Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 November	1 December >

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 redirect to Pinoytuner. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dig Radio

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

The subject is not notable; fails either WP:WEB or WP:NME. Theenjay36 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pinoytuner which is its parent company. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lenticel. NN website, could find no reliable sources covering it. BethNaught (talk) 15:19, 6 December 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 West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District. Secret ^account 17:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Hawk Elementary School

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

middle school article, no real claim to notability Jacona (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is blatantly incorrect. This is an article that's been around for a decade, passed AfD already and for which there are multiple awards and recognition listed in the article, most notably from the National Blue Ribbon Schools Program, a claim backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sourcing for receipt of the highest award given to primary and secondary schools in the United States. There are other state and national awards listed, which goes far beyond the typical school article and exceeds the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Over 7,500 schools have received been named blue-ribbon schools. Is that notable? Jacona (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This is a primary school (grades K-3), and as such it needs to pass GNG to be kept. (We probably didn't have the SCHOOLOUTCOMES guideline at the time of the previous AfD back in 2005.) In a search I found absolutely no independent reliable sourcing about this school. The claim that being a Blue Ribbon school makes it automatically notable has never gained consensus; the U.S. Department of Education hypes it as "the highest honor a school can receive" but that's just what it is: hype. There is absolutely no reason why we should have an article about this primary school. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 30 November 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 23:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as recommended by MelanieN. Surviving a 2005 AfD is irrelevant in 2014. The National Blue Ribbon School Award was a self-nominated award until recent years. This school "won" the award long before self-nomination was eliminated. In my opinion, a self-nominated award can never be evidence of notability. I favor redirecting articles about the vast majority of elementary schools, except for those of exceptional architectural or historical significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Middle Schools can be notable. This one validates its claim to notability by documented high achievement.ShulMaven (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Redirect I agree that the AFD from 2005 means little now (some of the keeps then boiled down to "It exists, so it's notable") but the Top 10 New Jersey school rating seems enough for a weak keep. Meters (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I should have just asked opinions on whether the NJ ranking is sufficient for notability. If it isn't I'll happily change to a "redirect". Meters (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'd consider first place notable, but 8th? Jacona (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Fair enough. This school is in the top 1% of the state's schools. The top 1% of the nation's elementary and junior schools would be roughly 1000 schools. That's somewhat more selective than the Blue Ribbon award but not really notable. And that's only considering US schools. I'm changing to a redirect. Meters (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per ShulMaven and Meters and others. By the way it's not easy to win a self-nominated award, you have to be a) worthy of the award, b) pass evaluation.... --doncram 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply About 5% of U.S. schools have won this award, well over 7000 schools. You really think that an award given so widely confers notability, Doncram? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:51, 2 December 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. czar ⨹ 01:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VIODANCE

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

Unreferenced article, no evidence of notability. Prod and unreferenced/orphan tag removed by new editor on their first edit. Number 5 7 22:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unverified and non-notable. In a search I could find nothing at all about this group or concept or whatever it is - just VioDance violin recordings[1] which are apparently more notable than this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 30 November 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 23:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised to read the deletion notice on the top of the VIODANCE article, for I was present in the recent VIODANCE party which was held in Tel Aviv on november 22nd. This article was cited in the Event Page on Facebook and its URL was as well written. You may find it via the following link: https://www.facebook.com/events/1510816555861019 In addition, rebel associated twitter and facebook pages did post a couple of years ago, about a top secret party held in Jouber district in Damascus which was given the headline of VIODANCE. There isn't any trace of it online because of Bashar Alasad regime's work of destroying every piece of potential rebellious information. In the bottom line, VIODANCE parties ARE a significant type of parties in different countries. This IS a cultural phenomenon that deserves an article of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahamrosenbaum (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this supposedly started in Europe and spread to Russia and the Middle East, I'm struggling to understand how Assad is able to delete news items in countries outside Syria. Number 5 7 22:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails verifiability in a rather spectacular manner. Not a shred of coverage to be found in reliable sources. And there isn't coverage in unreliable blogs. -- Whpq (talk) 03:17, 6 December 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. Go Phightins! 00:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Institute of Women's Health

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

This organization does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The only link provided in the article now is a link to their own website, and most Google results are either primary sources or unreliable ones. Google Books turns up mainly passing mentions. Everymorning talk to me 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:N. Basie (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interested in this contraversy as I wrote the original entry for this organisation. They are in the European public health area and have done much work in regards to women's health for example, the Cancom project was developed from the fact that a very small percentage of women were in the 1995/6 times part of the internet audience. Cancom was their attempt at putting this onto the net to demonstrate to women what sort and value of information could be generated and disseminated through this medium. With regards to their website it currently has in the region of just under 1000 backlinks from other organisations. The documents that they originate have direct inputs from many of the leading experts (in their field) and organisations in their specific areas of expertise. Their website currently has over 1400 pages mostly put there by volunteer supporters after the annual cull of older information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmaguire (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is are at least passing mentions in the news. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 26 November 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 23:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded it a bit, the organisation is more notable than the article suggests. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. This stub still needs more work. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Everymorning and Basie, thoughts on the new sources? czar ⨹ 02:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are they in the article now? If so, I'm currently looking at the "Social Construction" one on Google Books. I can't look at pages 151-154 (only 150), but it's just included on a list of other women's interest groups on that page, so while it's possible that the other pages I can't look at talk about it more, I'm not sure if that's significant enough coverage to count toward notability, at least very much. Then there's "Women's Health in Europe", which just mentions the organization rather than talk about it in depth. I'm not sure this meets the requirement of depth of coverage needed for notability (WP:ORG). Everymorning talk to me 02:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above analysis and a search with Google Scholar reveals a number of academic articles that cite the institute. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Needs some heavy cleanup, but it should be kept. BenLinus1214 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 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. czar ⨹ 02:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Moss

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

Non-notable music producer lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that would suggest this produce meets the notability guidelines set out at WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSIC. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - unsure and conflicted. Most producers are not notable, but I'd like to see better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 26 November 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 23:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely zero reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources. A fan site and a listing in iTunes do not count. Googling turned up nothing. Not just nothing significant, I mean nothing. Msnicki (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really tried to find something, and couldn't. It appears that his only claims to fame are to have made three remixes for RuPaul, and a promo single for one of the lesser Jacksons. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 2 December 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. czar ⨹ 01:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baalu Balakumar

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

Non-notable journalist in an un-sourced BLP. A speedy-delete A7 tag was removed because the article made a weak claim of significance, but otherwise the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG requirements for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, fails WP:VERIFY and probably WP:GNG. He might be a well-known personality in the Sri Lankan community in the Gulf region, but I don't know if that qualifies him for an article in en WP. I would suggest translating this article into the Tamil and Sinhala languages and posting it on those Wikipedias, with sources. That would give en WP editors who understand those languages something to work with. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:00, 29 November 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 23:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage, fails WP:NPERSON.--Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:07, 1 December 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. czar ⨹ 02:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gillan

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

Non-notable newscaster. Has won some minor awards, but no other indication of what makes this person important. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the user that accepted this at AfC. I believe it meets the GNG per [2] and [3]. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article cites coverage specifically about him in several different newspapers - in addition to the two regional Emmys. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG - local Emmys are like candy on Halloween ... there are (no joke) more than 2,000 awarded annually DocumentError (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? DocumentError (talk) 06:29, 28 November 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 23:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the (multiple, reliable) sources provided in the article are sufficient to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per significant coverage with multiple articles in mainstream media. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 10:44, 3 December 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/snow close. Has the nominator even a) read the article or b) performed a Google check before this nomination? Not only tasteless, but completely wrong. Fram (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luc De Vos

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

Article subject does not meet WP:NN guidelines. WinterWall (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:NN guidelines. --Racklever (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Racklever. It's content has sources and has meaningful information towards the subject. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above the person is obviously notable. Redsky89 (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And I'm removing the nomination-template out of piety. She singer of Gorky recently died, and its highly unappropriate to show this template at this time. Feel free to close the AFD. Stratoprutser (talk) 06:36, 1 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Sanders

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

Fails WP:BASIC. I'm also confused that the title says Frederick Sanders while in the article it says Edward Sanders. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created in 2009 as the single act by this editor. The confusion of names is in the original. The article hasn't improved since then. I did a quick search through Google books, found one Edward Sanders prospector (no Frederick), but he was from Montana. Anyway, poor fellow, met an unfortunate end. LaMona (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched Newspapers.com and there are several Frederick Sanders during this time period, but none are prospectors. Perhaps he was someone's relative, but there is absolutely no evidence of notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this looks like a hoax to me. In any event, no remotely serious evidence of any notability. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:29, 7 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Devastation

