Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 May	29 May >

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Stickly's

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

No indication of notability. Web search for "Justin Lucas Chambers" results only in this article, and a Wikipedia mirror. Name of show appears to describe a family, but uses possessive, that is, it doesn't appear to be a legitimate professional venture. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Doesn't appear to have won any major awards, etc etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created in GoAnimate and writing that's just asking for the article creator's teacher to unleash their red pen...WP:MADEUP/school web project. Nate • (chatter) 02:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Not notable. Facebook link on website goes to YouTube which shows preview video has 5 views in the last week. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjQ1OP4wX2A --Jersey92 (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A11. The YouTube channel averages less than 15 views from a month ago and only has one subscriber. I highly doubt the article creator is anyone else but the creator of the show. – 23W _{(talk · contribs)} 22:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would support that. I looked a little closer and came to the same conclusion based on the low hits. I also thought it could be speedy deleted under G11 for unambiguous promotion, since it doesn't even exist yet, and the article seems to be an attempt to legitimize it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks to be non-notable web content. I guess there's no reason why amateur productions can't attain notability, but this looks very unlikely to draw reviews from Entertainment Weekly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding coverage in reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:WEBCRIT. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 31 May 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Sells

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

Subject appears to fail WP:GNG. This article was created in 2008 by a one-purpose account whose user name is clearly connected to the article's subject, was tagged as lacking sources in the same year and has seen basically no content edits since then. The only citation points to a web page that no longer exists - I just tried to repair it by retrieving a copy from the Internet Archive, but it's just a TV show episode guide that doesn't even mention this article's subject. HaeB (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 14 May 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 ♔ 05:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to discover suitable sourcing to evidence notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 28 May 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 ♔ 22:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the appropriate guideline here is WP:ARTIST, and he doesn't meet any of the criteria. Has an impressive list of movie credits but doesn't appear to have been a particularly significant contributor to any of them, at least by our standards. Ivanvector (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Ivanvector -- he doesn't meet any of the criteria.Paisarepa (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ÆON Bandaraya Melaka Shopping Centre

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

fails WP:GNG. I could find no indepth coverage. For example a search of major Malaysian paper the Star only found one line mentions. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:20, 21 May 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 ♔ 22:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Subject appears to fail WP:NGEOG. Sources mostly are about other topics with the mall being incidental, often the location of a specific event, none of which are especially historic. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Beach, Shelter Island

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

THis article is overly promotional. It fails the WP:Spam policy, as it promotes the subject without providing reliable sources to prove the notability of the subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 May 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 ♔ 00:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatantly promotional and does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Nickmalik (talk) 20:47, 20 May 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 ♔ 22:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. as non-notable. --Bejnar (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raincode

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

Company that doesn't appear to be notable. I didn't find any references in English--maybe they exist in French and/or Flemish? A couple of the company's products have been up for AfD in the past (one in 2012 and one this year) and notability was not established for either one on those occasions. --Finngall ^talk 18:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 14 May 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 ♔ 00:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing sources meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Additional sources welcome, as always. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 28 May 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 ♔ 22:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They have some interesting products, but I agree with Finngall and j⚛e decker that they don't have the media coverage, just passing mentions such as in Klusener, A. Steven, Ralf Lämmel, and Chris Verhoef (2005) "Architectural modifications to deployed software." Science of Computer Programming 54(2): pp.143-211. --Bejnar (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sameen Qasim

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

promotional article, zero notability, piggy-backing Wikipedia for SEO purposes. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Semitransgenic _talk. 21:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Present sources does not establish notability. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 00:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Secure instant messaging. slakr^\ talk / 03:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of secure messengers

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

Looks like a copy and paste from Secure Instant Messaging The Banner talk 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Secure Instant Messaging. Way too close to justify separate articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Redirect~~ to Secure Instant Messaging. Appears to be a verbatim copy/paste of Secure Instant Messaging (except for the lead). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addended !vote above to merge, since the content has been removed from Secure Instant Messaging. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Music

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

This is simply not an encyclopaedic entry, it's of questionable notability with zero references and lists of names (many of which are red-links). Semitransgenic _talk. 19:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see one or two semi-reliable references, but the article is such crumby condition that WP:TNT would be justified. Odd that this thing has been around since 2005. Surprised no one has nominated this previously. NickCT (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An apparently defunct music festival which doesn't appear to have ever satisfied WP:NCONCERT. I do find brief mentions of its existence (and apparent demise) in several sources, but none indicate that it would have been important enough to satisfy the criteria, and regardless the sources don't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanvector (talk • contribs) 23:50, 28 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better refs or delete without prejudice - this festival is notable and received plenty of coverage over the years, but this article is TNT-worthy and I don't have any of the requisite refs to hand myself. Perhaps someone else does - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This certainly wasn't a major festival, looking at the line-ups. A minor festival might have enough coverage to sustain an article, but as the nominator states, the best way to fix this would probably be to start again at any rate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Harner

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

This article has "referenciness", but the references all turn out to have been written by the subject or his friends. It notes that "Information from 1980 onward is primarily drawn from the article "The History and Work of the Foundation for Shamanic Studies," Shamanism 18: 1&2 by permission of the Foundation for Shamanic Studies." Unfortunately, without this plainly conflicted material, the article itself pretty much vanishes and becomes a minor academic who fails WP:PROF. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 19 with some high cites in the area of religion (albeit pop religion) suffices to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete a GS h-index from a tiny citation-circle does not count as independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny? First GS hit has 907 cites! Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. The fringe nature of his research topic does nothing to negate the clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 evident in his citation record. And (e.g. from hits describing him as a highly influential pioneer in this area in highbeam) he also appears to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- GreenC 03:30, 23 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I can see at least a couple moderately reliable sources for this guy, and he does seem to have a considerable number of published works. Feel like a keep to me. NickCT (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the above. Google search suggests he's clearly well-known in his field, and apparently well-cited. I will note however that there seems to be much criticism of his work on the web which is not reflected in the article at all, suggesting a WP:SELFSOURCE and/or WP:NPOV issue. We should rectify this, but it's not criteria for deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 00:01, 29 May 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FALAKNUMA - Hyderabad

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

non notable book. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A large proportion of this WP:SPA article is word-for-word identical to the publisher's PR copy for the book, indicating a WP:COPYVIO that would need to be deleted were the article to survive. The given references are a mixture of PR, blogs and articles about people associated with the publishation. No evidence of attained notability for the book itself. AllyD (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, I don't see the sourcing available to demonstrate notability, and even if I did, I'd suggest TNT for promotionally and ingrained copyvios. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef El-Far

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

Non-notable businessperson per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

source for that artical

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that subject satisfies WP:BASIC. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 22 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Davey. No evidence of notability. NickCT (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Non-notable businessperson per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficiently strong claim of notability and lack of sufficient independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:21, 30 May 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. slakr^\ talk / 03:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture in Puerto Rico

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

Although the title may deserve an article, it's currently just an unreferenced list based on original research. damiens.rf 17:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 22 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsalvageable mess of redlinks, random facts, vague assertions (1970s: "Telenovelas such as Cristina Bazan with Johanna Rosaly, gain popularity in Puerto Rico"), and banal observations that don't even have anything to do with Puerto Rico specifically ("The Vietnam War breaks out and music with a social theme hit the airwaves in the late 60's"). postdlf (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep De list has potioncial and can be fixed. Ce nominator est le Portoricain Anti. Sorry, This nominator is obvise that he is on an Anti-Puerto Rican agenda and has been for a long time, see: [1]. I am sorry but to my respect to the Puerto Rican people I can not accept this rascist type of behavior. People on agendas should be stopped. Merci Le Pato Frances (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC) — Le Pato Frances (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete a list of notable and non notable entertainers does not equal an article on pop culture. LibStar (talk) 11:25, 5 June 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) slakr^\ talk / 03:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lake George Music Festival

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 22 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:GNG. It is mentioned in Explorer's Guide Adirondacks and received passing mention elsewhere, but the only coverage found was local. The article has been available for improvement since 2012. Maybe it will grow in significance in future years, if it does and receives sufficient coverage then a new article can be written. --Bejnar (talk) 19:15, 5 June 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) slakr^\ talk / 03:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Gill

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

Does not meet GNG. Primary references given are from the subject's website, and those that aren't only mention Gill in passing. Multiple tags since 2011. Buffalutheran (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only local press coverage (not in major cities). No evidence of notability for his TV show A Moment of Life - hosting a local TV show doesn't confer notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and no evidence of any other reason for notability. To be notable, would need coverage in multiple sources in national media or at least media covering a significant area (e.g. New York City press). Posting unsourced info about his divorce may violate WP policies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:42, 29 May 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) slakr^\ talk / 03:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Lake Park (Texarkana, Texas)

