special. SL93 (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic being cited need not be the sole topic discussed in a source. That this was discussed in context to the DVD in which it was released is fine. Still "weak keep". Had this Scooby-Doo! project been discussed in the New York Times or Washington Post, then we'd have a strong keep. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but a few sentences does not equal significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scooby Doo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 196.xx who makes a very good point! ... - Joking aside DVDs like these are hard to source ... If we delete this we may aswell wipe out each and every Scooby-Doo article on here as most if not all are poorly sourced. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs improvement and citation but the underlying topic is sound. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2014 (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 keep per WP:SK#1. A valid argument for deletion based upon Wikipedia guidelines or policies does not exist in the nomination. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sa-Deuce

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

Unreferenced. (I am making no comment on notability - WP:DDC applies.) Laun chba ller 22:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard wrote quite extensively about their debut album (p. 18, 20); there are also reviews in Vibe [47], [48]. The band was active in the mid-1990s, today is defunct and the online coverage is rather sparse. G-books search provides some decent sources. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remind the nominator that "Unreferenced" is not a reason for deletion at AfD. "Unreferenceable" after an adequate search, on the other hand, that is a very good reason. There have been too many of such nominations. The correct procedure in dealing with an unreferenced article is to try to fix it. As even the nominator says, deletion is not for cleanup--this means that one should try to clean up an inadequate article first, improving it in particular by finding references, and only go to AfD if you find it impossible to adequately do so. This is not my field, but based on the material shown by Vejvančický, this merits a speedy keep. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#1 (without prejudice against renomination on notability grounds), as the fact that an article is unreferenced is not an argument in itself for deletion. Vejvančický's sources clearly show that references are available to write an article for this subject. The purpose of deletion discussions is to discuss deletion. Deletion discussions are not to be used as a catalyst for cleanup, which is the position WP:DDC appears to be trying to advance. Mz7 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an admin just needs to make a decision based on the above - three arguments for keeping this and no follow-up from the nominator for either the nomination or by way of rebuttal. That's fine of course (nominators aren't required to campaign for deletion) but there really hasn't been a strong justification for deletion put forward. The sources provided above would seem adequate and none of them have been challenged against the terms of WP:GNG. Can someone just close this? St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:40, 2 September 2014 (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) 16:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of e-commerce services in Singapore

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

This was deprodded with a comment that AfD would be more appropriate, so here we are. Appears to be a directory of mainly non-notable companies. Of those that do have articles, some are present in multiple countries, and the ones specific to Singapore are telecomms companies, not e-commerce companies. The criteria here are not tight enough to be a valid list article. Michig (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Those that meet the geographical criteria don't meet the technical criteria. Those that might meet the technical criteria are active in Singapore and elsewhere. That doesn't disqualify them, of course, but it doesn't make for a particularly strong list. It wouldn't seem to serve any particular purpose beyond being not-very-accurate but perhaps slightly interesting. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article, being solely a directory of 'e-commerce services in Singapore', is clearly a directory of businesses, most of them unnotable. Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2014 (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). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T.T. Quick

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

To this band's benefit, they were mostly active in the 80s, before the internet really took off. So I doubt there will be many reliable sources available online to judge this band's notability. There doesn't seem to be any coverage in a Google News archive search. It does look like they were signed with Megaforce Records and released 1 EP and 1 album on that label, but without any significant coverage to back it up, and without any records that charted nationally, I am not convinced of the band's notability. Note that the Megaforce Records article does not mention TT Quick at all. Does an EP count as an album? If not, then I don't see any of the criteria at WP:BAND satisfied. Mz7 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Mark Tornillo, the former lead singer, who seems to have a better case for notability. I don't really find much for T.T. Quick, but happy to look again if anyone can provide substantial coverage from independent reliable sources --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 2 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juan de la Rubia (organist)

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

Fails the notability test for musicians - WP:MUSICBIO. —Waldhorn (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. There does not appear to be suitable coverage of this individual; at least as a google search would show. I notice the Spanish and Catalan language versions of the article appear to have the same issue. PNGWantok (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He has three CDs listed on Amazon [49] but I can't find reliably published reviews of them. And there is lots of press announcing his concerts, but I couldn't find any reviews of those either. So this seems below the mark for WP:NMUSIC. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2014 (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) 21:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Del Tarrant

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

A minor TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe stubify): notable character in a notable television series, Blake's 7. See Attwood, Tony; Davies, Kevin; Emery, Rob; Ophir, Jackie. (1994). "In Their Own Words". Blake's 7: The Programme Guide. England: Virgin Books. pp. 118–125. ISBN 0-426-19449-7 and other books on the series, such as Nazzaro, Joe; Wells, Sheelagh (1997). Blake's 7: The Inside Story. London: Virgin. ISBN 0-7535-0044-2. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for this topic including Terry Nation, The Essential Cult TV Reader, Solar Flares: Science Fiction in the 1970s and A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7. The topic is therefore notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 2 September 2014 (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). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roj Blake

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

A sci TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for this topic including British Science Fiction Television: A Hitchhiker's Guide, Solar Flares: Science Fiction in the 1970s and A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7. The topic is therefore notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you are so confident that this article is notable Andrew why don't you add sources to the article to improve it? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2014 (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). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Servalan

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

A sci TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for this topic including The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader, The Essential Cult TV Reader and A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7. The topic is therefore notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains useful and interesting matter for devotees of the series, I'm not sure that the character merits an entire article though, it would be good just to include this information in the main Blakes Seven article. For balance, then, details of all the other main, or recurring characters would also have to be expanded. It's a lot of work.Plingsby (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Plingsby (talk) if it not notable or has any third person sources surely a better compromise to deletion would be to merge to Characters of Blake's 7. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I didn't realise that there was such an extensive article out there (it's not mentioned in the "see also" section of the main Blakes Seven page.) This article is well-constructed and as I said, interesting to fans (like me) of the series. A lot of work has obviously gone into it. It should not be deleted, merger with Characters of Blake's 7 is the way to go. Plingsby (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree Plingsby (talk) Servalan maybe should be merged. But Roj Blake really needs to be discussed also. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't agree. I don't have the impression that you know the first thing about this show or how huge this character was back in the day. Have you read any of the sources provided above such as A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7? The topic is quite notable and our editing policy applies. Andrew (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIf all these so called articles are notable by all means add sources I am not against character profiles I love them so long as it has sources to show that are notable. I am just sick of people screaming notable with character bios which literally have one line and no sources and people wanna argue its notable and don't wanna add sources. I would argue WP:PROVEIT Andrew I am not having a go at you. I am just making a general statement if you can bother to create an article you can be bothered to find sources to justify its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2014 (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) 21:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soolin

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

A sci TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe stubify): notable character in a notable television series, Blake's 7. See Attwood, Tony; Davies, Kevin; Emery, Rob; Ophir, Jackie. (1994). "In Their Own Words". Blake's 7: The Programme Guide. England: Virgin Books. pp. 118–125. ISBN 0-426-19449-7 and other books on the series, such as Nazzaro, Joe; Wells, Sheelagh (1997). Blake's 7: The Inside Story. London: Virgin. ISBN 0-7535-0044-2. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for this topic including Enterprising Women: Television Fandom and the Creation of Popular Myth, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture and A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7. The topic is therefore notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 2 September 2014 (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 Cold (band). No support for keeping as a standalone article, but policy favors a redirect vice deletion so that those searching for the subject can more easily locate relevant information. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Marshall

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

Does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE independent of his band Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article about his band, Cold (band), which already discusses his role in the band. There is no independent notability outside coverage of his band. Mz7 (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom says it all Op47 (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cold (band). Most of the coverage in reliable sources covers the band, with the subject being mentioned. There is this short MTV article, but it's routine coverage regarding an injury the subject had. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 13 September 2014 (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 Keep I withdraw my nomination. (non-admin closure) ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 17:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Wilde

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

non-notable actress per WP:NACTOR ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 17:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_EastEnders_characters_(2013)#Nikki_Spraggan. She's only notable for her role on EastEnders and from what I can see, that seems to be her only role to date. If/when she performs in other roles and gains coverage we can always un-redirect at that point in time. For now the only usable coverage stems from her EE role. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2013)#Nikki Spraggan per Tokyogirl79 - The only role she's ever had is on EE so seems logical to redirect there, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found/added, I'm not entirely convinced the article hould be kept but since she's also starred in Masterchef and other programmes I'll have to say keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2013)#Nikki Spraggan as her only notable role. –anemoneprojectors– 17:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Changing my !vote from redirect to keep. I think there's probably enough significant coverage about her. –anemone projectors– 08:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while agreeing that the previous article was too short, and unreferenced, and deserving of an AfD or a redirect, but there are numerous references such as here and here and here and here and here and here and here which discuss her career, her (infamous) lack of clothing on a National Awards show (such a lame celebrity trick isn't it), her acting on EastEnders, suggesting she well meets notability requirements and meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisting a third time per new sources presented in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Enough significant third party coverage is found to establish notability. Passes WP:NACTOR. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per the sources found by @Tomwsulcer:. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 17:09, 10 September 2014 (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 Withdrawn/Keep. - Despite my objections it seems the community deems this notable, Thanks The Whispering Wind for your major improvements to the article. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MetroBus (Bristol)