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

This has been tagged as a hoax. From the author's other contributions, I don't think it was intended to deceive, but it certainly fails WP:Verifiability. The verse in question is 2 Thessalonians 2:3, and the King James translation is "the son of perdition". Among the other main versions the most common alternative is "the son of destruction". None that I have found use "the son of devastation", and a Google search for the phrase finds only irrelevancies and (an alarming number of) WP mirrors. The book "Hebrew Bible Words and Phrases" looks promising, but it is one of those "books" made of regurgitated WP articles. In Daniel 8:25 the one who "by peace shall destroy many" is "a king of fierce countenance", and the assertion that he is the same as the "son of devastation" is unsupported OR. I considered redirecting to the existing article Son of Perdition, but in view of the complete lack of any source for this phrase, I recommend deletion. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think that this was an intentional hoax or attempt to misinform, but the result is still the same: I can't see where the specific phrase is used anywhere in relation to 2 Thessalonians. I think that this was just a case of someone mis-remembering the phrase and/or hearing someone use it in a sermon or speech where someone else used it and that person decided to come on to Wikipedia and add the phrase. It's relatively common for stuff like this to happen, especially with people assuming that they can pull one word out and substitute whatever other word that sounds similar enough to their ears (thousands of people who have translated the Bible from its original Hebrew and Greek are weeping at the idea of this), but the long and short is that this term is not used anywhere that I can find on the Internet that would come even remotely close to being a reliable source. I know that I've never heard the phrase used in any of my biblical study classes, that's for certain. Either way, this phrase is not in use anywhere that would "count" and given that it's not used anywhere I can see on the Internet, it's pretty much nothing more than a neologism that someone came up with one day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Antichrist -- This is not a hoax, and is a literal translation of the Greek (according to a footnote in one transalation, but apart from the possible link from Daniel, this nis the only Biblical use of the term. The fuller phrase is the man of Lawlessness, the son of Destruction (KJV perdition). This is presumably a refernece to the Antichrist. The passage cited is quoted in that article, which states it is a reference to the Antichrist, though that title does not appear in 2 Thess. 2. Unless someone will provide details of reputable commentators providing a differnet interpretation, which might merit retention as a separate article, I can see no purpose in having this article which can never become more than the stub it now is, without duplicating my suggested target. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this phrasing has any currency in biblical studies/theology. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. I would have suggested a redirect if the phrase had been quoted correctly, but it was not. "son of devastation" is not a thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 7 December 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. Consensus he meets WP:AUTHOR Go Phightins! 00:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald B. Scott

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

Non-notable journalist whose only claim to fame is writing an unauthorized biography of Mitt Romney in 2011. Most sources in the article are written by him, others are about what he has to say about Romney, and the only source that does talk about him is Deseret News saying he has been named its sports editor, which is not an independent source. Thus there are no reliable, independent sources that establish notability, and a Google search didn't bring up any other sources, either. This article was at AfD 2 years earlier, and was deleted. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. I can't see any indication he is any more notable now than in the original article, which resulted in deletion. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request Hi, I'm the article creator, and this is my first time defending myself at an adf! I honestly though I'd established notability, and surprised by this. The Romney book sold relatively well, and was reviewed, and Scott had a long career at various peridocals. I'm sort of at a loss, but assistance at this stage would be appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; what we'd need is third-party coverage of Scott, and we have precious little of that. His own works do not contribute to notability in the absence of third-party sources discussing him in some detail. As an aside, Ceoil, please don't take this personally; this isn't an attack against you, but a discussion whether the topic of the article meets the inclusion criterial. Huon (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Huon, I realise that :) Its was my first venture in to US politcs; usually I edit in the camer waters of 15th c art history, so all this is new to me. Can I have time to revist the sourcing; I found the book through fairly mainstream press, need to think and get this sorted. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews. Artists such as authors are notable based on reviews or discussions of their works. Reviews include Washington Times, NPR, Desert News, New York Review of Books, NY Times. Some of these are more significant coverage than others but the quality of sources helps improve the notability. I could probably find many more reviews in commercial databases if requested, this was a quick 2 page Google results. -- GreenC 16:13, 30 November 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, Sam Walton (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per User:Green Cardamom, and possibly WP:NACADEMICS #1 for being an authoritative and extremely commonly cited authority on Mitt Romney --he is not an academic, but it seems analogous. Antrocent (♫♬) 04:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The only really strong source here is the NY Review of Books article. The others are either mentions or less strong sources. (I could not find any article in Time magazine that matches the citation.) However, article needs to be based less on Scott's own writing, and more on third-party sources. So I see it as a "keep" only if it is edited to conform to WP standards. LaMona (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the book review sources cited above, the article meets WP:AUTHOR #3. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient notability demonstrated in sources referred to above. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:32, 7 December 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. especially due to strength of arguments from nominator and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Go Phightins! 00:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Bitoni

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

Non-notable pornographic actress whose article is supported by poor sources. Fails both PORNBIO in that her "awards" are not significant and the general notability guidelines due to the paucity of reliable sources that exist for her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the notion that Audrey Bitoni is a "non-notable" pornstar. She's been around since 2006. She's made 234 titles as per IAFD, including scenes for elite companies such as Brazzers and Bangbros. Her twitter page has 134,000 followers even though she never responds to her fans' tweets (For reference, Gracie Glam has 91,000 followers on twitter). She has an AVN Award nomination for Best New Starlet. The cited sources are mostly interviews, some of which are even videos (So you have direct, visual proof). Redban (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Redban[reply]

That direct visual "proof" is a promotional video from Brazzers, falling under WP:NOTRELIABLE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ZZinsider video is hardly "promotional." Is there a reasonable cause to believe she lied in that interview, given the general tone and the non-sexual answer relating to her name's origin? It's not as though the interview was part of a porn flick. Furthermore, her page uses many other interview sources from radioshows, magazines, and internet sites.108.41.160.197 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Redban[reply]

It is a promotional video by Brazzers and it wasn't even uploaded to Youtube by them.[4]. The whole point of this AfD is that the article based these poor sources does not satisfy the notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Weak Keep~~ - I wish that a performer who has this many videos and brushes with various awards had accomplished more, but on Wikipedia popularity is not enough. I'll do some looking for content, but if I can't find anything worthwhile, I will change this to Delete. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's worth much to you, I found out that she was nominated for "New Starlet of the Year" in 2008 for XBiz. That plus the 3 AVN nominations is solid for a woman who has done 234 films. Gianna Michaels did 200+ more scenes than Bitoni, and she has 4 AVN awards and 1 XBiz, a similar rate to Bitoni. 108.41.160.197 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Redban[reply]

I appreciate the info and I think its fairly well known how much I stand up for the under-represented ones of society, but even I have to face facts. At the very least, we should Wikify this article so that its easier to bring back once she wins an AVN or similar award. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself pretty damn creative when it comes to extracting content and prose from a source, but there has to be something to work with first. I messaged her purported PR rep asking for sources to help out, so we'll see what happens. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough delete articles - after Phoenix Marie, and now this! Audrey Bitoni is a significant personality and has a place here. She deserves a Wikipedia article over a number of amateur football players and some terrorists and politicians. It is a popular star in the world! Greetings from Bulgaria!--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's sound and accurate analysis. There is no credible claim that the subject passes PORNBIO, with only nominations and insignificant employee-of-the month type awards. No independent sourcing as required by the GNG and by BLP, just blogs, promotional interviews, press releases, and data dumps. No reliable sourcing for any biographical content; none meeting the standard of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Just another BLP contrived from primary and promotional sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our sources are Xcitement Magazine, ZZBabes, ZZinsider (video), Tampa Deja Vu (Video), XXXWasteland, XBiz, XtremeMagazine, and a Mark Madden (video) interview for 105.9 radio. Plus, we have the usual IAFD.com. Granted, these sources may seem like trashy, unreliable "press releases" and/or "promotional interviews," but you apparently forget that she's a pornstar. You're not going to get any information from the federal government or from CNN about Audrey Bitoni. The sources we're using for her page are the best we can do for her, or for any pornstar except Jenna Jameson, Sasha Grey, and Ron Jeremy. Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia. 108.41.160.197 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Redban[reply]

If 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia don't have sources that would meet our standards for living people in other professions then you are right, we should remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia. The whole point of our notability standards is that we need independent and reliable sources, not "the best we can do". 82.9.185.151 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per which above arguments? None of them provide any evidence for notability as defined in our guidelines. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Doesn't seem to pass WP:PORNBIO. However, instead of this page being deleted, I'd suggest that PORNBIO needs to be changed so that obviously notable performers such as Audrey can remain on Wikipedia. The current guidelines basically include a handful of award winners, and exclude everyone else. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what's wrong with that? We shouldn't be hosting articles about living people, especially when they are claimed to be involved in activities that many people find distasteful, without proper independent reliable sources. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that reliable sources are necessary. However, whether or not some people find porn to be "distasteful" should definitely NOT be a factor in determining whether someone is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. And narrowing the list of Wikipedia-worthy performers to award winners is especially problematic -- we don't demand that mainstream actors or athletes be award winners for inclusion on Wikipedia, so it seems like we're holding porn performers to an unfairly high standard. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We hold mainstream actors and athletes to the standard of having coverage in independent reliable sources, just as we do porn actors, so we are actually being scrupulously fair. And our inclusion criteria are not based on whether an article subject is "worthy". 82.9.185.151 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Fails GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. The article's sources are low quality and I'm only finding press releases in searches. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not one of the keep votes has any semblance of policy and wishful thinking is not notability. Delete arguments are policy basedSpartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 7 December 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. czar ⨹ 01:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid in Love

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

Previous AfD of 20 Rihanna song articles was closed as keep with no prejudice against individual nominations.