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

fails WP:GNG; George Dobson Field was redirected here, but I am unconvinced this field is notable either per a Google search - minimal coverage in secondary sources Go Phightins! 21:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 22 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 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 procedural close. It appears you wanted to nominate User:DR,Prof.MAQSOOD ILAHI for deletion. The "Articles for deletion" venue is only for articles. To nominate Wikipedia user pages for deletion, see Miscellany for deletion. You may wish to review the deletion policy for valid grounds for deletion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DR,Prof.MAQSOOD ILAHI

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

Wikipedia does not allow popularity of any individual through it. Ali Asher Kazmi (talk) 18:24, 28 May 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 May 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:44, 28 May 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Henry (novelist)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Having some published work does not guarantee notability. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The earlier revision really was awful and because of that, I wasn't really expecting to find anything. It's kind of unfortunate in that it's kind of normal to have an extremely puffy, non-NPOV page for someone that has never received coverage anywhere. However he has received reviews from SF Signal, SF Site, and many different trade reviews. If it were just the trade reviews I'd be less inclined to really vote "keep", but there are the other reviews to help push it forward. I do think that if this is kept we will likely need to keep an eye on it to ensure that it doesn't get reverted back to its promotional state or have similar information added. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 22 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:AUTHOR per work by User:Tokyogirl79. -- GreenC 23:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Watchers Series

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

Unremarkable book series by a non-notable author, and the creator seems to be COI based on the username Zeus^u|c 18:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Watchers is a legitimate upcoming release by emerging author Deirdra Eden, an editor, mentor, and public speaker, who is well known in the publishing industry. The original article was submitted by the author, herself. For questions or concerns, please visit her website www.Knightess.com 18:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by nom: Are you at all related to the author or involved in this series? Your account is brand new and the only edits are to this page and this comment. If you are that is a conflict of interest and you must disclose that. Zeus^u|c 18:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am involved in this series, I am Deirdra Eden's editor and publicist. I am, obviously, new to editing on wikipedia. 19:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 18:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no actual coverage of the series as a whole. I tried to see if there was any coverage for the author herself, but there isn't anything out there for her as a whole other than one magazine review and that's not enough to show notability per WP:AUTHOR or WP:NBOOK. I've got a fairly detailed notability Q&A here, but the basic thing is that the books/series/author must have already established notability through reliable sources to pass our notability guidelines. She and her works exist, but existing is not notability and we can't keep an article on the hopes that she'll eventually gain coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reinadelmundo11: The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that almost nothing is set in stone. If the books attract significant third party coverage, sufficient to meet the standards laid out at our notability guidelines, we can always write an article. In the mean time, this doesn't belong here (and you, as someone with a conflict of interest, don't belong writing the article). Sven Manguard Wha? 06:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a place for marketing, and as such article subjects have to be notable, as shown by reliable sources independent of the subject. If this series meets that standard in the future, it can and should have an article, though not one written by anyone with a direct connection, as that would be a conflict of interest. Novusuna ^talk 21:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Percutaneous hydrotomy

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

Potentially fringe medical subject of low notability. The only sources are primary sources by the creator of the technique, thus running afoul of WP:MEDRS. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available reliable secondary sources. - Mr X 17:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per non notable and promotional VViking_TalkEdits 03:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Ian Furst (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete, promotional and not sourced as per WP:MEDRS - I checked and there are no hits on Pubmed at all... certainly no secondary sources there. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete & remove from the other pages, per all. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Need proper sourcing per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does appear to be a centre [2] that uses this technique. However I could not find any third-party descriptions to establish notability. There is nothing in PubMed. There is a self-published case series, but this is not peer-reviewed, and is a primary source anyway. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This web page has links to a number of practitioners who apparently use the technique. Despite this, the technique still lacks evidence of notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Charles Nguyen Van Royel, Traitement de la gonarthrose : mésothérapie conventionnelle versus hydrotomie percutanée à propos de 20 cas, Diplôme Inter-Universitaire de Mésothérapie de Paris VI, juin 2009. The above referenced French article (shown as no. 10 under references in the English Percutaneous Hydrotomy article) addressess a study made in Paris, France 2009 with a representative universe of patients where the Percutaneous Hydrotomy technique was used versus other Mesotherapy techniques with positive results which brings conclusive notability and sourcing to this particular technique among other references shown in the article in question plus also being used presently by many medical doctors internationally as shown on the Association Internationale d'Hydrotomie Percutanée (A.I.H.P.)under list of practioners. Therefore, I feel this article complies with the norms followed by Wikipédia and should have a ××××KEEP×××× status. This Wikipedia article concerning Percutaneous Hydrotomy in English is a translation of a similar article which has already been published and approved in the French Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve michael x (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Steve michael x (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve michael x You are the creator of the article that is subject of this discussion, and the content in other articles, and are clearly new to Wikipedia. First, what happens in French WP has nothing to do with what we do here. More importantly, please explain, and this is a very serious question -- who are "we"? Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 04:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Brignole

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

Nonnotable head of PR agency. Author has admitted to being an employee of the agency, and has done no editing other than creating articles on the agency and its clients, and spamming links to the agency on those clients' pages. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 18:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability. The editor needs some proper guidance on policy here too. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:56, 30 May 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). It looks like the main arguments are not meeting notability guidelines for bands (WP:BAND), but there's also a mention that it might meet the local clause of that same guideline; however, concerns are also raised about verifiability and reliability of those sources, so defaulting to soft-delete, under the assumption that one is free to re-create or request undeletion of the article, especially if it's to add additional, reliable sourcing. slakr^\ talk / 00:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Matadors (band)

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

I'm moderately neutral, since I'm the biggest fan of psychobilly I know after my buddy Nils. But this band appears not to be notable--no big record deal, no hits (of course--it's psychobilly, underground by definition), no significant coverage in the press. Note that the article is currently semi-protected due to persistent BLP violations, some internet chatter about playing in blackface that you can find in the history. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator's assessment is spot on. The band isn't notable, but at least I learned about the psychobilly genre and that the nominator is a fan. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the nominator points out, by definition "psychobilly" is not a mainstream genre. It thus seems somewhat unfair to me to attempt to strictly apply aspects of our notability policies that would be so applied if this band performed in a mainstream genre. Just because something is a little obscure doesn't mean it should be penalized, subject to things like verifiability of course.

In my opinion, the band readily meets criteria seven in WP:Band, in that they are "the most prominent of the local scene of a city" in a "notable style", that being "psychobilly" in London Ontario Canada in this case. In fact, if someone were so inclined, I don't think it would be all that difficult to demonstrate this band's prominence in that particular genre in various communities right across the province of Ontario. I say let's give the article a chance to demonstrate that potential claim to "prominence" through the provision of concrete verifiable sources and not hold "non-mainstream" genre against them. 70.48.219.240 (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reliable source that makes that unusual claim? After all, you left out what follows: "note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that I specifically mentioned our requirement for verifiability twice in my original comment. I'm not contending for anything "unusual" here, simply that recognition be given to the fact that articles pertaining to bands producing music in non mass marketed genres of music by definition, should not be unduly excluded on that basis. In terms of the potential "prominence" of the band itself within its genre on the local scene in London Ontario, based on criteria seven in WP:Band, I'd point out that they've won the locally significant Jack Richardson Music Award in their category three times in the last ten years, in 2005, 2007 and again in 2009. See [3],[4], [5]. 70.48.219.240 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Funny. I was just thinking about The Reverend Horton Heat. Exclaim! is a reliable source. The others look pretty weak, but if someone can provide more third party sources on that level, I might be convinced to vote to keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:22, 28 May 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) slakr^\ talk / 04:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Securtix

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

Inadequately sourced article about a product. I am unable to find sources that cover the subject in any depth. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

In fact it`s difficult to find valuable sources about the topic! Today I found and added further links of publications from travel industry journals. Indeed in the airline industry Securtix is well known as a trademark. We should have a close look to the subject an then decide if it`s useful to have a definition about it in wikipedia.--Rechercha (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no many sources in fact, but you can be able to find sources about the subject which explain in depth the brand and he product itself, I have found some links about, but there is one that explains how it works [6] More over, there have been cases where this service has been very useful for stranded passengers, for example when OLT Germany Express was insolvent, and securtix protected the passengers [7] For my side I think is useful people can have a definition in wikipedia to know more about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafagom (talk • contribs) 13:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I also added some magazines' links in the article Rafagom (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)R— Rafagom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom withdrawn ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Fox in "Dry Cereal"