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

Proposed bus scheme, All imho WP:crystal & WP:TOOSOON, Fails GNG, I also don't object to redirecting/merging –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will be operational in summer of 2016! Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. This can be deleted if it remains unchanged from its current state, as it is not sourced with little content, but many proposed and future projects have articles (the Silver Line in Washington DC has had an article since 2006 but only opened this year). If this can be adequately sourced and expanded, it should be kept. Or, it could be merged with a more appropriate article(a general article on transportation in Bristol, or Bristol itself) 331dot (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Buses in Bristol for now. Can always be split off again if and when it grows enough to warrant it but I can't see the need for a separate article at the moment. NewsBank and Google searches show quite a bit of coverage in local news sources (mainly the Bristol Post and BBC News Online for Bristol) but not more widely. Qwfp (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's inconceivable to me that a BRT project in the UK that gets as far as this one appears to be at, wouldn't already have been subject to lots of in-depth coverage already. And a cursory Google search reveals that yes, it's already well past the stage where even a complete cancellation wouldn't justify not having an article. Unless Wikipedia only deals with things that actually happen? Which I'm pretty sure is not the case. At least Bristol has a buses article though, lucky old Bristol - over in Kent they've yet to even learn what a bus is, according to Wikipedia. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed my reply since it's somewhat off-topic. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

over in Kent they've yet to even learn what a bus is is quite honestly the most dumbest comment I've heard yet!,

On the Kent side we have Arriva Kent & Sussex, Arriva Kent Thameside, The Kings Ferry, Metrobus, Stagecoach South East and Southdown PSV So I would say we are aware of what a fucking bus is!,

You should probably read up on the policies here before !voting based on its history & whatnot. –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And since when were you the personification of Kent on Wikipedia? You've gone quite bonkers old chap. Take a deep breath. And relax.... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The way I see it, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't quite apply to this article. The bus company has already filed a massive cache of documents and plans with the Bristol City Council [50], including a map of one of the proposed routes [51]. These are definite proposals as opposed to "unverifiable speculation". Additionally, the bus routes have been highly controversial; environmentalists have complained that MetroBus construction would destroy valuable land. I'd argue that this article [52] from BBC Gloucestershire is at least a regional source and meets WP:AUD of the notability requirements for organizations. Given these sources and others mentioned above, I'd say the level of coverage is sufficient for a stand-alone article. Altamel (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imho I would say Crystal is still correct but we'll agree to disagree on that, The service doesn't even start till 2016 so I believe it's way too soon for it to warrant an article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I expanded the article and added some refs—would anyone care to have a second look? Altamel (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Once operational, this scheme will be notable and the fact that central government approval has been given to one route and that the planning applications for all three routes have first stage approval is sufficient for us to assume implementation. Deletion, only to recreate is inefficient, and most significantly, there is sufficient material in reliable sources to make a worthwhile and informative stub. Finally, even if the scheme does eventually get cancelled, sufficient reliable source coverage has probably been generated anyway to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2014 (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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rojda Aykoç

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

Turkish singer without a page in Turkish Wikipedia. She has had her hours of fame due to an absurd court ruling which was not executed. As a singer she has doubtful notability, maybe some among Turkish Kurds. Note: Please do not confuse her with the famous Turkish Kurd singer Rojin who doesn't have a page here! Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by the nominator: Please note that there is not even one reliable source used in the article. Hürriyet could be one but it only uses the news of an ailing Milliyet newspaper. Then, saying 'arrested for singing' ın the tıtle, but something different in the news text. Pure sensationalism. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. She has published seven albums, if that does not make her notable I don not know what does! Please note that her music has been broadcast on Iraqi Kurdish TV satellite channels many times. So she is quite well known even in Iraqi Kurdistan. If the main issue with the article is her court ruling then remove that part. We know that she is not Rojin, but that does not mean that she is unknown. Her music is traditional and folkloric and has nothing to do with politics. For instance her clip Le Buke is a famous folk song. Also not having a page in Turkish wikipedia is not a solid ground for deleting her article here. She sings in Kurdish not Turkish so it is reasonable to assume that she is not well known among Turks of Turkey. On the other hand, she does have an article in Kurdish wikipedia[53]. Vekoler (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

You somehow forgot to say that you created the article. You also recognise she is not a Rojin (although she chose a similar stage name). I appreciate that you accept that the absurd court adventure is not necessary here; whatever the Wiki articles say, if you have any insight to the situation of the Kurds in Turkey at present you will understand why I say 'absurd'. (The other day I read somewhere that the Turks of Rhodes and Kos were being intimidated not to speak Turkish. Dialectics, while one changes in one direction the neighbour goes the other way!) Anyhow, when are you going to make an article for Rojin? Does she have less albums or less court orders? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both for her musical output and public notability. She is a professional singer with a career history spanning several decades (there are many examples of her work on Youtube). The 2010 arrest and subsequent court case is a big part of the notability, so mention of it should remain - there should be no blp issues as long as it is carefully done. I don't see the point to Why should I have a User Name's mentions of Rojin or Turkish Wikipedia - lack of an article on one subject or on one Wikipedia is not a reason to delete an existing article on a different subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither her musical output nor her arrest raise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why do you think that ten albums, plus the fact that she was important enough cultural figure to be selected amongst other cultural figures of Kurdish origin to meet with the PM of Turkey, plus the arrest story that was widely reported, does not raise her to the level of notability? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is really non notable. Op47 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Really"? Is this really the extent of your argument? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Op47 has scattered delete opinions in numerous AfDs. Most of those opinions are similar or identical [54],[55], or even shorter [56], in their brevity and absence of a reasoned argument. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Vekoler: and @Tiptoethrutheminefield: Does she meet any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG? Having a long career or lots of Youtube videos can't count. Of her seven albums, have any of them charted in a national chart, or met any other part of WP:MUSICBIO? Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Charted in a national chart" - that generates in me a bit of a smile and a bit of a groan. Let me explain why. How can she chart in a national chart if the country the singer lives in has had (until very recently) restrictive and oppressive language laws that did not allow her songs to be played in public, or even their titles - since they use an "illegal" alphabet (Kurdish) - to appear in print! Having a long career, releasing at least 10 albums, and having many tracks on YouTube ARE indicators of notability when the more normal indicators of notability are denied due to abnormal circumstances. Being significant and well-known enough to be invited to appear in numerous international concerts and festivals are also indicators of notability, as is being included in a small and select group of cultural figures invited to meet the leader of the country that has created those abnormal circumstances. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's like the blind are leading the blind, with invalid arguments all around. That there's no article in the Turkish wiki means nothing whatsoever, and that she made seven albums and has a lot of YouTube videos also means nothing. (Seven albums--with a record company? a notable one? were they released outside of Turkey and did they chart there, like in Germany or the Balkan?) Sorry, but politics and all that notwithstanding, nothing but reliable sources is going to save this article.
BTW, I disagree a bit with Boleyn, who I think was suggesting that the arrest needed to be removed from the lead to do away with the suggestion that she's notable for that reason: it may well be that the publicity generated by her arrest contains evidence that she in fact is notable for other reasons as well. In other words, let's not say BLP1E too quickly, and I urge editors to mine the archives and the references more carefully. The way this AfD is going right now I'd close it as a delete. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources, but we need a Kurdish speaker to extract any content from the first, and a Turkish speaker for the second:

Article (in Kurdish) about, and with link to, a 35-minute interview she gave on the Kurdish language service of Voice of Russia on 28 March 2014. [57]

Review (in Turkish) of her latest album, Kezi, along with a lot of background info on her career. [58]

Tiptoethrutheminefield ([[User:: talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 14:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Siirt News'? The local website is celebrating its first anniversary (see top left). Congratulations! --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been active in Turkey for longer than you have then? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2014 (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 without prejudice for its failure to meet WP:NF. Recreation or undeletion okay if and or when notability can be established. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's Up: Balloon to the Rescue

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

As far as I can tell, the only thing notable about this film is that it was terrible (and not even well-known and terrible). I deleted the negative comments from the article because they were unsourced but you can look back at the earlier versions. Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources like Tooncrap are not reliable sources. The film gathered minimal coverage from sources of questionable reliability as a knock-off of Up [59][60][61]. Overall, I'm not satisfied this film meets WP:NFILM. Mz7 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vídeo Brinquedo. I found a review by Film School Rejects, but that's the only truly reliable source I could find. For the most part this was pretty much just ignored by both English and Spanish language RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 2 September 2014 (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) 07:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Khan