Let's take a look at the article. "Background and development" cites credits from album liner notes, and mostly vague interviews with Rihanna and songwriters/producers who worked on the Rated R album. (Note that NSONG's guidelines on coverage in third-party sources "excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.") Among these interviews, there are only two brief statements specifically about the song "Stupid in Love". The third paragraph is about a completely unrelated song and has no business in this article.

Meanwhile, "Composition" and "Critical reception" are based on reviews of the Rated R album, which only mention "Stupid in Love" in passing. NSONG states, "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created."

Therefore, editors have not demonstrated the notability of this song, and it should not have an individual article.

This song charted at #7 in South Korea, and while ranking on a national music chart is listed at NSONG as a factor that "suggest[s] that a song or single may be notable", "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" of "be[ing] the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Per my comment here. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The third party info lies in the Background section. It charted very well in South Korea. My sentiment here is the same as what I wrote here just now. This articles attracts on average 645 views per month based on the last three months; see here. — ₳aron 13:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WEak keep Unlike my reasoning in CCL, this song is not that directly related to that assault case. So I'm going with weak keep. I would change it to delete if I see enough strong cases against keeping it. And I agree with the third para unnecessity which Chase has raised in the deletion statement. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I originally closed as Keep but Chasewc91 disagreed with my closure and since I was busy converting my entire talkpage to HTML5 I simply didn't have any time to reopen it hence Chase doing it under my full support [5], Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Might I suggest some discussion of sources meeting the general notability guideline or WP:NSONG? @Chasewc91, it's customary to comment within the AfD if you feel another argument doesn't hold water

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 20:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply to Czar - Sorry for not checking back here much. Anyway, I feel that Calvin999's arguments were mostly addressed by me in the original nomination while Tomica's (and IndianBio's to an extent, though it reads more like a delete !vote) is rooted in the idea that notability is inherited. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Case Love, where not a single editor !voted delete. I get that you have an SNG which says this isn't notable, but it clearly meets the GNG. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:49, 2 December 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) 10:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Kołosowski

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

Non-notable military official. Sources inadequate to suggest notability Mr. Guye (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "brigadier general" is stated clearly in the lead. All generals are automatically notable per WP:SOLDIER #3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SOLDIER. General officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:SOLDIER #3. See also the article in polish Wikipedia. Wikipedysta K (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:SOLDIER #3, but a source in Polish I found suggests he may be more notable than #3. The article needs some sources. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:46, 7 December 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. SOFTDELETE per minor participation herein. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ragdoll Fanciers' Club International

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

The only resources for the club notability is the club itself. EBY (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added more references for the article. -Jocelyndurrey (talk) 04:38, 16 November 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 06:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. None of the references qualifies as an Independent Reliable Source, and I could not find any in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 30 November 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 19:18, 30 November 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 Emperatriz#Cast. czar ⨹ 01:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Leon (fictional character)

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

No indication of significance. Eurodyne (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Emperatriz or List of Emperatriz characters. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 16 November 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 06:51, 23 November 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 19:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per Animalparty. Vrac (talk) 22:14, 6 December 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 deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard per CSD G3, "Blatant hoax". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Game 2008

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

Speedied twice as a non-notable event and/or hoax, and unspeedied by User:Amamamamama with no explanation. Earlier attempts to create similar articles about Smart Game tournaments in October were suggested to be hoaxes, at User talk:Efan8, with User:Fram saying "I couldn't find a single shred of evidence for any of them, which is strange for an annual event in the US with 10 to 20 thousand spectators", presumably referring to a claim which the current article is choosing not to make. McGeddon (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Allow time for reliable sources, if none found promplty (by OP) then happily delete. --Amamamamama (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 and salt. Tagged as such. I actually tagged it as such before the speedy got removed, but then content was added. Either way, this is quite blatant. The biggest red flag is that the event is claimed to take place at the "American Airlines Center in Chicago, Illinois". The problem is that the American Airlines Center is in Dallas (and is the home of the Dallas Mavericks), not in Chicago, unless the article creator meant the United Center (home of the Chicago Bulls). Either way, very suspicious. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:44, 30 November 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. No need to wait for another 7 days, consensus is quite clear. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Chapel That Stood

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

There is no problem with the picture itself, but the article is not necessary, as the picture is not notable enough for an article. AMLNet49-Talk-Cont 05:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article about the book. This drawing is not separately notable but the book could be, which has some reviews on Goodreads. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads isn't really a good judge of whether or not something passes notability guidelines as a whole, since a book can have a ton of reviews on social media review sites like Goodreads but still not gain any coverage in reliable sources. (Goodreads isn't usable as a reliable source.) So far I'm seeing where the book has been briefly mentioned, but not where it's been the focus of any in-depth coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - ~~Non-notable watercolor. reddogsix (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)~~ Based on the work Tokyogirl did, I change my !vote to keep the article based on the book. Nice work Tokyogirl!!! reddogsix (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tokyogirl converted the article to be about the book, not just the cover illustration, and I have expanded it and added references. The book appears to be notable, and her title "The Little Chapel that Stood" seems to have passed into general usage as a name for the chapel even when not talking about the book.[6][7] --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the book cover pictured at the article displays a gold seal, as if in recognition of some award. I can't tell what it is, and in a brief search I didn't find the book getting a major award. Anyone? --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: since this is now a completely different article from the one that was nominated, I am notifying the nominator and earlier commenters about the change. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's to mark that it's a 9/11 book or given some seal of approval by a 9/11 related board. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 1 December 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 18:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting per request by MelanieN, and confirming Keep. Great job Tokyogirl and Melanie and thanks for considering my suggestion. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 02:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and an oval gold seal toTokyogirl79 for transforming and referencing the article. I can't make out the wording but the image seems to be the Twin Towers. My guess is that the gold seal is for a "recommended book" sold at the World Trade Center 9/11 Memorial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 1 December 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 Procedure close - I accidently accepted an improved article at AfD while this was ongoing, so I've started an AfD on that instead --Mdann52talk to me! 16:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Howell Park, Uptown

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

This can be folded into the Uptown, Dallas article. The information isn't enough to merit its own article. If it stays, it will still require significant cleanup (which I have tagged just in case). AMLNet49-Talk-Cont 05:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this is a single development or subdivision, created by what appears to be an SPA with a COI. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 26 November 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 18:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's another article on the same subject, written by the same author—Howell Park Uptown Dallas. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:14, 7 December 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. Consensus is to blow it up. There was no discussion or conclusion about the topic's notability. czar ⨹ 16:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanz boys

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

Honestly I don't know what to make of this article. It appears to be about a group of people, but the article is quite incomprehensible. Has no references either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure what to think about it either. The linked article on thwiki seems to be of some sort of road, probably not the group/gang in question. This page has been deleted several times (see deletion log), under CSD A7. I would say that still applies, but as the author has recreated the article 3 times, they may want to express their opinions here. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 15:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They meant this? All I understand now is that, 'Vanz boy' is someone who participates in the illegal bike racing during night time in Bangkok. They are similar to Mat Rempit of Malaysia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By mentioning 'Mat Rempit', I'm not intended to invoke OSE. I can't say anything for sure, but if there are not any extra-ordinary coverage on them, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL applies. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The current article is poorly written (it appears to be part of an undocumented school assignment), but the subject matter clearly warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. The Bangkok Post article linked by Anupmehra above provides a good overview. Numerous academic studies and articles on the topic have been published.[8][9][10][11] --Paul_012 (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly a machine translation from Thai. Whether it is possibly notable or not, it is not within the mandate of en.Wiki volunteers to even attempt to rescue something like this which in its present state cannot be deciphered into proper English (unless I could find the original Thai text it was stolen from). Insufficient sources/coverage, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 2 December 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. czar ⨹ 16:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Nandrajog

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

Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, qualifies for deletion for not meeting the Wikipedia's standard of inclusion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As WP:A7, unsourced WP:BLP and obvious WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. (!vote was made by Drm310 in this edit.)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ZERO notability. Please remove. Athachil (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 - Unsourced BLP of a person of no known importance. Written as vanity AUTOBIO with clear COI issue. Cowlibob (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the awards that are mentioned had been sourced (or if there had been some way to identify the awarding bodies) notability might have been claimed, but as it is, there are only vague assertions that don't amount to anything. There are no sources at all in the article, and a Google search results in zero independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 13:48, 5 December 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. czar ⨹ 16:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galuh Noor Hendrayana