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

I have searched for sources and have found none that can establish the notability of the game. The reference and external links also do nothing to establish the notability of the game. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Withdraw nomination - Thanks to Czars assistance, I have found sources for the article. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Next time you search for a video game's notability, I suggest using the WP:VG/RS custom search, where you'd find:
- http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/09/11/spy-fox-in-dry-cereal-review
- http://www.adventuregamers.com/articles/view/18344
- http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=16160&tab=review
- And at the very least, this would be a candidate for merge (like Putt-Putt) and not outright deletion through AfD: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-04-18-ron-gilberts-humongous-entertainment-adventures-are-now-on-steam

The older version very likely had enough notability on its own (print sources), but notability for the GNG is crystal clear with the Wii and iOS rereleases. czar ♔ 20:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thangtinlen Haokip

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he has played in the Nagaland Premier League. Given that this league is not fully pro, playing in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY still stands. No indication of any other achievements partnering significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rabi Thapa Magar

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he has played in the Nepalese top flight. Given that this league is not confirmed as fully pro this does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY still stands. No indication of any other achievements partnering significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Babak Golkar

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

Does not appear notable per WP:ARTIST Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 14 May 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 ♔ 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trident Art Foundation

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

This appears to be a foundation that has just formed as described here. Its parent company doesn't appear notable either. Thus, it appears to fail WP:ORG. I am One of Many (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches under both its current and previous names turn up no evidence that this organisation is notable. AllyD (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 14 May 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 ♔ 00:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article, zero notability, piggy-backing Wikipedia for SEO purposes. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Klein

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

Notability not established per WP:PROF, WP:ARTIST, or WP:BASIC. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the time of nomination there was no interwikilink, which I added. The deWiki article refers to a number of awards most notable de:Kurt-Magnus-Preis. I doubt that that award in itself confers notability as on deWiki a good proportion of winners are redlinked. But together there is a lead that something might be there. Agathoclea (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 14 May 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 ♔ 00:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been demonstrated. The prize mentioned by Agathoclea is for young radio talent, another sign that it is not sufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 2 June 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. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of data types of the Standard Libraries

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

Delete: not valuable just to replicate microsoft documentation with no commentary. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Commentary is good but not always necessary. Many lists don't contain much text at all nor do they need it. The content of the list comes from the ECMA-335 standard and is not Microsoft documentation. I wrote an application to parse through the standard and output the data types of the Standard Library in order to avoid typos and other possible mistakes since it would have taken me days to put the list together manually. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 14 May 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 ♔ 00:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Individual television experience

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

G11 declined, so AfD. I found this article when checking "what links here" to Televisionary, recently deleted via AfD. As with televisionary this appears to be a marketing buzzword propagated by Ericsson and a few other cable and internet television companies. The refs either don't mention this term at all or mention it in that context, often as part of one of the company's websites or a press release. It has had the advert tag since 2009. I still think it's an easy G11, but it's longer and has more [though heavily redundant] sources, but oh well. It also fails the GNG because there may be multiple sources here, but it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic. Sometimes an article uses the phrase, but not clearly in reference to the topic of this article, and even then it's just a trivial single sentence in passing. The Wikipedia article includes a lot of references to websites that are not independent reliable sources; many are press releases, some are blog posts. There is heavy referencing of what sounds like a guide to exhibitors at a trade show called IBC 2008, which I did not locate, but I'm guessing there are independence/reliable source issues with the source. I also did not translate the Russian articles. Perhaps I'm dismissing good sources; please let me know if you think that's true and I'll try harder to look into them. Agyle (talk) 23:07, 15 May 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 ♔ 00:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:11, 28 May 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. slakr^\ talk / 04:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Napkin PC

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

Article has few references, has not been edited for over a year, and suffers from clear notability issues. AbsoluteMack (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Notability is not temporary, and it won a fairly decent award, and had good coverage at the time. but I think it fails the WP:10YT pretty hard. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It won a high-profile award and was featured in several magazines. The article may not be relevant in the future (as Gaijin42 pointed out), but for now, I think it should stay. IAmTheBrainwasher (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 14 May 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 ♔ 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - overall, just meets WP:GNG, although some articles that I was able to locate are short. Source examples include: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm convinced that the sources provided by Northamerica evidence bare notability under GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough reliable sources to establish notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ričardas Kuncaitis

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

Non-notable boxer WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP National champion that representing country in world championships and 14 articles mentioning him on wiki, so he is notable --Bearas (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the added information it looks like he may meet WP:NBOX but there is only a single reference to participation in a Youth event which is non-notable - the reference does not even seem to exist. Wikilinks have no real meaning especially when they are essentially unreferenced themselves. What would help is the inclusion of reliable third party references - the lack of which should result in article deletion in its own right. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 13 May 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 ♔ 00:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional sources, can we close the proposition finally? -Bearas (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (T) St. Teresa Convent

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

Adress is given in article. Akifumii^Talk 05:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It Could be improved if more encyclopedia Information Is added and its better formatted. Just because the address of a place is given in a article does not mean it can't be kept, In fact it makes it better if its formatted in a infobox for example. Dudel250 (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this the same school as SMK Convent Taiping? Looks like it to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think so, it is SJK rather than SMK and the founders are different. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With such a sparsity of information it is impossible to establish context for this unreferenced article even as to what level of school it is. Nothing notable returned by Google. It should fall under CSD db-A7 but escapes because of its educational nature. Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (C) Han Ming has exactly the same issues. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 13 May 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 ♔ 00:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:09, 28 May 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 deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. The sole purpose of the article was to generate publicity for the film, as evidenced by the account who created the article has the same name as the film. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saalaiyoram

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

Unsourced article about an unreleased film. No evidence of passing WP:NFILM. Drm310 (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Daussy

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

WP:NOTE Simply being a broadcaster and a professor unfotunatley doesnt give notability. Amortias (T)(C) 11:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. A casual Google search yielded two non-trivial English-language hits at the Korea Times. ~~Not enough to pass GNG by themselves but additional RS coverage may be out there.~~ • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With some further searching, I found enough RS coverage in English and French to satisfy WP:BASIC. She's apparently famous in South Korea. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof#1. Not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and your reason (apart from being the creator)? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

See article. she is notable. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 08:22, 12 May 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 ♔ 17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added three more English sources to the article which are entirely devoted to her, and additionally Naver News search in Korean finds 787 articles which mention her name in their headline. The Korea Herald describes her as a "household name" in South Korea. Clearly meets the "significant coverage in reliable sources" burden. quant18 (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The new sources make notability obvious even to those of us who don't read Korean. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 29 May 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. slakr^\ talk / 04:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gravedancer (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Not ranked, not honored, not reviewed, etc. Brycehughes (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 10 May 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 ♔ 16:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage found to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS; no material worth merging into the album article. Gongshow talk 23:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After reconsideration j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gibril Haddad

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

This was a tough one, but upon investigation and periodic searching for one year, the subject appears to fall below the relevant notability guidelines. There is a large volume of material written about him on blogs and discussion forums, as well as in self-published books lacking editorial oversight and Wikipedia mirrors. None of these are reliable sources.
There is a literal handful of reliable sources citing web articles the subject has written. The subject was ranked as one of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world with a small blurb written about him, though the majority of the people in that list don't seem to pass WP:GNG either and I wouldn't argue that alone as a sufficient notability threshhold. The subject also fails both criteria for WP:ANYBIO and all nine for WP:NACADEMICS. There are no guidelines for notability which the subject seems to pass. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My findings concur with those of the nom, my conclusion however is that based on the extent of the discussion of his works, the citations of his works, and his apparent influence I am going to invoke IAR and recommend Keep. If someone can investigate the citation numbers that would be helpful. I also wonder about sources in other languages (Indonesian)? Also, David Livingstone writes of him in Black Terror White Soldiers: Islam, Fascism and the New Age: "Such devotion to Ibn Arabi can be found in other important Sufis like Dr. Gibril Haddad and Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Bouti. Haddad..." Unfortunately the page is missing from Google Books. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Livingston's book is published by CreateSpace ie. self-published. -- GreenC 03:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Green Cardamom, would you describe yourself as leaning either way on this one? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has a better entry at the WikiIslam (unaffiliated with Mediawiki), that's probably a good place for him since so many sources run afoul of our reliable source rule. I understand Candleabracadabra's position. I don't mind going with Delete to reduce the need for a IAR situation, with the knowledge there is development at WikiIslam so nothing is really lost. If someone wants to create a better entry in the future with reliable source they always can. BTW citation numbers are here. -- GreenC 04:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 31 May 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, slakr^\ talk / 07:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College Hunks Hauling Junk