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

This is a very common name but I cannot find anything that suggests the person meets WP:GNG. My suspicion is WP:PROMO. Sitush (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability, just a competent person, we are to believe--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure he's good at his job but we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for a subject to be notable. I can't see that the sources provided or the sources available get us there. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see WP:RS WP:Third party sources. Fails general notability. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:30, 2 September 2014 (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 two relistings, guideline based consensus to delete outweighs keep based on a) insufficient coverage in reliable sources and b) being an "interesting chap" is not a BLP criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Cowell

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

Unsourced BLP that has been here for nearly four years without sources. From the first ten pages of Google results and first five pages of GNews results I didn't find enough to convince me of notability. This appears to be a press release. There are a few brief mentions in Billboard: [62], [63], [64], [65]. This from a local newspaper contains the most in-depth coverage I could find. Michig (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interesting chap; he's doing a show in LA at the moment with Raiding the rock vault - [66]

Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)

11:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completely unsourced. As you created the article with significant content but no sources and added details such as date of birth, could you indicate where you found those details please? Thanks. --Michig (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Isn't it clear that there is no consensus to delete this article? - suggest it is now closed $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 16:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was relisted per procedures stated at WP:RELIST. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes the notability question is a close call. Not in this case. Op47 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Billboard is usually considered reliable as a source. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has suggested otherwise, and that isn't the issue being discussed here. The Billboard coverage tells us that he was the MD of publishing/plugging company Rive Droite, and then quit to start Private and Confidential Music, neither of which appear notable, and that's about all we have. --Michig (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Billboard is usually notable, but in this case the coverage is not substantial enough to help us build a coherent biography of this living person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 14 September 2014 (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. No !keep votes after two relistings. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Partnership of Business Schools

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY, and has been tagged as such for over six years. Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CORP. The 'IPBS' does not have any significant depth of coverage, or any for that matter that I could find online. One of the sources is a dead link, another is to a member of the 'IPBS' and the third and final citation is again a dead link. With no media coverage and no independent sourcing for what seems to be a fairly trivial organisation, I am fairly confident in a delete Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2014 (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 GMA Network. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DWWQ

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not cite any reliable sources. Only links to the Facebook page and live streaming are given. There is no explanation of the notability of this radio station, so it fails WP:BCAST. I can't find any reliable sources on my own [67]. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing improvements are sorely needed here, but the base notability that a radio station has to establish to qualify for a Wikipedia article is the fact of being duly licensed by its appropriate regulatory authority — as long as it actually exists as a real radio station, and isn't a hoax or some random person's home Icecast webstream, it's entitled to some kind of coverage in Wikipedia (the only legitimate question being whether it should have a standalone article or be a redirect to a larger related topic, such as a list of radio stations in its area or an article about its programming source.) So this could stand alone as an article with the {{refimprove}} tag added, or it could be redirected to GMA Network — but absent evidence that it actually doesn't even exist, it can't just be deleted outright. Redirect to GMA Network, without prejudice against recreation in the future if the sourcing improves. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability guidelines Op47 (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2014 (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). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Name Is Jonas

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. The current article's only sources for the song's notability are two "best Weezer songs" lists in which the song appears.

At the time of nomination, the sources are: the Weezer biography (which predictably covers almost every Weezer song, and does not prove this song's notability); the official Weezer site (fails " sources are independent of the artist and label" requirement of WP:NSONGS); two lists of the best Weezer songs (unimpressive, considering the narrow scope of such lists); a source reporting that My Chemical Romance played the song with Weezer once (possibly not even worth mentioning in the article, and not grounds for notability); a source reporting that the song is included in a video game (not grounds for notability); a source reporting that the Thermals covered the song (not grounds for notability); and a source reporting that a (non-notable) Weezer covers band covered the song (duh; not grounds for notability).

I think the article should be redirected to Weezer (1994 album), where the subject can be covered sufficiently. Popcornduff (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Popcornduff (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per arguments I've given at Talk:My Name Is Jonas#Merge proposal. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not a huge fan of Weezer, so I pulled up the song to see I'd recognize it as an initial indicator of notability. I certainly recognized it - right away, and not just because of the Lonelygirl15 character. I am sure I've not heard most of Weezer's singles in comparison. Like the ones, if any, from that album with the fat guy from LOST on it. WTF was that about? Anyway, so I guess this song is a "fan favorite."[68] Though not a single, the song does seem to be sufficiently notable to merit a separate article. Remember this is one of many articles covering this band, and its a logical organization scheme that has been developed over time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent: It's definitely a well-known song to people who've heard of Weezer, but we need multiple non-trivial sources to prove its notability independent of the album it comes from. I also don't see anything in the article that's useful that couldn't be covered in the album article. I'm not sure what your point is about a "logical organization scheme that has been developed over time"; it seems to me a more logical organization would be to remove redundant parts. Popcornduff (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already multiple non-trivial sources for the song that are independent of the album (at least, not from album reviews). And what about "userfulness"? That same argument could be used for many articles that would survive AFD. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the "logical organization" point. Popcornduff (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for "multiple non-trivial sources", the excerpt from Music: What Happened is so far the only convincing non-trivial source in the article IMO. We need more than one. Popcornduff (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the About.com and Diffuser articles? In fact, it's the only non-single song listed in the song ranking in the Diffuser article. Surely what's already cited in the article must give it some kind of significance. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because they only appear in those articles in lists of Weezer songs, I consider those sources trivial. As I said in the article's talk page, if those were lists of the best 90s songs, for example, they would have more weight. Perhaps other editors will disagree. Popcornduff (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 2 September 2014 (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). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wainer Lusoli

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

Article about a scientist and research fellow, cited almost entirely to his own work. The Google Scholar results (for what they're worth) largely relate back to his own papers. This doesn't demonstrate at all that he meets WP:PROF. The author is honest enough to say in the final section that "he is not a public figure, as his work has not received broadcast media attention". Overall he is a researcher doing research and this is a only a CV of someone who hasn't had a significant impact yet on academia or the wider world. Sionk (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—An h-index of ~20 is at the low end of demonstrating a significant impact in their field, but it's good enough (in my opinion) to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marie Currie and Albert Einstein may be notable. This person is not. Op47 (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2014 (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. Sandstein 21:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Promoções

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

Fails WP:CORP. No established notability, totally unsourced. Long-standing maintenance issues since 2010. Beagel (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lots of promotional material and exceptional claims with no references whatsoever. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Op47 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2014 (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. There are only three votes including the nomination, and it does not make sense to make one more relist, but the article can be recreated provided reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opal Bonfante

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

Long-term unsourced BLP. Doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion. Very little coverage found. Michig (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if not sourced during the discussion period. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. That clear enough. Op47 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2014 (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). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Betowski

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

BLP that has been here for 8 years without any sources. He appears to be an artist who has exhibited, but that doesn't seem enough to justify an encyclopedia article. I couldn't find coverage of him in reliable sources. Michig (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Keep He is mentioned in lots of respectable refs, even making it into the German Lonely Planet guide to Cornwall, and Country Life thought he was "well-known" in 1992. But for extended coverage I can only find this from the regional paper online. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 2 September 2014 (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 Centralised Training Institutes of the Indian Railways. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Railway Institute of Transportation Management

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

Doubtful corporation notability. The article is depending solely on the subject's own website and has been tagged for sourcing since 5 years. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / redirect to Centralised Training Institutes of the Indian Railways. I have some sympathy with articles on internal entities of Indian Railways, given its scale, but only where notability norms can be demonstrated. Hindustan Times has a 2005 piece on bureaucratic position-play in this organisation, but that does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How? With which argument do you support that vote? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested--a good solution, because it can be expanded when sources are foun d. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DGG. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2014 (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 per discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scalar programming

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

Tagged for no references x 4+ years & disputed accuracy x 5+ years. Talk page comments reflect marked doubt about authenticity. Recommend deletion as unsourced and failing WP:GNG. – S. Rich (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The term of art is far more common in optimization theory (e.g., Invex Functions and Generalized Convexity in Multiobjective Programming), but that's a completely different topic than this one. Restricting my gscholar search to "scalar programming languages", I get all of five hits. While one of these is an IEEE Computer article, the phrase just never caught on. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect too Array programming#Scalar languages. As Lesser Cartographies says, this term never really caught on. I could not find in-depth RS to support notability. The sources I have seen always seem to use it only in contrast to vector or array programming. It is a term in the literature, however, so we could create a redirect. Array programming#Scalar languages seems the best target. --Mark viking (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Array programming#Scalar languages per Mark viking. James500 (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by OP – Can I assume that you folks know about the subject matter? (My knowledge is nil and I AFD's based on the lack of references.) If so, I'll take your comments to heart and do a WP:BLAR on the article. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with WP:BLAR. The topic is in my field, but it is not my area of expertise. That said, I am confident that I would be able to find cites for scalar programming if it was an actual term of art. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2014 (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) 06:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Midland Rail Heritage Trust