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

Havent played any professional matches. Failed WP:GNG. MbahGondrong (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:26, 6 December 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. czar ⨹ 15:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus routes 401E and 405

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

I doubt either of these routes meet WP:GNG alone and can see no reason for having them together. No wider secondary source coverage for this particular pair. WP:PRODUCT also states that goods and services should generally be covered in the article of the provider. Much of the referencing is only to another poorly sourced Wikipedia page.Charles (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Charles (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whilst there does seem some history to it all cites listed are Wiki articles which isn't ideal at all, Only source I've found is this [12] which is barely a mention so thus Fails WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another of the many West Midlands bus routes articles that has come to AfD (and all been deleted so far). A bus fan page, this one doesn't even source itself to bus timetables and company websites, but to other Wikipedia articles! Sionk (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others above. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) @ 12:01, 7 December 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. czar ⨹ 15:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Regis Summer School

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

Queried speedy delete (db-spam), but the page has existed nearly 1¾ years. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:24, 30 November 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 November 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches turn up no evidence that this venture is notable. AllyD (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam created by a WP:SPA, with no evidence of WP:N. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. It's pure promo material. I'm not sure why the nominator removed my initial speedy deletion tag. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 2 December 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. Delete arguments fail to address notability, and mostly address the article quality, which as keep arguments aptly note, can be improved via the normal editing process Go Phightins! 00:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bennies

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

Non-notable former club lacking non-trivial references. The references consist of proof someone was featured there (listings) or trivial mention of the club. Needs more in-depth support to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is in fact a great deal of non-trivial in-depth coverage of this topic by independent reliable sources, satisfying the very core of WP:GNG. [13][14][15] That it's a "former" club has nothing to do with notability. Slapping a "notability" tag only three minutes of article creation and then nominating for AfD less than a day later after an abundant amount of sources have been added is not helpful to this project. --Oakshade (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interviews with their creative director - hardly independent. These are short articles - I would question the depth of the coverage. Like I indicated, there are a lot of listings for the artists that played there, but I question the non-trivial coverage. BTW - my indication of this as a "former" club does not have any bearing on the notability - it was just used to clarify the description. reddogsix (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews by Independent sources are in fact in-depth coverages of a topic. If the topic interviewed themself in a self-published work then you'd have a point. But even the non-interview profiles are enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources. The article lacks in-depth secondary sources. reddogsix (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews were conducted and published by secondary sources, not by Red Bennies itself. That conducting and publishing of interviews is in-depth coverage. Red Bennies is not Time Out or Beat magazines. They are secondary to Red Bennies. That these secondary sources found the topic notable enough to give coverage to this topic by interviewing the director, demonstrates notability. Using the club director's words, the primary source you're referring to, from an interview conducted and published by a secondary source would only be an issue if the words supported article content, ie "Red Bennies is the most popular club in Australia" when only the club director said so and not a secondary source did. By claiming the words in an interview within coverage by secondary reliable source is "primary" is simply a red herring. --Oakshade (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews can and are sometimes published by parties other than the interviewee, this does not negate the fact that it "...[still holds] an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." What appears to be missing is the third-party in-depth "...interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." I am not trying to "bust your chops" here, I am only indicating why I disagree. I have no dog in the game, so perhaps this is better left to the community to decide. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If there were one or two interviews with legitimate news outlets, I might agree with user:reddogsix, but there are 43 footnotes on this page, so I think this passes the notability threshold. I am slightly concerned that this article is written without an NPOV, and also that the article has been authored by one user, which appears to be a single purpose account (though this may be their first edits.)--Theredproject (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could certainly use a lot of cleanup in terms of encyclopaedic style, grammar etc. It could also use some better references. But I don't think it's valid to propose deletion based on a lack of notability after less than a month. I vote we keep it, tag it with a refimprove tag, then we can reconsider after a reasonable time period.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from what I can see, this was a notable theatre club. Many of the issues can be fixed through the ordinary editing process. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bombarding an article with passing mentions, non mentions, lia=sting and the club talking about themselves does not make them notable. There is a lack of depth of coverage about the club. The audience is not broad enough. A mix of promotion, misuse of sources and fakery. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above, complete overuse of passing mentions and most sources are beat.com.au , there isn't the breadth of coverage to get this over the line. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 29 November 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, Michig (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The beat.com.au sources such as this one already in the article provide sufficient documentation of this place as a significant music venue and nightclub. --do ncr am 08:30, 3 December 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. czar ⨹ 15:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Blencowe

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

Fails WP:BIO. I have not found any significant coverage of the works of this person. He has been one of the seventeen executive producers for the movie The Prince and I've found a reliable source that confirms it [16] but other than that, there is nothing else. At best, it seems a case of WP:TOOSOON. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 05:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is just one non-notable member of a very large production crew for a single movie. No significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. The only reference is to a three sentence obituary of his father, which mentions him as a surviving son. This pro-forma obituary makes no credible claim of notability for either father or son. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has been referenced by 2 reliable external sources for the production of the film The Prince, including the Variety magazine and the Hollywood Reporter. Applying information from the Internet Movie Database, He has been involved in 2 more films since. The obituary provides sufficient evidence to his personal life 6bbm0310 (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since I've found the signature of the previous comment a bit confusing, I just want to clarify to other readers that the previous comment is not by User:Cullen328, but by User:6bbm0310, the creator of the discussed article. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 21:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, LowLevel. I am guessing that the user was trying to emulate my signature, and messed things up a bit. No big deal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 30 November 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 06:42, 23 November 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 ⨹ 06:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easy call. Completely lacking reliable independent secondary sources actually about the subject. All we have are two completely bare mentions of the subject's name only – the absolute essence of a trivial mention – and some citations to IMDB, which is not considered a reliable source here on WP. Googling and newspapers.com both turned up nothing (no surprise.) Msnicki (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Name listed in the credits of 1 or more movies is not nearly enough. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:05, 30 November 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 01:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vasavi Kumar

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

GNG not met - the "featured on WSG" was a sentence about how the subject had told her family she was going to divorce her husband in an article about people who overshare. The other resources are advertisements or subject herself. EBY (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 16 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 23 November 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 ⨹ 06:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple wp:third party, wp:reliable sources fails to satisfy wp:notability (people) and wp:general notability guideline, and therefore qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:46, 1 December 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. czar ⨹ 15:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Massacre

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOKS. Furthermore, it's not catalogued by Library and Archives Canada which is a minimum standard for inclusion per WP:BKTS. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Incorrect, it is catalogued by Library and Archives Canada. LAC information retrieved from book preview on Amazon:

Warner, Tiana, 1988-, author 
Ice massacre / Tiana Warner.
Issued in print, electronic and CD-ROM formats.
ISBN 978-0-9880039-3-4 (pbk.).--ISBN 978-0-9880039-4-1 (html).--
ISBN 978-0-9880039-5-8 (pdf).--ISBN 978-0-9880039-6-5 (CD-ROM)
I. Title.
PS8645.A7655I24 2014 jC813'.6 C2014-905108-5 C2014-905109-3 C2014-905110-7

(Disclosure: article creator) Luftballons00 (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having an ISBN doesn't mean it's catalogued by LAC. I'm not finding it when I search Library and Archives Canada, even using the ISBNs. Can you provide a link to it at LAC? But even if it is catalogued, that doesn't mean the book is notable. It's a minimum standard. But if it's not catalogued, it absolutely fails notability requirements. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's in WorldCat, with only one holding listed [17]. not conceivably notable. Apparently self-published. DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The book does not meet the threshold standards at WP:BKTS. - tucoxn\^talk 14:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on my earlier argument, the book does not meet the threshold standards at WP:BKTS because it is not catalogued by its country of origin's official national library and self-publication does not correlate with notability (I agree with DGG that this book seems self-published. - tucoxn\^talk 03:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this would pass notability guidelines. It has one sole review from Foreword, but they really aren't considered to be a reliable source since they opened their "review for fee" service, Clarion. (If a site is taking payment in any form, even if it's in a specific branch, then their reviews as a whole are generally viewed with suspicion.) This is why the recent reviews from Kirkus are generally not seen as reliable either, although I will occasionally try to use reviews from before they started their RFF arm, Kirkus Indie. (And I'd like to state that part of what makes me so leery of Foreword is that unlike Kirkus, Foreword does not clearly mark their paid reviews as being such, which makes any review from Foreword suspicious. Plus they're notorious for their vanity awards.) In any case, even if we did count this review (which is from Clarion and is thus an unusable paid review) it would still not be enough to assert notability. 07:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 3 December 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. @Clarityfiend, pun very much appreciated. czar ⨹ 16:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Drop