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

promotional page for borderline-notable company. The references are press releases, except for the WSJ, and that one article on the firm as a human interest story is not enough to sustain notability. The awards as a trivial as imaginable " Top 50 Franchisee Satisfaction Award"; and the ones for "fastest growing"mean nothing--the term is an euphemism for "not yet knowable . The promotional nature of the article is shown by the coverage of the non-notable founders trivial appearances on TV shows. Of course, there isn;t much else to say. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and cleanup any promotional issues. The company and its founders have also been featured Shark Tank, Millionaire Matchmaker, The Pitch here, an MTV show and House Hunters. In addition to what's already in the article, coverage includes Time magazineand Inc here. Plenty of additional sources per Google. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Struck per WP:EVADE. See User talk:Candleabracadabra. Ivanvector (talk) 00:11, 29 May 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, slakr^\ talk / 03:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Speedy Delete The article seems to be solely for advertising. WP:ADVERT. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (sadly). I agree with Mr. Guye (talk · contribs) that this sure looks like advertising, and the article itself is a total disaster that needs something between cleaning up and blowing up. But, I can't escape the fact that, ignoring all else, the Time and Wall Street Journal articles are, by themselves, sufficient to meet WP:GNG (he says, while holding his nose, shading his eyes, and looking around furtively to see if any of his fellow deletionists have spotted him). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] (short article). That said, this article needs copy editing to address promotional tone. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage per the above sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Gongshow talk 18:09, 28 May 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. slakr^\ talk / 23:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abbotsford motorcycles

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

Fails WP:GNG and according to the article "very little information seems to have survived." MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete article makes no claim to notability. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sad but there is little or nothing that can be written about this company, beyond that they existed. Same is to be said for articles in the same category Absolom motorcycles, Acme motorcycle (1911–13), Acme motorcycle (1915-17), Acme motorcycle (1939–49), Advance (Australian motorcycle), AJT (motorcycle), ANA (motorcycle). All of these have just a single reference from the same source. Perhaps someone wants to write Failed motorcycle manufacturing businesses in Australia or suchlike these all between them could be a paragraph or two at most. Delete - Peripitus (Talk) 05:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few thousands of these small companies, from almost every country, not just Australia, in the history of motorcycling, and we should discuss what to do with all of them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It took but a moment to find a substantial source — Lost Motorcycles Of The 1920s — which contains plenty of detail about such obscure marques. Andrew (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1. There is notability in the fact that this company was one of quite a few Australian motorcycle manufacturers that flourished at the start of the last century and then disappeared. As a part of this interesting history it is notable. 2. There is, I expect, more information to be found on the NLA Trove digitized newspapers from the era. I have focused on trawling this for Waratah, and a few other makes, so far, but I expect that careful searching will reveal source material from the period. Pyobon (talk) 09:42, 11 May 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, slakr^\ talk / 02:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP. Needs expanded beyond a stub with more sources. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence of notability as I provided a source above. Andrew (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what does that volume say about this company ? I've searched the NLA Trove list of newspapers from the period and found zero mentions of this company, not even advertisements. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Peripitus, Other than that one source there's no further evidence of notability beyond that at all →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are other sources including Alle Motorräder 1894 bis heute and Enzyklopädie des Motorrads. It's the searches which produce results which matter; not the ones that don't. Andrew (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but what do those sources, and the first one you indicated, say about this company ? Peripitus (Talk) 08:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples:

Erwin Tragatsch: Alle Motorräder 1894 bis heute. Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart, 4. Auflage 1982, ISBN 3-87943-410-7
S. Ewald: Enzyklopädie des Motorrads. Bechtermünz Verlag, Augsburg 1999, ISBN 978-3860471425
A-Z of Australian-Made Motorcycles 1893-1942 by Robert Saward, Turton & Armstrong Pty Ltd, ISBN 0-908031-64-5
Lost Motorcycles of The 1920s

I'm unable to preview the sources to ascertain the depth of coverage about the company, though. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Northamerica1000's sources may be sufficient to establish notability. Would like to discuss the articles as a group as mentioned by Dennis Bratland above. — Brianhe (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project Sponsor in the Agile Framework

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

It seams that this article's scope is too narrow. There are no reliable sources which discuss such a concept as a "Project Sponsor in the Agile Framework". We already have articles like "Project sponsorship" and "Project sponsor". Vanjagenije (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy Like all the other articles created in good faith by this now-blocked group account, this is original research and synthesis, which has no place in Wikipedia: sorry, gang. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't really understand the idea behind this article; it's like an essay on a very narrow, seemingly insignificant aspect of a development methodology called Agile Framework, when there is virtually no description of the methodology or reference to any related topics on Wikipedia. The references consist almost entirely of primary sources, blogs, and other non-reliable sources, except for one IEEE journal article. Agyle (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I think the article is discussing an aspect of agile software development, either generically or as described in the book The Agile Manifesto, rather than a specific methodology called Agile Framework. If so, the author didn't realize that Wikipedia would use lower case "agile framework" in the title unless it were a proper noun. That doesn't change my opinion. Agyle (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Ultimately, consensus here is for article retention. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fitzgerald (Irish republican)

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

Delete as non-notable (WP1E, GNG); also - only reflink cited is Cork Jail Memorial Souvenir (pamphlet), 1948, Cló na Laoí (The Lee Press), Cork, which is not RS; boilerplate hagiography. Quis separabit? 19:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly, many people died during The Troubles, and Wikipedia can't and shouldn't list all of them. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:notable and WP:GNG. Michael Fitzgerald was one of the Cork Ten arrested with Terence MacSwiney. I easily found two sources: New York Times, 13 November 1920, and Michael Collins, the Man Who Made Ireland, by Tim Coogan. I will rewrite the article and add these and other sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to review your work product but if being referenced in a Tim Pat Coogan publication instills notability than there are literally hundreds or more articles waiting to be written. I will need to see the degree to which he is mentioned in the New York Times article once you have added the links, but that also does not necessarily confer sufficient notability to merit an individual article, which is not to say Fitzgerald can't be part of a larger article. This is an encyclopaedia not a memorial site. Is the Cork Ten notable as an article? See the redlink for the apparent answer to that. Being arrested with a notable individual does not confer notability per se. If an article about the Ten were to be created, which I can see having a prima facie claim to notability, then Fitzgerald and other members should then become redirects to that general article. Again, this isn't a memorial site, so any salient info about Fitzgerald could be included in the MacSwiney article or an article about the Ten. Based on the text of the article as it exists now, he is no more notable than most other 20th-century paramilitaries. Quis separabit? 13:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed -- reflinks added but remains boiler plate hagiography, in my opinion, but I am sure others will have different opinions. Quis separabit? 12:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per notable and GNG. I improved the article and added WP:RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Quis separabit? 23:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sourcing is still slightly weak, but overall is adequate for notability. Similarly, there is a slight POV problem but nothing that can not be left to be improved by future editors. PWilkinson (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough person, important in the foundation of the IRA, an important organizaion. The sources are bad, but that is no arguement for deletion. Daniel.villar7 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2014

Keep - In addition to the New York Times story of his death in the footnotes, Fitzgerald is covered at great length in the Peter Hart edited book, Rebel Cork's Fighting Story, 1916-21: Told by the Men who Made it. He is also covered in Hart's book, The IRA and Its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 04:32, 2 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 23:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diagrammatology

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

This article has been speedily deleted once, and proposed for deletion. It violates WP:DICTIONARY and am only moving it to AfD because the creator keeps deleting the PROD tag. It should be moved to Wikitionary. cyberdog958^Talk 05:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Given the number of books and articles on the topic, I would think a decent article could be built out of this. I don't have the time, knowledge or access to the source materials to do so, but if properly expanded from a DICTDEF to a usable stub, this article might spur someone to flesh it out. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There seem to be sufficient sources to make a real article. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 12:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. This violates WP:Dictionary. It should move off to Wikitionary. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is for notability, not content. Take it to AfI or something. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 01:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Going by the references, this article is mixing together several distinct subjects, most of which already have articles (e.g. Mathematical diagram). -- 101.117.30.160 (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article is clearly a stub. However, the subject appears to be more related to philosophy of mathematical thought than it is about the actual pragmatics of using diagrams. Therefore, as long as an article can be developed, there appears to be something worth discussing in this topic. Nickmalik (talk) 07:38, 2 June 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Storenvy

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

Small non-notabnle unprofitable company, trivial in its field, among giants DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per:

The Wall Street Journal
Fox News
Techcrunch
Techcrunch
CNN
Book sources, each of which have a paragraph about Storenvy [19], [20], [21], [22].