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

Not notable. No in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears properly sourced with third party sources. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only third party sources are stock lists, which are not significant in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article lacks the required depth, but so do most of those in the List of New Zealand railway museums and heritage lines. Maybe it is time the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains took a look. I have added their group to the articles talk page which should make it appear in their Afd alerts. I'll also do a search to see if anything useful can be added to bring the quality up. NealeFamily (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was created on August 15. WP:BEFORE C2 states, "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.", and this is not a high priority topic. Google images show that the group has been getting attention, including one website in co.uk, and the comment in the article about getting four workers from a "Work and Income" job scheme sounds like something that the people in NZ know about and is likely to have sourcing, as per WP:NRVE. Article needs to be watched for copyvio. What is the business structure? What is OCI Communications that is a partial copyright holder of the official website? Unscintillating (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[69]. Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's being claimed as 'significant coverage' we may as well give up now. The only mention of the organisation is as the employer of an expert being quoted on the actual story. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the http://www.societies.govt.nz/ and http://www.business.govt.nz/ references recently added to the article are primary sources.

Noted - I used them to establish the legal creation date and the legal relationship with the company - they don't prove notability. On the issue of the AfD: I am a bit perplexed over whether this entity should be in a stand alone article or not (notwithstanding the WP:BEFORE from Unscintillating) because by itsself the organisation does not appear to meet the threshhold. In the context of all New Zealand railway museums, if it were within an article about them then in combination it does. The problem then becomes the size of the article to cover the topic - splitting them up makes sence, but then not all the individual museums are notable. A dilemma. NealeFamily (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could create a List of railway museums in New Zealand based on merging the bulk of the articles in Template:NZR_Heritage, many of which make the current article look well-sourced?

List of New Zealand railway museums and heritage lines already exists and has links to the various articles. NealeFamily (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of something with more comprehensive coverage (i.e. a concatenation of the current articles); but yes, that's a much better title though. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough. Op47 (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2014 (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 and move to Blanc-Sablon (disambiguation). Not a strong consensus but the relist didn't result in any further input. No consensus to delete. Michig (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blanc-Sablon (homonymy)

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

It appears that the only town with this name is the one in Quebec. I couldn't find reference to any others. So, this page isn't really needed - it makes more sense to mention all of these topics at the article on the town, Blanc-Sablon, Quebec. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, ignore the improper title, which has nothing to do with this nomination. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We generally do not have disambiguation pages listing names of things in a city that share the name of the city. These are more like subtopics than ambiguous concepts. bd2412 T 14:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article about Blanc-Sablon disambiguation is very useful to users. Very often, these disambiguation pages help me in writing articles on Wikipedia, or search further. I publish few dozen articles on Wikipedia related to disambiguation topics; and the result is great. We must avoid the strict application of the rule, indiscriminately. Otherwise, the Wikipedia rule concerning erasing disambiguation articles must be questioned and be changed. The readers'best interest must prevail.User:Veillg1 19:30, 25 August 2014 (CEST)

For reference, on English Wikipedia, we use the word "disambiguation" - homonymy is not really a word in English. If you want to keep a page listing these on your user page to help you write articles, you're welcome to do that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Another abysmal pretense at a disambiguation page from Veillg1. older ≠ wiser 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Blanc-Sablon (disambiguation). There are enough legitimate entries to warrant a dab page (even though all are mentioned at the base name page Blanc-Sablon (which redirects to Blanc-Sablon, Quebec -- and that might merit renaming per Canada naming conventions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Blanc-Sablon (disambiguation). The "homonymy" is a cognate of the French word used on WP for "disambiguation." Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 2 September 2014 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East Bengal Tigers

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

Unknown sports team. No reliable sources found. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CORP. Subject matter is clearly lacking in depth of coverage and no sources at all are provided in the article. Valiant Patriot (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:RS and is not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2014 (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. I can see this as possibly being discussed again in the future given the number of arguments that this individual just barely passes the WP:GNG, and would therefore recommend to the article's contributors that they focus on establishing notability to firm this up. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fran O'Leary

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

Contested PROD. Has not played/managed a fully pro club nor received significant coverage. Therefore he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG with significant media coverage such as [70]. Nfitz (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - concur with NFitz that the link above is pretty significant coverage in a reliable national source, but one article for an assistant manager who doesn't appear to have won any NCAA Div I championships is stretching GNG a bit. Would be happy to change the vote if significant non-routine coverage of his college career can be shown. Fenix down (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Also, it's worth noting that O'Leary served as interim head coach of Toronto FC while awaiting Nelsen's arrival. Tchaliburton (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure about that from these sources.

1 is a word for word copy of the interview that Nfitz put forward for GNG, just in a different place.
2 is just WP:ROUTINE coverage of his appointment with a statistical summary of his college career, nothing in depth at all.
3 deals with the man in a bit more detail, could be used to support GNG if there was a fair bit more like this and not just covering his Toronto appointment which at the moment raises WP:BLP1E issues.
4 should be rather from the title this is not about O'Leary, but about Ryan Nelsen and only mentions O'Leary tangentially and in passing.
5 Is 2 sentence summary of an appointment at his previous college, the very definition of WP:ROUTINE.
Regarding the fact that he served as interim head coach, there is no indication that he actually took charge of any competitive games.

Looks to me like there have been about two interviews of any significant length all based around his appointment as an assistant coach. I still think we are a fair way from GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SIGCOV "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Based on this there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a detailed piece about his college career and another about his work with Toronto FC. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some of these, and some others (for some reason there are front page articles today in the newspaper). And restored a reference, that I assume User:Tchaliburton deleted in error. Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Kingjeff (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingjeff: can you please clarify why do you think this article should be kept?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public: He's an assistant coach in a fully professional league. I don't know if there is an official consensus regarding assistant coaches. But there are sources about him. So, I think he meets WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kingjeff. Always add a rationale after you add a !vote. It will help the closing admin/editor to judge properly. For more information see this. Thanks again, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 04:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - He has coached at some professional teams, but only as an assistant. With the media coverage he has received, I think he only just scrapes through to pass WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Tchaliburton and think he marginally passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2014 (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 two relistings no policy-based consensus to keep. The single "source" for the article is not independent of the topic and a paucity of other sources puts this below the notability threshold and the requirements of WP:ORG. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhashaindia.com

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

Deprodded with the reason "Has one reference (even if it's a self reference)" — no, it is no reference, only a link to the website in question. Microsoft created many websites, and there is no evidence that this particular one is noteworthy. The article has no references at all. Cursory search finds only passing mentions. — Keφr 07:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - Only after satisfying WP:Company. CutestPenguin ^discuss 14:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't demonstrate encyclopedic relevance, and I didn't find much from a Google search to do so either. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 13 September 2014 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hando Tamm

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

Non-notable artist, fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ARTIST - the only remotely valid source establishing notability is a ten-question interview in a local newspaper from 2007, [71]. Allow the recreation of the article without prejudice, though, should the notability increase/be established. --Sander Säde 07:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A working, exhibiting artist (like many others) but falls short of the WP:ARTIST notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no evidence of notability. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2014 (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). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3100 W. Big Beaver Road

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

I'm not an expert on notability of buildings but this article doesn't indicate why this building is notable. I don't believe it has lasting notability Gbawden (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In addition to the Crain's reference that was already in the article, there is some newspaper coverage from when KMart moved out; it was designed by a prominent architectural firm and comes up in lists of their work (there's a postcard offered for sale by a dealer that notes the modular design); it gets 3 pages in an architectural journal's 1974 theme issue on corporate headquarters; and it has a state historic marker. I've rearranged the article and added references, and the journal treatment as further reading since I can't see it online. It's more notable than the failed plan to redevelop the site, Pavilions of Troy (and now has incoming links from there and from the architecture firm). But the HQ of the Kresge Foundation across the road is more architecturally notable. I suspect there is more regional newspaper coverage that Google isn't showing me, both from when the building opened and from the plans and attempted purchases after it closed. At present I believe it squeaks by, but I hope others can find more, on- or off-line. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 18:57, 11 September 2014 (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 Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafar

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

Non-notable fictional place. Has three references: starwars.com (primary/affiliated), Wookieepedia (self-published), and an interview (short mention, already covered at the page about the film). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and partial merge of whatever's sourcable to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Outside that topic, there is no notability for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect largely in-universe, does not appear to have any notability outside of the Star Wars universe. I'm in the process of cleaning up some of the other Star Wars fictional planet articles. Some might need to be taken to AfD as well. --Daniel (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as this content better suited to Wookiepedia, no out of universe notability. JJ98 (Talk) 23:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Barely any sourced content to merge. --Michig (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2014 (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) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clara County Park Ranger