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting because my first nomination several months ago was closed as "no consensus" — in this particular case, that didn't mean that there was any actual disagreement, but rather the discussion entirely failed to generate any actual participation at all after two relists. This is still a music school which isn't making any substantive claim of notability, and is relying on a single primary source with no evidence of reliable source coverage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 23 November 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 ⨹ 06:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a small commerical training school for DJs in Calgary. The only reference verifies that its founder is certified by a German music software business, but the school itself is not mentioned. No evidence that the school is an accredited degree-awarding institution, and there is no other evidence of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beat and drop it per nom. No reliable sources at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sole claim to notability seems to be being the only Ableton Certified Training Centre in Canada. I'm trying to figure out how big of a deal that is. Ableton itself is apparently a big deal in the world of digital music. There are amazing tutorials on YouTube. Being certified is like having your PhD in this amazing software? But there are lots of PhDs, and that alone is not enough for an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only known source is primary, and when I looked for more I found to local secondary sources. Neither of which seemed to be notable. Qsdd (talk) 11:20, 30 November 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. Secret ^account 21:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Pickens

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

Consensus is that bullpen catchers must pass WP:GNG and, from what I could find, Pickens doesn't. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails BASE/N and GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm kind of conflicted now. My gut says 'keep', but consensus pretty much overwhelmingly says the opposite (where were all those people during the last round of bullpen catcher AfDs?) Alex (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails GNG. Wizardman 01:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [18], [19]*, [20], [21] (Yes, one links to a message board, but the board cites a real feature article whose link is now broken). Those, mixed with my gut feeling that bullpen catchers have been absorbed into the general MLB coaching 'sphere' (if not officially) puts him over the edge for me. Alex (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three "local boy" stories and a few paragraphs about the guy's dogs. You've got to be kidding. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BBny, you follow me around. You have a crush on me. It's adorable. Alex (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I do is help shovel away some of the mountains of B.S. you dump in these AfDs. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:40, 29 November 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, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bbny-wiki-editor. Two strikes and he's out. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 30 November 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 & move. czar ⨹ 15:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The haunted drum

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

Non notable instrument Mr. Guye (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to the proper title i.e. the actual name of the instrument, Poeng mang. The nominator could be forgiven for his mistaken suggestion that a ubiquitous traditional musical instrument is not notable, since the article was improperly named. The Haunted Drum is actually the name of a film which includes the drum as a plot device, but the name has nothing to do with the actual instrument. (So also please also delete the redirect when moving.) --Paul_012 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Poeng mang khok. Traditional Thai musical instruments lists it as poengmang khok or poengmang. This 2005 Thai government document is apparently a safety code for the poeng mang khok. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Supporting moving to Poeng mang without leaving a redirect. --Mr. Guye (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. From The Royal Institute dictionary [22] the term Poeng mang refers to a kind of drum. Poeng mang khok refers to the whole instrument consists of the Poeng mang drums and the cage (Khok). The diagram in the safety code above points out the distinction. Either Poeng mang or Poeng mang khok would be OK in my opinion. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 2 December 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. czar ⨹ 02:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alhan

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

References do not show any notability for this subject - no information referenced in independent, reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Alhan_Gencay Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources do not satisfy WP:BIO. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 07:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 16 November 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 09:55, 23 November 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, Biblioworm 04:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable 15 year old who posts videos on YouTube. The three references are of poor quality, and the third only alludes to boorish behavior without mentioning this person by name. Even if the source was reliable (which it isn't), how can our readers verify that he is the boor who is mentioned? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 30 November 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. czar ⨹ 15:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake F.R.

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

Fails WP:BLP. Subject is a corporate executive of non-notable companies. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a producer of major fashion events, and has received various awards, although I don't know how notable they are. The Japanese version of this article is much longer and has over 30 footnotes. So plenty of material there if someone wants to translate it. I put an {{Expand Japanese}} tag on it in case it survives. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Since I patrol new Japan-related pages, I noticed this before but did not mark it for deletion because the name "Fumitaro Ohama", which is supposed to be the real name of this person, comes up with lots of hits, such as [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], etc. There are also hits for his Japanese name 大浜史太郎: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], etc. Not all are significant, but they are an indication that his name regularly appears in the business and fashion press. What I am unsure about is the name "Jake F.R.". I have yet to find a reliable sources that says that Ohama is Jake F.R. (though given the odd name, it is hard to search). The Japanese wikipedia page does not even state that Ohama is Jake. If no sources can be found, I think the name of the article should be changed to Ohama, which is clearly the name most often used in the media both in Japanese and in English. Michitaro (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per minor participation herein. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mushandirapamwe Hotel

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

Not Notable. According to WP:GNG and WP:ORG and WP:ORGDEPTH , a company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization and the one given does not supply a meaningful reference for the article.--Mevagiss (talk) 08:32, 16 November 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 November 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 November 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 09:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete I would like to see this article kept and expanded, however, I hate it when editors say "expand/improve!" but aren't willing to actually do it. So, a reluctant delete. According to a variety of semi-RS (see: [34] I found, the Mushandirapamwe Hotel was indeed - as the article claims - a central meeting place of ZANU-PNF during their period of insurgency and is probably an historic location that merits an article. DocumentError (talk) 09:09, 27 November 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, Biblioworm 04:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment weak links to notable personalities do not produce evidence of notablility in itself. The hotel is not notable just because it was frequented by a few possibly notable people at one point unless their presence led to notable events. None of this occurred--Mevagiss (talk) 10:53, 30 November 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. czar ⨹ 15:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cartin.in

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

Non-notable software based company. Failure of WP:NCORP. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Can't find any reliable secondary sources. Harsh (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please Delete -Subject doesn't appear to have been written about in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, and therefore doesn't merit a Wikipedia article at this time. I don't even see any passing mention of the subject anywhere on web ([35]). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.Lakun.patra (talk) 05:14, 4 December 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 List of The Blacklist characters#Raymond_.22Red.22_Reddington. czar ⨹ 20:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Reddington

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

No evidence of notability outside of TV show (or references discussing it) per WP:GNG, user reverted my courtesy redirect to List of The Blacklist characters, so now we're having this discussion. This fictional character does not warrant an individual article when there is a main article and a list to give ample room for coverage, see also WP:NOPAGE. --Animalparty-- (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 16 November 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 ⨹ 19:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Blacklist characters. I see no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources discussing this character as a discrete topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 24 November 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, Biblioworm 04:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Blacklist characters as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:54, 30 November 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. czar ⨹ 15:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph P. Farrell

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

"Professor" at an unaccredited "university" whose claim to fame is writing dozens upon dozens of books on conspiracy theories, all of which were published by the marginal pulp house Adventures Unlimited which is located in a duplex in that publishing mecca of Cottonwood, Arizona. References include 2 blogs, 1 podcast, his personal website, and his bio at the website of his unaccredited "university." BlueSalix (talk) 03:47, 30 November 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 November 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Minor figure in fringe literature. Artw (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about our WP:MINOR-FIGURE-IN-FRINGE-LITERATURE criteria. BlueSalix (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he's cited by other writers on fringe subjects, and appears to have a certain degree of notoriety among skeptics.[36] I am pretty certain the article could be improved with sufficient effort, I am on the fence as to if it would be worth it. Artw (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly come out and say what skeptics he has "notoriety" among, don't just link to one of my own comments after you drop that. That could be perceived as extremely passive aggressive. Given your behavior pattern to-date I'm not certain such a perception is beneficial for you. BlueSalix (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a definite delete, can't find a single independent reliable source that discusses his work, not even any notable book reviews? Only conspiracy theory websites cite his work or fringe-related books. Goblin Face (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little being talked up a lot. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable author of apparently nonnotable fringe books. John Carter (talk)
Delete as a pseudobiography constructed from fringe, selfpub, and primary sources. I can find no in depth coverage of his works, either theological or conspiracy, in any non-fringe sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and what Goblin Face said. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 2 December 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 Minnesota–Nebraska football rivalry. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