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 13 May 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 ♔ 01:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the sources listed by Northamerica1000 cover this subject substantially. I think it's too soon. It's small. Is it noted along with other companies in this competitive space? Sure. Is it notable on its own? I'm not seeing it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because the following sources do provide significant coverage: [23] (paywalled), [24], [25], [26]. The coverage is not trivial and is way beyond passing mentions. Regarding the additional sources I posted above, per WP:CORPDEPTH, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added several additional references to the article, including the ones from the Wall Street Journal and CNN Money. Seems like there is plenty of coverage to pass WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The size or profitability of a firm isn't what we base our inclusion decisions upon; it is the existence of sources from which a verifiable article might be built. This has copious hefty sources from very big publications (Wall Street Journal, etc.) showing in the footnotes — enough to pass GNG without even turning on the Google machine. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 3 June 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DDnard

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. The sources used in the article are of a low quality or primary and are of little use for establishing notability. This was recently published in Huff Post but based on this it is hardly independent as it was 'secured' by her PR agency. Someone at the PR agency also authored the article (see here for details). I've searched factiva and google books for better coverage but haven't found anything. SmartSE (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was initially stumped by the title. Had no idea she was branding her name that way. Anyway, her real name, Thitinart Na Pattalung (ฐิตินาถ ณ พัทลุง), is much more familiar. Try searching with it or variant spellings Thitinart Napattalung and Na Phatthalung. I think it's quite likely she passes the GNG; the top Google results show several interviews on national free TV. (Haven't checked details yet though.) --Paul_012 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 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 ♔ 01:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails notable author. Does not meet GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:GNG - there is significant coverage in reliable sources independent from the subject. They need not be in English. As Paul012 said, She has been featured on Thai Free TV and in major Thai newspapers (Thai Rath, Matichon, Manager, The N ation), not just recently but repeatedly since about 2010. Perhaps the article should be moved to her real name, if the pseudonym is not significantly more established than the real name. --RJFF (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in Thailand. -- GreenC 23:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lights (EP)

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. The notable songs were released from the follow-up album, The Listening. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the first release of the artist, who is notable. It has four songs that were deemed notable enough to have articles (at least for the moment). At least two of them charted, one at #18. I don't see how including the same notable songs on a full length album *later* makes the earlier EP less notable. If we were having this discussion the day before the album was released, it would be clear that the EP was notable. The release of the album didn't revoke the EP's notability, since notability can't be removed. --Rob (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read WP:NALBUMS?

"An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."

So your argument that it's the first release of a notable artist is moot.

As stated in the nomination, the songs were not released from this EP but from the follow-up album and so they don't confer notability on this album but possibly from the one they were released from, although that doesn't happen either: each article must have its own notability.

As for revoking notability: the EP has none. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Listening (Lights album) — Fails WP:NALBUMS. Not a single citation is present in the article to establish notability. Notability is not inherited from the artist or the singles. STATic message me! 07:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Listening (Lights album), as all the songs featured on the EP were included on that album. — Status (talk · contribs) 08:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I have been editing music on Wikipedia since well before 2006, and local policies have a tendency to shift under the editor's feet, but I would wager, common sense remains the same. Why would removing this article improve Wikipedia in any way? It would only obscure the information concerning the two songs on this EP that were not included in the full-fledged album. Ask yourselves: is slavish adherence to policy, which itself is a moving target, reason enough to remove valuable information that just makes it harder for the user to obtain it? --Mareklug ^talk 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy-based argument. This could be redirected to the album and it could very easily be explained that the EP contained... Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this article is redirected, what's the purpose in deletion? You could redirect now, leaving the content in history, so in future the redirect could be easily undone, and new content and sources could be added. Mareklug has something of a point. In the past albums were automatically included for notable artists. Editors would put content in what are really sub-articles, with this understanding. Then, some other editors, decided to change the rules, and delete the content, which suddenly had to stand on its own. Now, I realize that ship has sailed (I'm not arguing guidelines here). But, if we can't delete this, then we can simply merge/redirect (even though I prefer keeping as stand-alone). There has not been a single practical argument presented so far for deletion. --Rob (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus appears to be redirect right now, so history would be kept. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreeing with Mareklug, I suppose Wikipedia:Ignore all rules may apply here. We must use WP:Common sense in this debate, and common sense says "keep". --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect. There's no "there" there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mareklug ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a plebiscite on whether WP:NALBUMS is or is not correct. That should be taken-up on the talk page of he guideline. That said, the guideline states that the subject of articles must be notable and notability is defined and the recent keep discussions have not been policy-based. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So, let me ask: would you have deleted this article if we had the discussion immediately before the full length album was released? Her EP easily met WP:GNG at that time. But, what you're doing is trying to take away the notability of this EP (shown in sources like this and ascribe them to a later album. As the article indicates (with sourcing) the songs were altered (albeit in a small way), so the singles weren't just taken from the full album, but were in fact from the EP first. I see this AFD as an attempt to retroactively remove well established notability. That's what's against our guidelines. --Rob (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually can't take the notability away from this article. It is either notable or not. When it was nominated, the article did not meet notability criteria. I searched for sources to support its notability and could not find it. Others did as well. What you see is your own ignorance of how AfDs work, not a conspiracy to remove something.

The singles were taken from the full album, not the EP. Look at their release schedule. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This release does not appear to have a lot of coverage (a brief Allmusic review and a couple paragraphs in the Los Angeles Times were the most in-depth I could find), but it led to the artist winning a 2009 Juno Award ["The award for Lights – who only has an EP to her name (...) was one of the night's few true surprises"]. I expanded the article to include these (and other) write-ups in an attempt to establish the significance of the Lights "era". Gongshow talk 21:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – What Gongshow has provided pushes this over the bar of notability, in my view. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gongshow. — Status (talk · contribs) 00:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Prunty

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Murry1975 (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NBOX. No sources which would indicate he passes WP:GNG.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) slakr^\ talk / 23:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Blanchet

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

The only source in this article is in regard to the subject being called for a hearing, which fits Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. Fails WP:GNG. Even with proper sources, his only notability seems to be in the fact that he is the spouse of Pauline Marois, there is no real, in depth coverage of the subject. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 02:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, the primary claim of notability here is his past position as CEO of two major financial institutions in Quebec — but his actual notability has not been adequately demonstrated by the use of reliable sources, and he doesn't get an automatic presumption of notability just for leading a company even in the absence of solid sourcing. Most of the other people who've led the Fonds de solidarité FTQ before or after him don't have Wikipedia articles, and while some of the other people who've led the Société générale de financement do, they also have much more substantial articles cited to a much more substantive array of sources than this, and much stronger claims of notability than just the SGF alone. And since notability is not inherited, he doesn't get a presumption of notability just for being the spouse of someone notable either. No prejudice against future recreation if somebody can write a good and properly sourced article about him, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 May 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 17:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is only the "spouse of Pauline Marois". I wonder if the same attitude would prevail if a stub were started for Michelle Obama. Would there be a call for its deletion because she is only "the spouse of the President of the USA"?

The stub on Claude Blanchet should be allowed to stand, because as the "spouse" of a now former "premier ministre" (English: Premier) of a province the size of 3 European countries, he is more than sufficiently "notable". His links to Campeau Corporation and thus to Power Corporation of Canada are also extremely important, because that latter multinational corporation is renowned for financing the election campaigns of a series of Prime Ministers of the federal Parliament of Canada. Anything Power Corporation does in Quebec, and in Canada, is extremely noteworthy and needs to be documented, precisely because of all their strings attached to the people and levers behind political "power" in Canada.

In fact, it is probably little known, but factually supported, that the PARTI QUEBECOIS, led by Marois until the recent election, was ordained to be set up by a group of federal Liberal cabinet ministers in the Lester Pearson government of Canada, while meeting in 'secret committee' on the premises of Power Corporation of Canada in 1967, i.e., their Montreal shipping building for Canada Steamship Lines. Therefore, again, the links of CLAUDE BLANCHET to Marois (leader of the same PARTI QUEBECOIS), are important because he is also linked to POWER CORPORATION and the creation of the PARTI QUEBECOIS by RENE LEVESQUE on the "encouragement" if not "instructions" of the federal LIBERAL GOVERNMENT operating out of POWER CORPORATION business premises. This therefore means that POWER CORPORATION is linked to the LIBERALS, and that both are linked to the creation and set-up of the PARTI QUEBECOIS, a political party whose GOAL is to destroy Canada. Research into the referendums launched by this party in 1980 and 1995 indicates that the goal was to replace Canada with a new regional system matching that underway in Europe since the 1950s.