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

nonnotable local park authority, no refs other than organization. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is for a public agency similar to hundreds of police and park ranger pages currently found on Wikipedia, it is for an agency of over 250 employees, 1,400 volunteers and with visitors in the tens of thousands each year. If this page merits deletion than so does countless similar articles of this type. ([[User talk:CaptainKona (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)]])[reply]

Keep - I see no reason that this article would be nominated for deletion as it is public agency with a $67 million annual budget, is a multi-sourced article, with more than a dozen news media links on the agency, and whose facilities are used by countless people each year.MKP2106 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Move/Keep, see below) Even if we remove the puffery ("Santa Clara County Park’s five decade legacy of providing outstanding recreational opportunities in beautiful natural locations"), the subject fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. All of the references in the main body of the article (in other words, the first 10 references) are self-referential. The remainder, for the "In the news" section, do include half-a-dozen references from the San Jose Mercury News, which is a regionally significant Reliable Source, but the coverage is not about the park rangers; it either doesn't mention them at all [72] [73] or else mentions them in passing. [74] There is a little bit of actual coverage from small hyper-local papers like the Gilroy Dispatch [75], which does not satisfy GNG in my opinion. I see no point in a redirect to Santa Clara County, California since that is where people would go anyhow looking for information about this agency. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW in response to the claim that Wikipedia has "countless similar articles of this type": I could not find any other articles about county park rangers at Category:County government agencies in California or Category:County law enforcement agencies of California. In fact the only article I found about park rangers was National Park Service Ranger, which seems a little more notable than a county-level agency. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It should be noted that nominator was correct at the time of nomination to say "no refs other than organization". The marginally-related articles now listed as "In the news" were added after nomination. There's nothing wrong with that - adding sources is a perfectly legitimate way to try to improve an article to the point of getting kept. I was just pointing out that the nominator's original statement was true. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the text described as "puffery" has been elided from the article as copyvio. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: -MelanieN, I hate to provide this list to refute the, there are not numerous similar law enforcement pages, these are just from California and show many LE agencies of smaller note that have articles. I hesitate as this provides other sources for persons of an ideological motivation to figuratively burn books they do not like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_agencies_in_California As the person who nominated this for deletion as created articles much less notability; “California Massage Therapy Council "dedicated to happy endings for everyone"”, “Northern California Innocence Project”, “Hayward Gay Prom”, and many others, I question the motivation to remove law enforcement articles. Inspectorabsinthe (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list, but I don't feel refuted. The list shows that there is an article for California State Park Rangers, but I don't see a single article about county park rangers on that list - except for this article. In any case, the issue is not "well, other agencies have articles" (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). The issue is that any individual agency must meet WP:GNG to have an article, and this one doesn't. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department To give this discussion some context, if Santa Clara County were a U.S. State, in population it would be larger than 13 other states. It should be obvious that we don't remove governmental units from the encyclopedia just because they fail notability criteria. This type of inclusion is limited by WP:DUE, yet the nomination ignores WP:ATD.
My main problem with stating "Keep" is that I can't verify the name of this topic. For example, a Google web search on ["Santa Clara County Park Ranger" site:.gov] turns up nothing. The MOU with the Santa Clara County Park Rangers Association names only "Santa Clara County" along with three job titles which are covered. The website which according to our article is the "official" website seems only to cover Junior rangers. My ~~limited research skills~~ preliminary research certainly ~~don't~~ doesn't prove that there is no verifiable topic here, but since the Parks department is currently a red link, there is potentially nothing lost by moving this topic to the larger entity. There are 29 28 parks to be covered, described as one of the larger sets of county parks in California.
We also see from this article that Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is a redlink, which is another topic of opportunity for South Bay editors. Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department and rework as appropriate per Unscintillating. Government departments of this size are likely to receive significant coverage. There is quite a bit in GBooks. They are also referred to as "Santa Clara County Parks Department" and "Santa Clara County Parks". James500 (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from that, an obvious redirect like this should never be brought to AfD. James500 (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an "obvious redirect"; it is a suggested move to a new topic, necessitating a major rewrite. Is someone volunteering to do that major rewrite? If the person who is going to do the rewrite has not been identified, this article should be deleted (very little of it would merge into the new article anyhow, the article would have to be 80-90% new material) - and someday someone who feels like it can write a new article about the Park and Rec department. If we do the move but no-one does the rewrite, then we have moved from the current situation (an article about a non-notable topic) to a worse situation: an article about a non-notable topic which also has an incorrect title. --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The present page name is an obvious redirect to Santa Clara County and will never be deleted. WP:R is very, very, very strict and will not allow that. It isn't a move to a new topic or an incorrect title because the rangers division is part of the department. Deleting an article because it requires a major rewrite would violate WP:IMPERFECT. Nor would it be consistent with that policy to demand that anyone promise to perform the rewrite. I could just advise you to do it yourself (WP:SOFIXIT). It isn't obvious that there is "very little" mergeable content, but even if there was, that isn't good enough. There has to be zero mergeable content (WP:PRESERVE).This article will obviously fix itself in the fullness of time and should just be allowed to develop. James500 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, it will not require a major rewrite to make the article acceptable. You could write a new introduction, or stubify the article, in a matter of minutes. James500 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I often have rewritten/refocused articles when I thought they deserved to be renamed and kept. In this case, my !vote remains "delete", so I won't be volunteering. And in spite of all the "keep" talk here, I don't see anyone else volunteering either. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 18 minutes from start to finish. James500 (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have an article which is entirely about the park rangers, except for the title and the lead. Not even a list of the parks, much less any history of the park and rec department, the management, or any of the things one would expect to see in an article about the department. Those are things I would have considered necessary, if I were trying to refocus the article to be about the department. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems that can be fixed by editing, such as lack of balance, are not grounds for deletion. Our editing policy makes that very clear. James500 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department. Large enough for its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator: the article has been renamed to "Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department". --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the new name to Santa Clara County, California, and redirect the old name there too. none of the refs provided (added after i afd'd it) show notability for the parks and rec department, only that it exists as part of the county. The agency can have a sentence or two at the county article. this is not a rewrite that qualifies as an article. no prejudice against building up from the redirect if any significant refs are ever found. I agree it has a large budget, but wikipedia is not a directory of every government agency on earth. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the sources are cited in the article at the moment is irrelevant. What matters is that they exist, or are likely to exist, in GBooks and elsewhere. That is how we determine notability. Not by looking at the citations presently included in the article and nothing else. James500 (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There do appear to be some sources for the Park and Rec department, although nobody here can be bothered to cite any. I am planning to rewrite the article over the next day or two, to refocus it on the Park and Rec department. I don't understand why some people will recommend keeping a poorly conceived and badly sourced article without doing anything to improve it, but since that seems to be the developing consensus here, I will do what I can to make it into a decent Wikipedia article. If I succeed in that, I will change my !vote to keeping the renamed and refocused article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment The statement "none of the refs provided...show notability for the parks and rec department", makes me wonder if the nominator is expecting the sourcing to show wp:notability to be included in the article. This is a WP:SOFIXIT problem. Unscintillating (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(edit conflict) Comment I find the comment "...if any significant refs are ever found" to be evidence that the nominator has not made a WP:BEFORE D1 check on this topic, including Google newspapers, Google scholar, and Google books. Unscintillating (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the moved and re-targeted article about the Parks and Recreation Department. It is now a proper article. The minimum cleanup that was made necessary by the move: all new categories and a new infobox. Material I added because it's now a different article about a different agency: a history section (which provided the necessary independent sources) and a list of the parks, with wikilinks back and forth as appropriate. Material I added just because if you're going to do something you might as well do it well: images. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, I could have looked for refs on the department, only looked at what was provided, assuming an editor interested in showing notability would actually do that. thanks to MN for doing what i didnt.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize; you were correct. You nominated an article about the Park Rangers - a subject which was and is non-notable. Nobody here has provided any additional refs about the Park Rangers, or any evidence that the Park Rangers are notable or deserve an article. On the contrary, your nomination basically resulted in a consensus recommendation of "merge/redirect" to an article about the Park and Rec department - an article which did not exist at the time, but does now. --MelanieN (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2014 (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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mya Byrne