$5 Bits of Wooden Chair

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

This is a Twitter wager between mascots. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN trophy. reddogsix (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there an overall article on the rivalry? I'm thinking that this is just way, way WP:TOOSOON for an entry (as all of the coverage is extremely recent) but if the rivalry is particularly well documented to merit its own article then this would be mentioned there. Otherwise there's really nothing to prove that this very recently created trophy would really pass notability guidelines. If people do decide to delete I'd definitely recommend that someone incubate it because if it is awarded in following years then it would merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl, the article creator apparently does not understand the applicable notability standards for either a college football "rivalry" series or a trophy. Per WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable and must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage of the series as a "rivalry" in multiple, independent, reliable sources. For a stand-alone article, a rivalry trophy must likewise satisfy the general notability guidelines. In this instance, it is seriously doubtful whether either the trophy or the series (as a "rivalry") satisfy GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A traveling trophy that has not yet travelled, since it was first award3d in 2014. It doesn't seem to fit in any speedy category--it would be too much of a stretch to call it an organized event. . DGG ( talk ) 09:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge: There is a 54 game rivalry between these teams - this article could be merged with that page. Meanwhile, the trophy is a physical entity that, admittedly, was just created this year and hasn't had time to travel. I find the trophy notable because it was created by a groundswell of fan support, not as an Astroturfed administrative decision like the Freedom Trophy - DiogenesNY (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above and below. The "Freedom Trophy" is arguably not notable per GNG, as reflected by the fact that it does not have a stand-alone article. Moreover, the Nebraska-Wisconsin football series probably fails GNG as a "rivalry," and probably deserves an AfD of its own. Not every college football series that has been played twice or more is a notable "rivalry." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable trophy for a football college football series. Given that the trophy is newly created, the subject unsurprisingly lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Moreover, there is a serious question of whether the underlying series constitutes a notable "rivalry" per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG, given that it lacks significant coverage of the series as a "rivalry". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, DL, what about stuff like this and this? The football rivalries are redundant to the football navboxes, and none of the other "rivalries" have actual articles of their own. Someone appears to have gone through and made a whole bunch of these for the B1G teams, see Category:American college sports rivalry navigational boxes. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those navboxes should not exist because they are completely redundant to the Minnesota Golden Gophers and Nebraska Cornhuskers football navboxes. Please propose both for deletion at TfD and post a notice and TfD links on the WP:CFB talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minnesota–Nebraska football rivalry, presuming that article is notable itself. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After I get a chance to do my WP:BEFORE homework, I will be proposing Minnesota–Nebraska football rivalry for separate review at AfD. We have a lot of AfD and TfD clean-up work to do after the season is over -- especially with regard to the non-notable CFB "rivalry" articles that several users seem determined to create. Not every CFB series that has been played more than once rises to the level of a genuine rivalry that merits a stand-alone Wikipedia article -- there will be many (30+) proposed for deletion in January, February and March 2015, after the dust from the current season settles. There are also another 10 to 20 regular season game articles that still need to get whacked, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now to Minnesota–Nebraska football rivalry. This trophy obviously isn't worthy of a standalone article, but it might merit mention in relation to the rivalry. If the rivalry is deemed to not be notable, the info can be deleted at that point. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, having been in existence less than a fortnight according to the article. I would not even merge this. Ifnord (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minnesota–Nebraska football rivalry. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:27, 2 December 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. czar ⨹ 13:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tonga national rugby league team match results

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

This is not encyclopedic per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Keep Changing my !vote to Keep, per Mattlore's bold merge. This seems to be a standard-format list article that fills in one of the red links in the {{International rugby league results}} template at the bottom of the page. It is very similar to the same article for England, Scotland, and so on. When the template was created, it was assumed that this article would be created.The source of the data should be indicated. Changing my !vote to Merge, per Tucoxn's comment. Good catch. If the merge can take care of the housekeeping, another AfD probably not needed. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Keep: The page needs some work and some sources, but that is not a reason for deletion. ~~Merge as per below.~~ Mattlore (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems like two Wikipedia articles cover the same topic: Tonga national rugby league team match results and Tonga national rugby league team results. Maybe the content in these could be combined into the first article (since it's formatted better) and and the second one could be sent to AfD. - tucoxn\^talk 04:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good spotting, the two pages should definitely be merged. Mattlore (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tucoxn calls for merging the second link into the first, and the first is the subject of the AfD, so I'm not following the "merge" !votes—shouldn't it be "keep"? And then the second link can be boldly merged? No reason to take it to AfD—AfD is for deletion discussions only (such that noms proposing actions other than deletion are eligible for speedy keep). @Margin1522 and Mattlore czar ⨹ 15:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: unfortunately this is correct. I believe having Tchaliburton alter or change the AfD nomination would facilitate that. However, neither my comment nor the above !votes address the nominator's argument for deletion: that the article in question is a list of statistics. I don't have an appropriate argument to address this, other than many other (better formatted) lists of national team rugby match results exist (as well as a template); this is a bad argument (a variation of WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Otherwise, the nominator could win the AfD and the merged information could go into the other existing article (Tonga national rugby league team results), since they essentially contain the same information (a re-direct would be needed or the template and other red-links would need to be updated). In any event, I imagine this merging might involve complicated page-history merges. - tucoxn\^talk 22:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to complicate things further, I've just been bold and merged the other one into this as it was prod'd. Which means the merge votes should now be read as keep. Mattlore (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the nom's claim that it is "not encyclopedic per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK"? czar ⨹ 07:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all I don't think a full list of results counts as statistics. That policy would apply to a list of "Tonga national rugby league team try scorers" or a list of "Tonga national rugby league team top tacklers". Mattlore (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As a defacto policy we do allow lists of results for national teams in major sports. E.g. see List of England national rugby union team matches. If we start deleting those we will have thousands of irate rugby fans calling for our heads. This would be easier to decide if Wikipedia:Notability (sports) had a section on where to draw the line on stats. For example, for baseball players, this (old version) of Ichiro's article had his detailed per-season stats. We don't need that. But it should be OK to have a list of results in the World Series. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Even though the article certainly is not without problems, I do feel it has earned it's spot. I do think it needs to be revamped.Canyouhearmenow 13:05, 8 December 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. czar ⨹ 14:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Succession to Muhammad (book)

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

Delete: The book exists but does not seem to be notable. The article itself has no sources and quotes selectively from one page to support an unknown claim. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This needs heavy cleaning from someone who has read the book (I have not), but it does appear to be very notable within this particular field of study. I found several reviews for the work and I've found multiple mentions in various academic texts that either use it as a reference and/or refer to it as particularly noteworthy or groundbreaking in its field. ([37], [38], [39], [40]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help from WP:ISLAM. Hopefully someone there is familiar with the work and can flesh it out. In any case, that one of the books I've placed on the article is from 2013 and gives two whole pages of discussion to the work does say a lot about its longevity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tokyogirl79, thank you kindly for revealing evidence of notability that I had not found. You've really improved the article too. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem- finding sources for academic textbooks can sometimes be fairly well hidden when it comes to searching, so I can see where your initial concern came from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JSTOR lists reviews:

Review by: Michael G. Morony, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 153-156

Keith Lewinstein, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 121, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 2001), pp. 326-327

Elton L. Daniel, Middle East Journal, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Summer, 1998), pp. 471-472

Hugh Kennedy, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Apr., 1998), pp. 88-89

Ingrid Mattson, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Apr., 1998), pp. 321-322

Andrew J. Newman, Iranian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Summer, 1999), pp. 403-405

Claude Gilliot, Studia Islamica, No. 86 (1997), pp. 176-177

Constant Hamès, Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 43e Année, No. 104 (Oct. - Dec., 1998), pp. 107-109

- and other references, which is enough

Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 December 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. Wizardman 18:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hatcher

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus is that bullpen catchers must pass WP:GNG and this is just about all I could find. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence he meets WP:GNG outside of that one source, a further search brings up passing mentions Secret ^account 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough. Per nom. Couldn't find any reliable sources except that one. Harsh (talk) 11:05, 2 December 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 Article already deleted by admin Anthony Appleyard as WP:G3, closing discussion (non-admin closure). Harsh (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyFXHD

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

Appears to be a hoax from someone who really likes a particular cover of "Let It Go," to the point of setting up suspiciously sparse Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook accounts. Googling for "disneyfxhd" and "disney fx hd" turn up less than 20 results each. Trivialist (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. There is no way that Disney would release a new channel without advertising it in some form or fashion. Even if the channel was run exclusively in Hindi, there would still be some English coverage out there somewhere and that it doesn't exist is pretty telling. I see the "official" fb and Twitter accounts, but no official website. Everything I'm getting is a mirror. There's just no way that Disney wouldn't plaster some sort of press release or other material on the Internet to announce a new channel, even if it was their 80th channel in that country. To the article creator, if they're watching this: you should probably take those pages down pretty quickly- Disney really doesn't like people pretending to be them and in some instances people have actually had Disney lawyers come after them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plus if there was any strife between Disney and another channel, there'd be some sort of coverage of that. A channel from a major company only lasting a few days? You bet your fur that there would be at least some coverage. Even taking into consideration that English Google pages do not show all of the results out there for India pages, the complete and total lack of Ghits is very, very telling. There would at least be some sort of fan chatter on the Internet and there isn't, which again- is very telling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also alerted Disney about the social media sites, so they should be removed soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if we assume the article isn't a hoax, it is clearly non notable since no such channel exists presently. Cannot find any sources. Harsh (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article it launched on the 17th and was pulled off the air on the 19th because of a dispute between Disney and FX. Like I said, it's highly unlikely that a short lived channel of that nature would gain absolutely zero coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 05:58, 30 November 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). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mandwani