The chapter documenting the decision taken by the federal Liberals on the premises of Power Corporation to set up a 'separatist' party is available in both French and English:

[1] "The secret committee at Power" http://www.calameo.com/books/000111790f1bc6388c506

[2] "Dans L'oeil de l'Aigle - Le «Comité secret» de Power (1967)" http://www.calameo.com/books/00011179030fd555d1a92

When a multinational corporation is involved in setting up a political party to destroy a country, and the wife of one of its own employees (CLAUDE BLANCHET) ends up leading that party, everyone linked to that corporation, including BLANCHET, is sufficiently "notorious" to deserve an in-depth public biography.

I would therefore strongly suggest that the stub on CLAUDE BLANCHET should be maintained, the deletion request should be cancelled, and a request for more details should be substituted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.72.99 (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My response to your essay is simply that Notability is not Inherited, and since there are no reliable sources (sorry, in my opinion something published on Calameo that does not cite reliable sources is like linking to someone's opinion on Facebook), he has no notability in an encyclopaedia. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 01:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being the First Lady of the United States is a notable, well-defined public role, which garners more than enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify its holders for articles — Michelle Obama has an article because she, herself, is notable in her own right, and not just because her husband is notable. The spouse of a provincial premier (or a US state governor), however, is not an equivalently notable role — a person who happens to be married to a premier of Quebec might also be independently notable, but is not entitled to an article just because of their marriage. If you cannot demonstrate that Blanchet would be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article independently of whomever he happened to be married to, then he is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. And your conspiracy theory about Power Corporation and the Liberal Party of Canada, while impressive, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Blanchet meets our inclusion rules. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 28 May 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. Although keeps do predominate, genuine concerns of notability and verifiability of its notability have been raised. slakr^\ talk / 23:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese nobility

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

Not sure the Annam Empire actually exists. Even if it did, this article should be merged into Vietnam, as it is non-notable due to the lack of secondary sources that support this "Annam Empire". 123chess456 (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found some Google Book hits that do confirm that the Annam Empire existed, although from a cursory look, the mentions were short and, as you said, are not significant enough. Still, I'm withholding !voting because there could be source out there in Vietnamese, and we can't let systemic bias get in our way when it comes to sources. Perhaps ping a Vietnamese-speaking editor about this discussion. If no sources are found even in Vietnamese, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Annam is dealt with in History of Vietnam and Annam (French protectorate). Whether or not the content is accurate however I would not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe the information could be incorporated here? PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:05, 13 May 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 ♔ 22:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is at best an unreferenced stub. There's no loss to deleting this content as it can be re-created elsewhere. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Trần dynasty existed, but without sourcing, this article fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Annam" was the name of Vietnam from 1428(?) to 1945 (see Vietnam and see Annam (French protectorate)). The article serves a role already as parallel to Chinese nobility article. It seems like an obviously notable topic. It is a stub, yes and should be marked as such (implicitly calling for expansion). But there is no requirement that every stub have references. Pinging Narutolovehinata5. --do ncr am 02:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram. However, it should probably still need sources; does anyone know what is the Vietnamese term for this so that possible sources are easier to find? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.An article about a country nobility is notable.User:Lucifero4 — Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doncram, IMHO it needs sourcing not deleting. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:20, 28 May 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 here is that the topic meets notability standards. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JC Jacinto

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards (WP:NOTE). Pcwendland (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the previous nomination was closed a fortnight ago as no-consensus because nobody bothered to address the sources I put forward. WP:BEFORE suggests they should at least be addressed in this nomination if it is going to be renominated within a couple of weeks. Any reason those sources shouldn't allow the subject to pass WP:GNG? Stalwart111 22:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was going by WP:ARTIST:

"Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. (No)
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. (No)
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (No)
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument (No), (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition (The "significance" is debatable), (c) has won significant critical attention (Doesn't look like it), or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums (No)." Pcwendland (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but a subject doesn't need to pass WP:ARTIST if he or she already passes WP:GNG. In searching for sources to see if the subject passes WP:ARTIST you should have come across those listed previously and more. Once significant coverage in multiple reliable sources has been established, secondary (industry-specific) criteria are moot. Are they not? Stalwart111 03:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editorial problems get in the way of a proper decision. The list of exhibitions is overly detailed and shouldn't be there. References aren't properly cited. --OKNoah (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? If the subject passes WP:GNG (based on sources available) then a determination as to notability is easy. Cleaning up the article is a secondary responsibility. Stalwart111 03:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Stalwart111. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:SarahStierch's comments on the first AFD. All but the first of the sources that Stalwart111 added the first AFD page are not reliable, or are now deadlinks: they are listings of exhibitions, not reviews. Like Sarah, I am a specialist in contemporary art generally, and can offer that analysis of the links. If Jacinto continues to exhibit and generate interest he may be able to pass WP:GNG in the future.--Theredproject (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are the sources in question and my assessment of them in red:

JC Jacinto & Renz Baluyot opposing strengths by Pinggot Zulueta (Manila Bulletin – 11 November 2013)

Yahoo News syndication of an article published by Manila Bulletin, which is "the Philippines' largest broadsheet newspaper by circulation". Definitely a reliable independent source, and it's coverage of the subject is sufficient to assert notability per the GNG.

Contemporary Art by JC Jacinto by Paul Viluda (Cruzine, 5 September 2013)

No indication that this is a reliable source.

Gallery News: Pandy Aviado at The Crucible (The Philippine Star, 13 January 2014)

Appears to be an official gallery listing in a newspaper. It's a primary source and suitable for verification only.

DFA art exhibit opens today (ABS-CBNnews.com, 27 February 2012)

An article published by ABS-CBN. Definitely a reliable independent source, and it's coverage of the subject is sufficient to assert notability per the GNG.

Exhibition Detail

Appears to be an official gallery publication. It's a primary source and suitable for verification only.

Strange Skins and Phosphene

Appears to be an official gallery publication. It's a primary source and suitable for verification only.

As you can see, both the Manila Bulletin article and the ABS-CBN article are sufficient to assert notability. All but one of the others are official primary sources and are suitable for verifying information in the article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also none of the references are dead links, so I don't know what you were talking about there. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found above and in the previous nomination. And don't you think it's too soon to nominate again? 舎利弗 (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stalwart111's improvements, You should wait a lot lot longer than a month before renominating!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 of [27] slakr^\ talk / 00:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

School-based family counseling

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

Except for promotionalism, I think it is almost never appropriate to nominate an article for deletion because of its manner of writing--normally it's much better to fix, preserving as much as possible. I have never before nominated for deletion an article merely because of its style of writing.

I consider this article one of the rare exceptions. It's written entirely in educational jargon, to the extent it would be necessary to start over to make an intelligible article. I quite literally do not see a single sentence that can be kept, and very few that are worth rewriting, because very few have any actual content. Consider even the lede: :what is the meaning of "achieve positive mental health"? People cannot have negative mental health, so whatever is done will "help achieve" positive mental health. Why is it necessary to say family and schools "are the two most important institutions affecting children" ? Why phrases like "shown itself relevant to many countries". I could easily go through the rest of the article in the same fashion--selecting at random: "Family counseling is one of the more difficult forms of counseling and learning to do it well requires extensive training and supervision" For the first statement, I see no evidence-- and for the second, this applies to every human activity. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nom's rationale borders on invalid. Per WP:DEL-REASON, the only possible excuse to delete this article is "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" and that's not applicable here. The subject is an academic term for an educational/psychological practice. I was the AfC member that accepted this article, so certainly I exercised a lot of caution in doing so. If you don't like this article, WP:SOFIXIT. You have no business deleting an article that meets criteria for inclusion. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst I feel that there may be some stylistic issues to consider, and I'd like a few more web-based references to round out the already voluminous offline sources, the subject certainly meets our notability criteria. I found plenty of respectable references to the subject using an online search engine (DuckDuckGo.com), and the subject seems to me to easily merit a standalone article. I should also note that the article bears the hallmarks of being a student project; if so, it deserves a high grade. :-) RomanSpa (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - To put it bluntly - It needs Blown up & redone. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as thanks to Bearian's improvements It's far better than before, It's still essay-ish but that can easily be fixed. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nom, which does not provide a deletion reason. And per Chris Troutman and per Romanspa. --do ncr am 14:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLOWITUP; there are no sentences which are sourced, coherent, and ~~potentially~~ clearly have something to do with the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm beginning to suspect that this is a complicated joke, or possibly a test of our mechanisms. Or is it possible that we're somehow seeing different articles? I managed to find plenty of sentences that are "sourced, coherent, and ... have something to do with the subject". For example:

"SBFC is a global movement and has shown itself to be relevant to many countries and cultures.[7]" It's sourced: I've checked, and the reference is to a seven year old peer-reviewed journal published by a respectable academic journal publisher (Taylor & Francis). It's coherent: I immediately understand what the sentence is trying to say, and it conveys useful information (which mildly surprised me, and I'd be fascinated to see whether there are cultural differences in the implementation of SBFC, but that's a separate matter...). It certainly has something to do with the subject.