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

I'm not a WP:BAND expert, but it doesn't seem like this article is any more than a puff piece. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles linked to in the article are insufficient to demonstrate notability, and there doesn't appear to be much other coverage around. --Michig (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the poor editing of the article and sources sections thus far, some of the sources are indeed notable (eg the Illinois Times and the D'Addario endorsement). And, post-announcement, Mya has received some additional notable press in 2014: a SingOut magazine / WFDU-FM radio interview [76]; NJ alternative music Aquarian Weekly's mention of her as one of the 30 most promising acts of 2014 [77] and, perhaps more tangentially in terms of subject but speaking to notability, her poetry was just featured in the Advocate: [78]. This information can be added to the article by anyone as part of a much-needed edit overhaul. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have gone ahead and cleaned up/edited the article's references, adding links and marking uncited assertions as 'citation required,' and moving dead links and unclear sources to 'talk'. A few of the article's assertions (5) remain marked 'citation required' but a very significant number (15+) are now cited with notable, verifiable press mentions. Strikes me that the subject is increasingly notable and on the basis of that complaint the article is thus worth keeping. Can anyone speak in more detail to the other complaints on the VfD, ie use of external links, WP:COI besides the constant concern of self-editing, etc.?-- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems much better after RyanFreisling's improvements, thank you. Assuming no other objections I am comfortable with this AfD being withdrawn. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CombatWombat42, for the kind feedback. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:02, 5 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Hudson

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

BLP which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Between appearing on an MTV show and having a lot of YouTube hits, there was enough claim to notability to avoid speedy deletion, but I didn't find anything in the way of reliable independent references. --Finngall ^talk 15:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Wild 'n Out, which seems to be the only significant thing he's done. Doesn't satisfy any notability criteria so a dedicated article isn't justified. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. STATic message me! 03:53, 14 September 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Moriarty

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

No references found. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the usual searches, I search Newspapers.com and HighBeam and found nothing. The external link is of no help. I am One of Many (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not sure what Northamerica is waiting for, but there are only delete "votes" and no keeps. This is obviously not notable. Op47 (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage or other evidence of notability found. --Michig (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable third party sources on a google search. No significant coverage. Fails GNG. Btw Op47 you said "votes"?? Please remember Afd is "!vote" that means Afd is not vote. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said votes in quotes because it is not a vote per se, I just couldn't think of a succinct way of describing what people do. Op47 (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced biography with no indication of notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for there are no sources to accompany this biography. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Lawton

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

A non notable music director. Nothing wrong with be a indie one, but it seems this one is rather unotable. Wgolf (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notabiliy found. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2014 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht delivery

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

Large sections of the article are copied from other web pages, the two of the three sources are linking to for-profit organizations (one referencing a cost estimate page by a specific company), 2/3rds of the article has no sources at all (specifically Licensing and Incidents), only one link to this page is not in regards to warnings for malicious editing (largely self-promoting edits). There is no indication that this topic is notable Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence is provided to support the allegations above. In any case, such problems are best dealt with by ordinary editing per our editing policy. The topic is certainly notable as we have significant coverage in good works such as The Encyclopedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine Environments or The Adlard Coles Book of Mediterranean Cruising. Andrew (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opening segment is directly copied from here. Ref 1 is to an organization that runs training centers, the wiki for which is also dubious (there are no sources given for the article itself, references are just given for regional branches, and I don't see any google hits that show more than it exists). Ref 2 is decidedly just "a company who does this". These are the only sources used outside of the intro; the rest of the article has no references and there is very much original research. There is a total of one link from another wiki page, (almost) all other links involve malicious editing or this AfD. And frankly, neither of those books constitute "significant coverage" as they are both a few paragraphs that pretty much say "there are companies who do this".Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The website page that you link to as the putative copyright owner is dated 2013 but the corresponding text in this article was created in 2009 - over five years ago. This indicates that the website got their text from us rather than vice versa - a case of backwards copying.

As for the training organisation, are you talking about the RYA - the Royal Yachting Association? They are a reputable and reliable source on the topic, being the main source of expertise and accreditation in this field. They seem comparable to a university or professional institution for this topic.

As for the other sources, as they provide paragraphs of information then this is adequate content per WP:SIGCOV.

Andrew (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Evidence of backwards copying should be noted and listed, but this is not an unsourced BLP and is capable of plenty of improvement. It appears that WP:BEFORE wasn't done and the issue was more that some site copied from Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, could I get some commentary on the general lack of sources (keeping in mind that as of this edit, which is relatively unchanged from the current, there were no valid sources). Between RYA and the two books mentioned, even with creative sourcing 95% of it is on the chopping board.Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a pile of incoherent unnotable rubbish. Op47 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2014 (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 Social media. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Social IT

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

Appears to be an WP:OR jargon-laden essay with nothing in terms of actual content, almost to the point of being incoherent and spammy. There appear to be mentions of the term "social IT" floating around based on a cursory search, but this article provides nothing from reliable sources. If anything, even if the topic is notable, WP:TNT applies. Kinu ^t/_c 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fine piece of buzzword bingo with spam links strewn about. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/rename or merge with information technology. What the article seems to be about is "use of social media in information technology." There are a couple of links referring to how companies are using Facebook and social websites in their IT, for example making solutions to IT issues public and searchable. Gccwang (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 469 page book on the subject of "social information technology". That is fairly conclusive proof of notability. I suggest stubifying or redirecting this page. We are going to have to include this expression, at least as a redirect. James500 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Social media which seems the best target at the moment. If at some point in the future someone writes a properly sourced encyclopedic article on this as a distinct topic to Social media, fine, but for now I don't think we should keep it. --Michig (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic is notable as indicated by previous comments and [79] and [80]. But, there's a copy-paste issue to be dealt with so something beyond a pure keep needs to happen here. ~KvnG 16:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Social media. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2014 (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! 12:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Android media players

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Seemingly WP:SYNTH. NickCT (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with nom Gbawden (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would really help me (so that I can improve upon the article) if editors would give reasons why they think that it should be deleted. Isn't it a rule that at least one WP policy should be mentioned? Aside from a policy, a reason based on substance seems required, even if only out of basic politeness. My reasons for keeping this article are that the reasons given for deletion do not apply.

1. WP:GNG does not apply because:

a. Android media players are notable, because stark majorities of smart phone users use them. Every smartphone has a default player.

b. Considering that even wp:otherstuffexists is not a hard and fast reason for deletion, then this case of other stuff exists that is far less notable most certainly does not a reason for deletion make. See my examples. Why keep those, and delete this? (please don't repeat the htmleditor thing, it's a bit selfserving)

2. WP:SYNTH does not apply because SYNTH_isnot. This seemed obvious to me, but perhaps I'm alone in that. There's no conclusion drawn, even though information from various sources is combined. I'm curious, has WP:SYNTH ever been successfully used as a reason for deletion for a comparison table? Comparisons do not constitute Original Research.CrashTestSmartie (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't agree with WP:GNG WP:SYNTH assessment. I do however have some reservations that the article will be useful in the long term: it will need maintenance. --Cornellier (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input CrashTestSmartie (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It's useful" is a bad argument. NickCT (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK we get it NickCT. Please permit me to elaborate on what I meant by "It's useful": unlike the yellow pages, this is not meant to be a simple dumb list of items but rather a harvesting of information that exists in no other place and provides an objective overview of a collection of information. I say give the article a chance to take root and if it doesn't flower ... kill it. --Cornellier (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornellier: - Look, I'm not going to argue with you about whether it's useful or not. Maybe it is. But that's not the point. Articles have to be useful and encyclopedic. There are lot of potentially useful articles we could make that wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia. NickCT (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: Fair enough. Not to be pedantic, but what's the official definition of "encyclopedic"? I know there's a ton of WP:NOT but where's the WP:IS?

@Cornellier: - There are probably a couple ways to look at that question. I think the simplest is to point to notability. A subject deserves an article in an encyclopedia if it is notable (i.e. it has been written about in independent secondary sources). NickCT (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: Dear Nick, so far, you've used two invalid arguments against this article, which you've immediately abandoned when objections were made, SYNTH and "useful". So, your logic is weak, to the detriment of your other arguments. Merely citing a bunch of Wikipedia policies without bothering to actually defend and/or explain them properly is not gonna cut it, and frankly, diminishes your standing. Pruning is okay, but mindless pruning while rulethumping is decidedly NOT okay. You didn't even bother to address my points properly! So, you're not taking this seriously (enough). All the rules/policies you've cited also say that they're not set in stone. And encyclopedic, aside from it being subjective (what YOU like) you've failed STILL to show why the other comparison tables on more obscure subjects are encyclopedic while this is not. Are media players too low-brow for you, beneath you?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP is not a shopping guide. This article falls foul of WP:SYNTH because it combines different sources to arrive at conclusions that none of the individual sources mention. I also believe that "Comparison of products X" are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 03:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a comparison site or shopping guide.-- danntm ^T _C 05:45, 18 September 2014 (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). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sindi Lacej