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

As far as sources are readily available, they are not adding anything to the article. The last one Badalkhan.pdf does not really back up the information in this article. Just two passing mentions of Mir Mandow Rind (written as Mir Mandaw). And a referral to a 30 year war among the tribes, causing not the Rind Tribe to loose power, but the complete Baloch people. With most of the info unsourced or unreliable sourced, this is not a worthy article for inclusion. (But I am aware that I can only read the latin alphabet, so it is well possible that there are sources out there that cover all info.) The Banner talk 21:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 17 November 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 ⨹ 19:49, 23 November 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, Biblioworm 03:20, 30 November 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) 07:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

War times 2

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

Article about a film for which I declined a speedy and PRODed afterward. Does not meet WP:NFILM. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just can't find anything out there to show that this film is notable. I've cleaned it up so it's easier to see what it's about, but it looks like the only sources out there are either WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unusable to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep it. due to WP:NFILM that says one of a kind film, unique film. it also has 3 notable people in George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Thomas Muthee. somebody deleted referennces and external links that i researched and added to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabsdirect (talk • contribs) 08:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock account of Joseffar.[reply]
Delete - Comfortably fails NFILM, and GNG. Including archive footage of notable people doesn't even remotely give any notability to the film itself, as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. because the film itself is notable already, verifiable, it has uniqueness as per WP:NFILM one of a kind film. it has at least one person i.e Thomas Muthee who is a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmission (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock account of Joseffar.[reply]

@Grandmission: Existing does not automatically grant notability (WP:ITEXISTS) and you must show coverage in independent and reliable sources. (WP:RS) As far as people who are in and/or have interacted with the film in some aspect, notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). The only way to show notability is to provide coverage in RS. Has anywhere reliable reviewed the film or covered it? If there is a place and they would pass muster at WP:RS/N, then it can be used to help show notability. Just be aware that WP:PRIMARY sources and self-published sources like blogs cannot show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl179: as I explained above the reasons to keep it, based on WP:NFILM one of a kind film, I honestly think you should keep this article. I have seen film articles on wikipedia that are way less notable than this film. Apart from the fact that this film may change people's lives in the military and helps in matters related to national security and world peace as one contributor had said; It is notable enough based on online contents, its notable people, it's verifiable. Your views are based strictly on rules of thumbs, which I respect BUT when you read WP:NFILM guidelines there are several exceptions and other scenarios not just one method to determine eligibility. grandmission[[user talk:grandmission|

When it comes down to it, all of the guidelines at WP:NFILM require that the film in question receive coverage in independent and reliable sources. You can ask just about anyone you like and they're going to tell you the same thing. Something can be the first at something, but being first doesn't automatically guarantee notability. Sometimes it just means that you're just the first. Notability is asserted by coverage, which doesn't seem to exist here. Besides that, you also have to prove that something was the first of its kind, which would also require coverage. A good example is that every year we get multiple film articles where someone claims to be the youngest filmmaker to do something without showing proof that this is the case. No administrator is going to close this as a keep without coverage in reliable sources, regardless of the assertion. It all boils down to coverage in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that both keep !votes are almost identical, from accounts with very similar editing histories, I've raised an SPI. Neither vote is based on policy, merely a misinterpretation/misrepresentation of a guideline. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Verifiable. Very notable. refer wp rule one of a kind movie. As a working Hollywood writer as well as the Los Angeles Indie Film Examiner I can attest to the value of the subject of the film. It explores the concept of whether or not occult forces have been used and/ or are currently impacting the veterans who have served there. I have also written an article reviewing the film. Joseffar (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseffar (talk • contribs)

The Examiner is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia for various reasons and is actually listed on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. I have no problem with someone writing an article or review in the hopes of helping to establish notability for an AfD in progress, but Examiner cannot be used to establish notability. Plus see my above comment about how being "one of a kind" does not automatically give notability. Being the first at something or existing does not automatically give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete for now per failing WP:NF. I found multiple press releases [41][42][43][44] and several blog reviews,[45][46] and other similar, but there is nothing (yet) in reliable sources speaking about this film. And to the "keepers" above, there are plenty of "expose" documentaries with "unique" (to themselves) story lines, and not all meet our notability criteria. However, if or when this one is reviewed by or gets coverage in reliable sources an undeletion or recreation might be considered. For now, it's simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:05, 4 December 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. If any editors wish for the content to be userfied to facilitate a partial merger to butyl rubber, please let me know. Thanks. Go Phightins! 00:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental effects of basketballs

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

Appears to be original research. reddogsix (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into butyl rubber. I agree with the nomination that this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The topic of the environmental effects of basketballs is not a notable one, and the article is really about the production, environmental fate, and recycling of butyl rubber. There is probably some useful content here that could be merged into butyl rubber. Gnome de plume (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gnome's comment above, which is four-square on point. In the absence of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources on the specific subject of "environmental effect of basketballs," this subject fails the general notability guidelines and represents a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:33, 7 December 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. There are relatively strong arguments on both sides of this debate. Those supporting deletion successfully establish the lack of significant third-party coverage, yet those supporting keeping the article note the success of the business, while it does not make the subject inherently notable, contributes to an argument thereof, and some argue that there are sufficient sources for inclusion (e.g., Ktr101). However, no one is arguing that the article should be deleted solely because it is of low quality, thus refuting one argument by a supporter of keeping. Ultimately, this discussion has gone on for over a month, and I am unconvinced that another seven days will facilitate reaching a consensus, so I will close this discussion as no consensus with no prejudice against a renomination if additional information on either side manifests itself. Go Phightins! 00:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc.

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

No sources for significance. Everything here is either from the company website, or a press release, or a mere notice. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies). PS. Regarding the fact that the company is listed at NASDAQ, per WP:LISTED, it's not enough. Please find proper, reliable sources, add them to the article, and WP:ECHO me to review them and reconsider my vote once this happens. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional references have been added; they continue to be press releases or mere routine mentions; most are simply downright press releases from BusinessWire or reprints of their postings. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 6 November 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, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Mundane topics like roofing supply companies often don't attract much media hype but notability can be sussed from a broad base of sources. Several third party sources identify metrics which I wouldn't consider "trivial" or "incidental" as per the notability guidline on corporations and could even be considered inherently notable, such as almost $100 in annual sales, opening over 200 stores, recording almost $2 billion in total sales and being a large, publicly traded company. Regardless, the article needs work and it leans far too heavily on press releases and self published primary sources. GraniteSand (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTED given that it has a sufficient number of reliable third party sources for a listed company. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have never applied LISTED for NASDAQ. I have in past years tried repeatedly to get it accepted, but the consensus has almost always been against it. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a caveat Every ref in the article is a database entry or, more or less, a press release. The closest thing I've found to a WP:CORPDEPTH compatible article is [47], which has a few paragraphs of material that attempt depth. But I was unable to find anything in the article itself or this discussion so far that matched it, and the total there is not sufficient. GraniteSand's sources are warmed-over press releases. That the company is NASDAQ-listed does not in my experience demonstrate the existence of good coverage. Still, with a $1B+ market cap, I would guess that coverage may still exist, yet to be found, perhaps in specialized industry periodicals. The topic may be able to show notability if a sufficiently informed editor has access to appropriate sources and builds an article from them. This is not that article, and today, so far, is not that day. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:08, 21 November 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, Deadbeef 10:12, 22 November 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, Sam Walton (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming the primary problem is that the article lacks 3rd-party references, is that normally grounds for deletion? I mean, if it can be made better and satisfy the requirements for keeping it, why delete what has already been started? (I realize there are other concerns about WP:N as well, this is just a general clarifying question)) Ultrauber (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Companies with annual revenue of $2B and major stock market listing are notable. The sourcing in the article is not stellar, but a quick news search reveals page and page of relevant reliable source coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, someone should have pinged Ktr101 (talk · contribs) who accepted this at AfC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is far from perfect, but the revenue of the company and coverage outside of this site is what made me decide that it was notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete having tried various searches I can't come up with any better sources than the ones in the articles, which just aren't good enough: they're either first party or don't have enough depth, being routine coverage of announcements, especially financial announcements. But as already noted simply being listed on NASDAQ isn't enough for notability. I don't see any reliable coverage that doesn't follow from it being a largish listed company.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? CORP/LISTED specifically cites analyst reports as examples of coverage that is sufficient to establish notability. A simple news search (which I linked above) returns this very indepth analyst report with just 2 weeks ago as the third link. (There is also a link to get an even more detailed report with free registration to the site.) If you are classifying that, and many similar quality sources in the same news search, as "routine coverage of announcements" I am baffled. Perhaps you only read the headliens are didn't bother to check the actual depth of coverage? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point of notability is that parties choose to cover the firm for it's inherent notability. I.e. they find it interesting. Not that they write about it as it's their job as analysts to routinely write, even at length, about a firm because it's publicly traded. That's my problem with the above source and all the others I found.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might be your opinion, but notability guidelines disagree. No exclusion of analyst reports is made, and indeed it is specifically cited as material that conveys notability. What you consider boring, routine stuff, people interested in business consider exciting. Business writing normally covers financials (but note most such reports also give background info on what the company does) by people paid to cover financials. That doesn't make it any less reliable or indepth - the actual notability requirements - nor does it make it indiscriminiate (business analsysts/reports do choose what they write about - no one blindly covers every company in existance!). To discount business writing because it is about money is like discounting sports writing because it is about a game or literary writing because it is about a book. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused about "inherent". Things that are "inherently" something carry that attribute without outside input or consideration. In the context of Wikipedia, things which are considered inherently notable generally don't require sourcing to establish a unique or independent notability, only to establish that they exist within the parameters which establish that inherent notability. GraniteSand (talk) 02:41, 5 December 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. As evenly split as the arguments are in terms of number, I do not find sufficient evidence presented by those supporting keeping that this does not violate WP:NOTDIR, and that it is not trivia. However, I am cognizant of the opinion that information of this nature could be reasonably included encyclopedically somewhere, and will provide a copy of this article upon request to assist in that endeavor. Thank you to all discussants. Go Phightins! 00:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of college dropout billionaires