"These negative effects of the family on children extend to the school. According to Crespi, Gustafson and Borges (2006) school psychologists are increasingly being confronted with students affected by family problems: “With one in six children raised in alcoholic families, with divorce impacting approximately 60% of families, and with such issues as…parental neglect, as well as sexual and physical abuse affecting large numbers of children and youths, many practitioners are interested in interventions which can directly affect children in school settings.”.[20]" Again, it's sourced: a ten year old article in another T&F peer-reviewed journal. The sentences are coherent: the first refers back to a list of negative psychological effects caused by a dysfunctional family environment (all nicely referenced), and introduces an important motivation for the development of SBFC ideas, which the next sentence then discusses. Again, it clearly has something to do with the subject: "many practitioners are interested in interventions which can directly affect children in school settings".

"Amatea, Smith-Adcock, and Villares (2006) describe a family resilience framework that school counselors can use to help families promote students’ learning.[32]" Another well-sourced sentence, again from a peer-reviewed journal, this one produced by a relevant professional body (the American School Counselor Association). The sentence is clear, tells me something I didn't know before, and tells me where to get more information. It obviously has something to do with the subject: it tells me about a mechanism that school counselors can use to help families help their school-age members to learn.

The rest of the article seems to be just as well sourced and relevant. There are odd stylistic infelicities, the main one being that Wikipedia's "house style" tends to shorter paragraphs. Interestingly, I didn't have to "pick and choose" to find good sentences in this article: a quick check suggests that the rest of the article is fine, too.

I'm having immense difficulty in understanding why the "blow it up" advocates wish to do so. RomanSpa (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears I was wrong. Some of the sentences potentially have something to do with the subject, as the subject is not specified in the article. But, the first sentence you gave

SBFC is a global movement and has shown itself to be relevant to many countries and cultures.

Is not coherent (I can't tell whether it falls under "peacock" or "puffery"), and it's sourced to the first item in a journal, not just the first issue. The first item in a new journal is usually an editorial, telling what the journal is about. It doesn't belong in the lead of any Wikipedia article, unless sourced to a real peer-reviewed article.

If a definition or characterization of the subject were added, it might be possible to determine if the coherent sentences were actually about the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to sympathize with DGG here. While it is well-sourced, much of this is so poorly expressed as to be little more than word salad. The whole middle section is essentially an essay. Can somebody copyedit this mess? I'm not sure that it needs blowing up, but stubification is an option. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started the process of copyediting. If you want to save it, do some work. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continues to be hopeless. Look at the first sentence under "uses"

"The need for SBFC arises from the challenges of traditional school counseling and family counseling (agency based) models in dealing with children who are failing at school because of family problems. The family problems include: marital discord, parents divorcing, custody problems, substance abuse, older siblings involved in gangs, sexual and physical abuse, parental neglect, single parents overwhelmed by economic and emotional problems, spouse abuse, and chaotic families with little parental control. Carlson and Sincavage (1987) conducted a survey of 110 members of the National Association of School Psychologists and reported that family variables were seen as highly relevant to children's school problems.[11]"

This shows the need for counseling, not for this particular version of counseling. Second,a survey of counselors to see what they thought were the clients' problems is not the same as a survey to see what are the problems. It has no direct applicability to this particular model, but is entirely general. Basically promotionalism. Copyediting won;t do it. There would be nothing left. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I would expect an admin to use a policy-based argument. You're tilting at windmills. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean it in the sense I'm trying to destroy something that isn't really there, yes, I don;t think there is any real content. If you mean it in the sense that I'm trying absurdly to remove something that doesn't make sense to remove, try improving the article to address the problems. If you succeed, I'll withdraw the AfD. But if you mean I'm an impossible dreamer to think decent articles can be written on such topics, you may be right. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There appears to be no valid reason, other than poor writing style, cited anywhere in this discussion, for deleting the article. It is a notable subject. There are ample secondary sources. It is a borderline word-salad, but the goal of Wikipedia is not to create a perfect list of perfect articles. There are thousands of poorly written articles. The article should be fixed, not deleted. Nickmalik (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In keeping with WP:SOFIXIT, I made a pass at restructuring the article. There was tremendous word salad there, but with a little bit of restructuring, it should be almost to the point where it can be read without mental confusion. I unfortunately unable to continue the effort, at this time, to make the article rise to the level of good but it should be clear, at this time, that it is not irretrievably bad. I'd like to avoid blowing it up. Nickmalik (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I object to the use of AFD to try to force other edits to improve an article, right now, or else, on a topic that all parties seem to agree is valid and wikipedia-notable. The nominator asks a person above to "... try improving the article to address the problems. If you succeed, I'll withdraw the AfD. But if you mean I'm an impossible dreamer to think decent articles can be written on such topics, you may be right." It is a stunt, a protest trying to hold other editors hostage with their time, to force this one article out of all on wikipedia to be done right now, or else the nominator is going to insist on continuing to try to have the article "blown up". When the nominator knows the topic is valid. I honestly don't think that is right behavior. --do ncr am 11:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I've elected not to Redirect to George Carlin as suggested, because there is no content on Patrick Carlin there. This close shouldn't be taken to stand in the way of a future redirect if a suitable target becomes available. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Carlin (writer)

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

Despite being known as a humorist/writer, fails WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:AUTHOR due to lack of significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. The only reliable sources on him are primary sources (i.e. interviews, self-written pieces) and those written by those closely associated with him (namely his own brother). Since most coverage on him mainly pertains to his brother George Carlin, this article should be redirected to that or deleted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly any WP:SECONDARY sources discuss Patrick in depth. The High Times interview starts with a couple of paragraphs of editorial biography about Patrick. It's a good source. The problem is that WP:BASIC needs a few more of these, at least one, but that's all there is. I think we should delete the article because the George Carlin biography does not tell the reader anything about Patrick, so a redirect is not useful. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think 1) the article clearly discusses Patrick's distinct accomplishments and 2) the sources are broadly mis-characterized as unreliable by the proponent. A lot of sources also include interview content amidst the story, when an interview is available. Getting an interview often inspires the rest of the article. He wrote books, sources prove the books legitimately exist and are for sale. "Significant" Yes, Patrick's life accomplishments are greatly overshadowed by his brother. Some are associated to his more famous brother. Do we remove or merge the other Jackson family members because Michael was so notable? No. A little google shows a little more which I will add to the article. You know, you can google too before you needlessly attack articles. Trackinfo (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a good while trying to find solid sourcing via Google. I came up with nothing new—the only good secondary source was High Times. Especially barren was Google books. That said, I will be happy to change my mind if somebody's Google foo is stronger than mine, and they are able to bring another high quality source or two. Binksternet (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a man of Patrick Carlin's age, the absence of coverage in books is a red flag. Binksternet (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that WP:WAX (What about X) is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The Jackson family is an entirely separate case, anyway. His own books are self-published sources, which do not add to notability. What he needs to meet the notability criteria is multiple reliable third-party sources. Are there multiple sources on him? Yes. Are they reliable? Yes. Are they third-party? No. Self-written pieces and interviews are primary sources, and pieces written by family, friends, and other close affiliations are not third-party either. The only third-party sources available on him are unreliable. Keep in mind that per WP:MASK and WP:HITS, the raw number of sources that mention a subject is not by itself an indicator of notability. This is because one or more of the following can apply 1) ref is unreliable 2) ref only mentions subject in brief 3) ref is not third-party. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:01, 28 May 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 per WP:SNOW. There are no reliable sources to show notability that aren't WP:PRIMARY and unless there is more coverage in another language, the lack of notability is quite clear. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Khismatrao

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

Unsourced biography of a non-notable poet. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. - Mr X 14:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete : I would've PROD it. OccultZone (Talk) 14:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7, no source for this person being "famous" in any way. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unsourced biography. Dr meetsingh Talk 16:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. It could've been speedy tagged directly. — Abhishek ^Talk 16:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:A7, I also suggest snow closing. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7: article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JUX

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

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:38, 28 May 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) slakr^\ talk / 00:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sreeraman chira

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

Previous PROD has been deleted. No assertion of notability, or at least the second paragraph is so poorly translated any assertion is unintelligible. LukeSurl^{t c} 12:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 12:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete or redirect. The comprehensible part seems to duplicate Sethubandhanam at Sreeraman Chira Chemmappilly, by the same author. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Mansell