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

Only 1 film so far, being a child star someday I'm sure she will deserve her own article. But not today. (though it does say the film received critical acclaim, its not like she won or was even nominated anything for it) so I think she just falls under Too soon for now. Wgolf (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Forgiveness of Blood. The film has received plenty of coverage, and Lacej gets a lot of positive mentions for her performance, but I found no significant coverage of her, so a redirect to the film for now seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 19 September 2014 (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! 12:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Gracie

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

Only claims to notability appear to be that he's part of the Gracie family and has a high rank, but neither of these are enough to show notability. The article's only sources just give passing mentions of him. Mdtemp (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I would contend that this particular rank does lend credence to his notability; he is one of only 5 individuals who have - and can ever have - the 10th degree red belt, the highest rank in BJJ. While most of the records do seem rather sparse from that time period the article does seem to suggest he was as accomplished at professional fighting as his brother Hélio. Finally, while the main citiation only contains about a paragraphs worth of content about Jorge, it contains a similar amount of content for much more well-known figures, such as Carlos and Hélio, suggesting more that the author was seeking overall brevity rather than creating section length as any particular reflection of the importance of those being referenced. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additionally, this bio from BJJHeroes could be used to add much more substantive and detailed content to this currently stubby article. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced by the belt argument--the early Gracies gave themselves 10th degrees and declared no one else can ever attain that ranking. That sounds more like protecting a family business than a comment on notability. As for BJJHeroes, I am not sure that is either reliable or independent as a source. Even that source lists nothing for Jorge Gracie under "Accomplishments". BJJHeroes also avoids mentioning his loss to Euclydes Hatem, which is the only thing I can find Jorge mentioned for in independent sources (except for passing mentions in Gracie family histories, which don't show notability). Papaursa (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would have been a more heartwarming story if Jorge and the other Gracies had been awarded red belts through crowd sourcing or some similarly free and democratic process, but it still doesn't change the fact that the man is officially recognized by the overwhelmingly predominant BJJ regulatory agency in North America as the co-highest ranking jiu-jitsoka in the entire world. And while you're certainly right that BJJheroes is no Encyclopedia Britannica, it still remains one of the few highly-detailed founts of BJJ biographical info to be found online, even if it's more about breadth than depth. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a bio article on a notable jiu-jitsoka here (on the wiki) that doesn't use it as a source. Good find on the match against Euclydes Hatem - seems like yet another fact supporting notability and inclusion! :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The father gives himself and his four sons a rank and declares no one else can ever have those ranks. That's not an indication of notability, it's an indication of nepotism. I wouldn't claim losing his only sourced fight boosts his notability. I haven't voted in the hope that you (or someone else) can provide some good independent reliable sources to support his claim. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In due respect Papaursa, you seem to have somewhat mistaken understanding of the particular history here. The red and similarly fancy belts are a relatively recent creation and have nothing to do with the Gracie brothers' father, Gastão Sr. Up through the 1950's and 60's they only had a system of three belts - white, light blue, and dark blue. The implementation of the current system appears to have been put into place sometime in the later 20th century, though I'll be damned if I can find the exact date. Also, contrary to what you've been alleging, I had read somewhere that Helio himself was somewhat upset with having to start wearing a red belt, giving the impression it was more a forced organizational change and not a personal one. Be that as it may (or not), it still doesn't change the widespread recognition of Jorge Gracie as a notable fighter of his day and one of the early pioneers of BJJ, regardless of what color or other specialness his belt is. Buddy23Lee (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Gracies have always controlled BJJ the belts are still about family and notability is not inherited. I'd rather focus on the notability of Jorge. If he's that significant to BJJ it shouldn't be hard to find some independent reliable coverage of him--some documentation to support the claims he traveled all over Brazil defeating everyone (besides Gracie proclamations). This would be the "widespread recognition" you describe. Papaursa (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all get behind that idea. The one final caveat I'd caution is to rely entirely upon that fighting career for notabily, as if he were a proto-MMA fighter from a bygone time before fantastic record keeping. I still submit the given rank really is important - Not in and of itself. Not by how he may have or may not have received it - But as a reflection of his perceived contribution to what would later be formalized as modern Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Perhaps it is and was nepotistic, ethnocentric, xenophobic and every other bad thing you might allege that Carlos chose his brothers as his early instructors and partners in establishing his academy and spreading the good word (of BJJ). But I have little doubt that were someone else to have filled Jorge's shoes, so to speak, and helped to spread early BJJ as he did, he would have been awarded similarly high honors as well. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To his credit, Buddy23Lee has added some sources to this article. However, I'm still having some problems seeing the coverage required to meet WP:GNG because there's a lack of significant coverage reliable independent sources. Let's look at the 10 sources: Number 1 is from a Gracie school, 2 is the IBJJF listing showing Jorge's rank, 3 is a black belt article on the Gracie family history where he merits a paragraph and is the 19th Gracie listed, 4 is the BJJ Heroes biography listing his achievements as "N/A", 5 appears to be a passing mention, 6 mentions him solely in the context of refusing a prearranged fight, 7 is a self-published book, 8 is a fight announcement, 9 is for an MMA Hall of Fame where anyone can nominate and people are welcome to vote on Facebook and Twitter (martial arts HOFs are not considered indicators of notability), and 10 is a passing mention from a non-independent source on Helio's 100th birthday. I'm sorry but I don't consider this enough to show he meets GNG. I haven't voted to delete the article because, despite what I feel is a lack of sources, the Gracie mystique/record makes it difficult to vote to remove the article. Papaursa (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa, in due respect; you're a tough crowd, and I love you for that. :) We both agree that finding rigorous online citations (or even book sourced ones) that approximate something akin to a Washington Post feature on this long dead fighter or memoir that at one time approached the best sellers list would and should be the aspiration here. Evidently however, no superlative sources are likely to be found at this jucture - I simply added what I could, in the time that I could - to lend more credence to the idea that the article's subject is indeed notable. Since our inclusionist/deletionist philosophies always seem as intractable as the current Isreali/Palistine conflict, let us now leave this matter to the ostensibly forthcoming other AfD editors to decide this article's fate. I believe wikipedia can and should be a proper respository for those seeking information regarding the original Gracie brothers and you, alternatively, do not think this article meets or exceeds our robust standards. Fair enough; surely consensus will prevail, whatever consensus that might be... Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete You'd think there'd be plenty of coverage of him, but I don't see it. Lacks reliable independent and significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No changes have been made to the article since September 2, so I am going to vote in accordance with my comments above. I do not believe it's been shown that he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again, our inclusionist/deletionist philosophies will likely never come to an accord on this issue, but please, let's be reasonable here; its more than clear he meets or exceeds a simple WP:BASIC. The man has an independent and, insofar as I can tell, highly rated book significantly featuring his deeds (as one reviewer put it "In Choque, it is evident by the sheer number of fights (fixed or otherwise) that George Gracie seemed to have an illustrious career as a ring fighter.") on top of the BJJ heroes bio and the distinctly reputable Black Belt Magazine article. Yes, it was but a paragraph, but that still holds quite a bit of significance of weight toward notability in totality with the panoply of other citations. Again, as I mentioned before, no citation sort of a major expose in a major publication is like to dissuade you of your stance and I can respect that. My greater fear is that any legitimate nobility of this bygone prize fighter will suffer discrimination due to the time period of his accomplishments (well, WELL before systematic MMA/BJJ record keeping) and the anglocentric nature of this wiki in general as it hobbles a man who lived his entire life in Brazil speaking only português. Had he been born post-1980 and won a handful of gold medals at some IBJJF sanctioned tournament all this time and effort would have clearly been spared. Finally, the only reason this article has yet to have been updated since the September 2 was that I assumed it was becoming redundantly evident this man met the basic criteria. If you truly believe this to not be the case, perhaps then you and the (also my friend) Mdtemp should adhere to your principles and list Carlos Gracie, the official founder of modern BJJ up for deletion, now that Jorge literally possesses twice the citations, rivaling in quality as well as that quantity. I've always believed that this wiki should be a place for those seeking knowledge to come, if only to find a stubby article on a bygone fighter with always improvable sources, as opposed to the alternative of sheer nothingness. I mean Christ, by your own rigorous standards, perhaps you should nominate Christ himself to be deleted. He seems just as liable to exaggeration in his familial claims and the sources coming from his time period our often dubious at best! (you know I love you Paparusa :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in many sources is considered by some to be the founder of BJJ. I could understand deleting this article Kyra Gracie but he was the only fighter.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/1/2/2675608/mma-origins-carlson-gracie-adapts-jiu-jitsu-to-vale-tudo

http://www.bjjheroes.com/bjj-fighters/george-gracie-facts-and-bio

http://www.bjjee.com/articles/top-10-most-controversial-team-switchers-in-jiu-jitsu-history/

http://www.cagepotato.com/the-top-10-gracies-of-all-time/

http://www.virginiatkd.com/wp-content/uploads/History-of-BJJ1.pdf

http://philosophycommons.typepad.com/the_grumpy_grappler/2014/06/deconstructing-the-gracie-mythology-part-2.html