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

Why should this article exist? How is this a notable topic? It's just a list of people who happen to have two things in common. I don't believe it is encyclopedic. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jaw) @ 17:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
Violates WP:NOTDIR (non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations) as a list of people who are X and are also Y.
The sources provided relate only tangentially to the article topic - none of them deal in depth with the subject of the education levels of the super-wealthy.
The article is woefully delineated in scope - the definition of "billionaire" seems to based on the US Dollar and on the opinions of a single magazine. A more appropriate title would be List of college dropouts who are billionaires according to Forbes and providing their wealth is measured in USD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the topic interesting, that is, what is the relation between education and wealth. The presumption is that collegiate education helps people become affluent and wealthy, and the list is a counter-example -- showing people who became billionaires despite stopping their collegiate education before graduating. In my view, it's a useful list. The objections, above, can be handled quite easily, by simply noting that the term billionaire is based on US dollars, by using a specific methodology of a magazine.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~A single-nationality perspective based on a single source?? o_O ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Easily fixed: add billionaires from other countries, add additional sources, no big woof.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough, there is a precedent that has been set - The World's Billionaires is based on the USD and Forbes magazine. I've amended my !vote to reflect that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would opine that this is a useful, encyclopedic topic. If the article has problems, deletion is not the solution. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the solution? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep improving the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Suriel1981, Wikipedia is not a depository of information, nor an indiscriminate list of people. Sure, it's nice to see college dropouts become billionaires, but this is likely NPOVed to either encourage people that dropping out results in getting rich, or rich people who dropped out are very lucky. I'm not sure where this article suggests but it definitely leads to some questions. Ultimately, you'll have to point to the issues I stated earlier and come to the conclusion that this is not a list that needs an article. Aerospeed (Talk) 03:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an indiscriminate collection that corresponds to no rational category--it might conceivably be rational to have an article or section on ones with different degree of education, but not this one specific intermediary level between those who finished college and those who never attended. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 17 November 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 (lecture) @ 15:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously interesting list topic, obviously subject of discussion frequently in the media. Not indiscriminate at all, not a matter of random X category cross random Y category, not at all. If one wants to expand it / revise it to cover different degrees of education, too, but what is well-known is that there are college dropouts who are billionaires, like Bill Gates etc. It is not so much a topic of discussion to speak of high school dropouts or of Ph.D.s. who are billionaires; I don't recall any general remarking about those types. Give it a rest. --do ncr am 00:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename List of billionaires without college degrees. This gets rid of the arbitrariness of the criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think it's not arbitrary: those who chose to drop out of college are sending a more stinging message, like "i don't need no stinkin' college". I'm sure there are rich persons who didn't go to college, because they couldn't at the time, they were in the military or whatever, or they worked hard and hit paydirt in the Comstock Lode, or they were real purdy or real gold-diggers and married the right man. Those are all rags-to-riches stories, which is a different genre, a different list. The deliberate college dropouts becoming billionaires is an indictment of the hifalutin college-types. You and I are agreed that it should be kept though, and sure, revising the focus of the article and/or creating an alternative list can be considered at its Talk page. --do ncr am 02:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're skating on thin ice. I doubt that many of the listed people dropped out to make some sort of social statement (which isn't even part of the explicit criteria). Mark Zuckerberg? Steve Jobs? Bill Gates? Don't think so. They left to do something they found more interesting/profitable. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure, I shouldn't assert they were themselves trying to make a social statement. But part of the general interest in articles about these types is the perceived social statement that some others (me included) see as implicit in their actions. And Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford were relatively uneducated (and not college educated), of the "rags-to-riches" genre, which is different than those who were in Harvard and chose to drop out because they had even better things to do. I think there's room for list-articles about both types, and that they are different. Sure, include indexing for inflation, else Carnegie (worth 380m a long time ago) would be excluded from the rags-to-riches list, while he should be included. --do ncr am 21:01, 30 November 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, Sam Walton (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure trivia, an indiscriminate list with an arbitrary inclusion criteria. This is almost entirely cited to Forbes, and a lot of the coverage is actually on the millionaires/billionaires who didn't obtain degrees, NOT solely on those who dropped out of college/university, as this list portrays. Whilst there is obviously a lot of crossover there, it doesn't help make this current article notable. This list is also solely centred around modern-day folk; people in the past, with levels of wealth that are equivalent to a modern-day billion, are obviously not going to qualify. It even lacks people in the past who DID have this level of wealth, so is a case of WP:RECENTISM. WP:ILIKEIT arguments seem to be prevalent above. An article of List of billionaires without college degrees probably should exist, but I'm not seeing how the current article is worth keeping in any form, and the change in inclusion criteria is pretty dramatic, and thus, this content being in the history would be redundant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think "pure trivia" is necessarily a trigger for deletion as User:Lukeno94 says. Nor do I think the subject is not notable: it seems like at least several times a year I read an op-ed or magazine article about self-made billionaires like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and there is great public interest in how people become successful outside traditional avenues of material gain (college). As User:doncram says above, one of the things that makes the people in this list notable, besides that they are billionaires, is that they are billionaires in spite of dropping out of college. Having said that, I would vote keep (but I am abstaining as this is my first post in an AfD discussion), unless the info in this can be merged into the table at The World's Billionaires (e.g. a sortable "Education" column that would make it easy to find them). Also, I think we should consider whether "billionaire" is an arbitrary threshold (wouldn't dropout CEOs of Fortune 500 companies be equally interesting and meaningful) and whether to broaden college dropout to include those who never went to college at all—or does it already? Just my thoughts. Ultrauber (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question Is this list including just US$ billionaires? It's based on the Forbes list, but does it include people not included in that list? If kept, the list needs to be renamed, since any country with severe hyperinflation will have lots and lots of college dropout billionaires. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are more non-US nationals than there are Americans, or at least a rough 50/50 split; I don't know if they live in the US, or not. But yeah, the list would also need to be renamed, as most of Zimbabwe probably qualified at one point. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not quite what I meant. Is everyone on this list either (1) worth more than $1 billion US, or (2) worth enough in another currency that it would convert to more than $1 billion US? I'm trying to filter out the Zimbabwean dropouts, not people like Gautam Adani who are valued in rupees. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they certainly would appear to be, since basically everything is cited to Forbes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to set the cutoff at a billion dollars US. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks too much like someone's original research project, however interesting. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:37, 7 December 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW. Clear consensus herein for deletion per WP:NOTESSAY. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Kant “The Metaphysics of Morals:” Courage in a duty based ethics

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

Seems to fall under WP:NOTESSAY, borderline WP:A10 of The Metaphysics of Morals ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay/original research. I don't think a redirect is warranted as this long name is not a plausible search term. Crow^Caw 00:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is an essay, it seems. It's also an implausible search term, so a redirect wouldn't be an option. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There's just nothing to salvage here and as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place to post your personal essays, I'd say that this should be deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I agree with Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡), and others as a personal essay it does WP:NOT belong.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current article on The Metaphysics of Morals is sufficient, and the additional essay here would be better placed on a Blog, Scribd, etc., but not here. AllyD (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for essays. It is a unlike search term so redirect is not a good idea. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AmaryllisGardener - Wikipedia aint an essay site ando so obviously all belongs elsewhere. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:33, 30 November 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. At this point, fails WP:NFOOTY and also WP:GNG was not demonstrated. Obviously, if at some later point he becomes notable (transfers to a Bundesliga club or plays a game for a senior national team), the article can be recreated.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Jelisić

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTBALL no fully professional appearance. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on an unsupported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No idea about the reliability of the source but [48] may well go some way to establishing notability. The article is, at present, misleading; it claims that Jelisic played for the senior 1860 Munchen team, but that does not appear to be the case. There's also a claim to having played in the third tier, but I'm not seeing any convincing evidence that this is actually the case. I did also find [49], which may also add a little bit of notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did he actually play for TSV 1860 München's first team in 2. Bundesliga? IJA (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the infobox appears to be a summary of his junior career. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 12:45, 4 December 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.