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2009/1/10/710938/mma-history-xviii-the-loss

http://www.thearenamma.com/red-belt-earned-honor/

CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would help if some of these sources could make their way into the article especially the non-primary ones. One of the big issues is that every Gracie and his dog has an article and not necessarily because they are notable. The term walled garden comes to mind and no - just being a Gracie does not confer notability. I am still holding off my opinion on Jorge - but I do understand both the need for clear references and the difficulty in finding them from an era that was pre-internet. It has to be demonstrated that Jorge was key to the development of BJJ.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jorge participated in the first organized BJJ event. He had the first undefeated run. He was for a period the only fighter in the Gracie clan. He set up a number of schools in different areas of Brazil. All of this should show that he was key in the development of BJJ. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think (in at least in Jorge's case) it would end up a walled garden anymore than any other notable fighter. He can be written into the historical aspects of the main BJJ article and linked to any and all notable fighters he fought. Honestly, I'd be more than willing to expand the article and add those above sources and more but I've been waiting to see if the article would be deleted or not. Nothing sucks more than trying to put in all the time and effort only to have the article relegated to the trashbin. :\ Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2014 (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) 06:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RX-75 Guntank

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

Appears to be almost exclusively in-universe description of a fictional vehicle. Little reference towards real world notability. Daniel (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are the problem here, Gundam fans might be upset here but unless we have the sources we cant keep the article. I would recommend that this be merged to wikia if anyone wishes to keep the contents. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as not passing WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable sources. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2014 (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) 06:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MS-09

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

Entirely in-universe description of a fictional vehicle. Appears to have zero real world notability. Daniel (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fully un-sourced WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as not passing WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable sources. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced, non-notable. PamD 10:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2014 (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 Behemoth . Independent notability not established, COMMONOUTCOMES j⚛e decker ^talk 02:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Muraszko

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

Not notable outside Behemoth other than contributing to two unknown and non-notable projects. SilentDan (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N and WP:GNG just for starters. Quis separabit? 18:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep member of well-known band and on 4 other wikipedias.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 other articles? If you mean he's been merely mentioned I don't think that qualifies for notability, please elaborate. If you mean he is a member of other notable bands (meaning they too have their own articles) then please link them. SilentDan (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per our most common outcome for lesser-known band members. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO 3 as "a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles": Behemoth (drums), Damnation^(plwiki) (vocals), Hell-Born^(plwiki) (vocals, bass, drums). --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behemoth is the only notable band listed, the rest are not since they do not warrant their own articles on the English wiki, therefore it fails to meet this criteria. SilentDan (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't they warrant their own articles? How can you prove it? (Simply because there are no articles yet?) I haven't researched the matter thoroughly, but I can immediately see that Hell-Born is wikinotable cause several of their albums were reviewed by Teraz Rock. (The reviews aren't available online anymore, but they were.) There has also been a news article on Onet.pl and many reviews on smaller music websites (e.g. I'm not sure if The Metal Observer is reliable, but it's being used as a source on the English Wikipedia too). --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:GNG for starters as User:Rms125a@hotmail.com pointed out before. SilentDan (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2014 (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. I don't see any point in keeping this discussion open any longer. What we basically have here is a contested PROD with a well based and factual oppose to deletion. No prejudice towards speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of League of Legends champions

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

While League of Legends is indeed popular, there is next to no indication of the character significance outside of the actual video game. This page just gives unsatisfactory blurbs about all the characters from this single game, without references, without significance provided and without proper expansion. It was for specifically this reason that List of Dota 2 Heroes was deleted. If the significance of any of the content on this page outside of the game is made apparent, I may reconsider my positioning. Until then, I can't see a good reason why this page should remain. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out this same article's successful deletion in September of 2010. Like now, it was filled with fancruft and had little encyclopedic substance. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:16, 2 September 2014 (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) 03:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no official opinion, but I'd be surprised if some of them weren't covered in third-party coverage of LoL expansions. I remember hearing some buzz about Teemo getting nerfed. It generally doesn't take a whole lot to justify a character list. Tezero (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike almost all character list articles that come to AfD, a WP:VG/RS search spot check of characters from this list actually gets results. There may not be long entries on each character, but there is sufficient out-of-universe coverage of League characters to warrant a small blurb on each. For what the other-stuff-exists argument was worth, the Dota 2 heroes list does not receive nearly the same depth of coverage in a spot check. The League characters have character spotlights from independent sources and articles about new characters while the Dota characters largely have no coverage at all. Perhaps this will change in time, but I don't think that parity between the two games is a reason in itself for taking it to AfD since each article's scope needs to be judged on its own merits. czar ♔ 17:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are third-party sources to create an adequate list, that would be nice. But, this page really has only used first-party sources and even then, has done so sparingly. I am looking at this not as a comparison to Dota, but as its own article and as it stands, this page really doesn't have information presented that indicates its characters are of significance. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 18:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know next to nothing about League, but here are articles I'd consider sigcov for several of a random sampling of characters:

Shyvana: [81][82]

Draven: [83][84][85][86][87]

Syndra: [88][89][90][91][92][93]

See what I mean? There's plenty to justify this list article, which I much prefer to see grow with sources summary style before individual, under-sourced character articles are made. czar ♔ 18:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:27, 16 September 2014 (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Chafak

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

Fails WP:GNG, as most Google hits are social media or related websites. The Banner talk 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. There are sources in the article, and more on Google news in Spanish and other languages. The first one I checked, [94], is from Barcelona and leads off with a picture of the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Represented her country at the indisputably notable Miss Universe. That is usually sufficient for a stub article. Mabalu (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knut Anders Opstad

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

Not sure how this person is notable with just saying a broker and a salesperson. Can't seem to find anything about him online either. Wgolf (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The version prior to this IP edit did have references. They are deadlinks but a search on the subject's name at Dagens Næringsliv does turn up several 2007-8 articles. However, this appears to fall under WP:BLP1E and there is no evidence of lasting biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He probably got an article because of his involvement in the Terra Securities scandal (E24). I am not so happy about redirecting individuals to scandals, but that's an option. Iselilja (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2014 (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. Technical SNG pass trumpted by obvious failure to pass gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Takumi Ogawa

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

I believe this subject fails WP:NOTABLE. Tina Gasturich (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If he played association football in a fully professional league, he is notable. see WP:NFOOTY. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Machida Zelvia was only in a fully professional league (J. League Division 2) for one of the years that Ogawa was on the team: 2012. And for most of 2012 Ogawa was on loan to a team in a non-professional league (in the Japan Football League). But he did play one match for Machida while it was in J2: as a substitute on March 11, 2012, entering in the 37th minute [95]. That is sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTY. Michitaro (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis of what Michitaro has posted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one appearance 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 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, amongst others. Giant Snowman 08:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a Fully Professional League (J. League Division 2). IJA (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSPORT in its lede says the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept (emphasis theirs). Given that this article only barely meets WP:NSPORT and very clearly fails WP:GNG, this article falls under that section of WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL with J2 appearance [96]. Nfitz (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Keep: meets NSPORT" 1votes overlook the key aspect of the relevant notability guidelines pointed out by Sir Sputnik above. I completely agree with Sir Sputnik that in a case where the subject barely meets NSPORT and resoundingly fails to meet the GNG, the outcome should be deletion. Now, of cowhat urse, I can't be sure that the subject fails to meet the GNG as I can't search Japanese sources. But none have been presented. And we can't keep an article on an off-chance that the subject might meet the GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played in J. League Division 2 which is a Fully Professional League.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all we have as claim of notability is a few minutes in the Japanese second division... in addition of what Sir Sputnik said, WP:NSPORT also says: "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." I don't think a low-profile footballer as this one has some chances to meet GNG, my searches returned just websites of stats, unreliable sources and some false positives. Not enough. Cavarrone 20:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes this player passes WP:NFOOTY, but only barely. Consensus is for young players that they are given a grace period once they make their fully professional / senior international debut to become more established, but this player has clearly retired and so GNG is the only concern here. There is no indication in his brief career that any achievements were ever made that garnered sufficient significant reliable non-routine coverage to establish such notability. GS has shown clear consensus above for similar such careers. Fenix down (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t) Josve05a (c) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the long-standing consensus that subjects only just technically meeting WP:NFOOTY but comprehensively failing WP:GNG can be (and often are) deleted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2014 (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.

[1] Distribution Services, Kable. "Where's My Magazine". thehypemagazine.com. Kable Distribution Services, Inc. Retrieved 2 September 2014.

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N._Samuel_of_Tranquebar}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Tourism International}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CssQuery}}<!--Relisted-->