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

Fails Wikipedia:Author#Creative_professionals. Minor author. Mat ty.007 12:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. OccultZone (Talk) 12:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. OccultZone (Talk) 12:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Matty007, Thanks for getting back to me. Would it help the page if I listed previous awards and shortlists as well as the position the author's books reached in The Time bestseller lists - as referenced on The Times/The Sunday Times website? All the best, 77.101.152.99 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Times is subscription, but it probably wouldn't do any harm. Thanks, Mat ty.007 13:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's got best sellers listed at both The Sunday Times and The New York Times. I'm sure that I could find others if I did more than two random Google searches. As far as I can tell, the bio (which seems a bit promotional) is correct: she's a best-selling author. Pretty much guaranteed to be notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Article needs improvement, not deletion. OccultZone (Talk) 14:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OccultZone and NinjaRobotPirate: are her individual books notable? Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't searched. But if they were then anyone is welcome to create page about them. OccultZone (Talk) 14:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Probably? She's listed on The Telegraph's Bestselling authors of the decade (2000–2009), so she's probably got enough reviews stacked up to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, and, I would assume, WP:BKCRIT. Here are a few reviews: [28], [29], [30]. I could probably find more, but I'm a very lazy editor... and it's difficult for me to source reviews for her because I keep getting bestseller lists and promotional junk that clog up my results. Books are frustrating to source because Metacritic doesn't track them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than Dr. Zeus? Anyway, nothing came up in Google, which resulted in the nom (even googling parts of reviews), all I could find were interviews in local papers, but given all these sources, I think Mansell is notable, so withdraw this nom. Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:40, 28 May 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Colonel (Monty Python)

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

This article was tagged for notability last month. I have had a good dig round for sources, but I can't find anything that talks about The Colonel beyond just a passing reference when talking about Graham Chapman. Because the title needs to be disambiguated, I can't consider a redirect to that article. At best, I could hope for a footnote in Colonel (disambiguation). Even so, it means we can't have an article here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could merge to List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters#The Colonel which already discusses the character. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 12:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 13:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Question. I don't understand why there would be a disambiguation problem; if we merge this as Colapeninsula suggests, can't we just change the target of the existing disambiguation at The Colonel?--Arxiloxos (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an issue, but you would then not merge anything, and my choice would not be to leave "The Colonel (Monty Python)" as a redirect term, which leaves "delete" as the only remaining option. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject to probable merge. The Colonel is a iconic Python character, and certainly sources exist that discuss the character in those terms. I've added a few.[31][32][33] Having said that, I think merge/redirect is fine, unless and until there's too much material to fit in the list. I can't agree that the redirect should to be deleted: this item is already listed on the appropriate disambiguation page, and per WP:CHEAP I don't think there's any need to get rid of it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to find significant coverage which confirms the character's importance in the structure of the show. For example "The Colonel is again acting as the arbiter of good taste, and also -- as a replacement for a punchline or a traditional link -- he is a transitionary tool. His outbursts remind the viewer of the constructedness of the performance, of its artificiality, and of the fact that it can be directed and re-directed by the characters and elements within the diegetic world. This narrative chicanery is the Pythons' tilting at Auntie BBC -- the ancien régime of Light Entertainment to be rebelled against -- and will come to characterize the narrative structure of Flying Circus." Andrew (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In universe fictional character, not the subject of multiple pieces of independent published coverage. RIP Graham. Carrite (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Arxiloxos. I tried to withdraw this AfD but was reverted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Barrak

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

Non-notable boxer, does not meet WP:NBOX. Also not notable as an MMA fighter WP:MMANOT. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Boxer seems to notable. Fights with Eric Esch, Didier Bence and Richard Bryant gives an initial flavor of notability as a known personality. While searching on Google for boxer's name gives an indication of his notability as a boxer. My decision will be keep for this boxer. Itsalleasy (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. It would be different if there were some (any) title fights but even the above are not that notable. Esch has never fought top tier in MMA and his Boxing titles are minor, and Bence is borderline notable as an amateur boxer only.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Notability is not achieved by fighting notable fighters (WP:NOTINHERITED). Jakejr (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX and notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as a boxer or MMA fighter. Coverage is routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 18:50, 2 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 00:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Torres Posada

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

On notability grounds. This is just an obituary. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Co-founder of an (apparently) major football club, Atlético Nacional. If sources can be found, they should be added. I removed the worst part of the obituary. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this article could satisfy the GNG - I've searched El Tiempo's and El Colombiano's online archives and found nothing. I can find plenty of mentions of him being one of many founders of the definitely notable football club, Atlético Nacional, but nothing about his individual contribution or anything else in his life that would merit significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability in this unreferenced BLP. Fenix down (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Atlético Nacional#History as that is his sole claim-to-fame. Giant Snowman 18:58, 3 June 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson Gem & Mineral Show

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

Has no references at all. No claim to notability. This entry is also a magnet for promotional material. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This show is a very big deal. For example, here is a writeup in the February 20, 2013 The New York Times: ("The umbrella term for an annual trade fair that is a key destination on an international circuit is the Tucson Gem, Mineral and Fossil Showcase. The name scarcely hints at the scope of an event that takes over Tucson each winter — 43 shows in 41 locations, including hotels, motels, dusty parking lots, the city’s big convention center and tent cities set up by frontage road along Interstate 10 — drawing dealers from China, Morocco, Siberia, Tanzania, Australia and India.") [34] A 1984 NYT story on the show can be read here.[35] Voluminous additional coverage can be found in the usual searches. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles that Arxiloxos discovered show that this event is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. WP:BEFORE, nominator.Eustachiusz (talk) 23:26, 29 May 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. Merge discussions can proceed on relevant talk pages. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving England and France

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

This page is absolutely terrible, and there's a already perfect list at Anglo-French War Ruddah (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is the centenary of World War One this year. That's an example of a war which appears in this list but would not be considered an Anglo-French War. The Crimean War is another example which is also remarkably topical. Andrew (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though these are two important states, it seems a bit arbitrary and likely to open the floodgates to List of wars involving various combinations of country A and country B. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anglo-French relations are a very notable topic covered in hundreds of books and scholarly articles, which doesn't apply to most pairs of countries. I considered merging to France–United Kingdom relations (and possibly the textual portion should be merged) but that article is very long and a list is good to have, fulfilling list guidelines WP:L by offering easy navigation to closely related articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to France-United Kingdom relations as per above. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 12:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forgot about the France-United Kingdom relations article which covers the same subject and it's already a thousand times better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruddah (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to France-United Kingdom relations as per above. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable split of France-United Kingdom relations. Also it is different from Anglo-French War, since this list covers also wars where the two countries were involved as allies (if anything, it is Anglo-French War that should be merged here!). That the page is "absolutely terrible" means only that someone should be bold and fix it, instead of having it deleted: what can be solved by editing is solved by editing, not deletion, per our deletion policy.--cyclopia ^speak! 13:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:OUTCOMES is only a rough guide as to likely outcomes of deletion discussions; it is descriptive, not prescriptive. And it is not even clear if it meets the cutoff, since different people have different interpretations of it. Ultimately, what matters are the sources, which this does not have. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promenades Drummondville

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

NN mall. We don't generally retain stand-alone articles for malls of this size, absent unusual circumstances not present here. Prod was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a "regional shopping center" as per [36], which places it in the range of malls that are considered "larger" as per WP:OUTCOMES. Distinguishing characteristics are the large number of stores and anchors for the size, and being the dominant shopping center for the population area. Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes states: "Larger malls are generally considered notable. Very small malls, strip malls, and individual shops are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found." What was communicated to me by one sysop was that the dividing line was 1 million sf, and the other sysop said he believed it was 500,000 sf. This mall is far below both those cut-offs, at 333,615 sq ft, and in fact one of the smallest size malls I've seen reflected on the Project. Being a "regional" shopping center (rather than a super-regional shopping center) is simply a designation that puts it with other centers that typically have 400,000 sf. -- and, as indicated, malls that size are typically not considered notable at the Project. Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasundhara Metro Mall. I tried adding up the floor-by-floor areas, and only came up with something a bit over 100,000 sq ft. So we can start to set the pattern with a weak claim that the bottom end for the keeping of malls at AfD is at 100,000 sq ft. Whoever told you 500,000 or 1,000,000 I can guess gave you no verifiable evidence. I've looked at enough recent AfDs to know that the 1,000,000 is a fiction. We have numerous articles with "smaller" malls for good reason. This 355,000 sq ft mall claims 4,000,000 visitors per year. Regional shopping centers are widely known in the locale. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harlequin Shopping Centre for an example of a nom who said in 2014 that 1,000,000 is normative, but in 2013 got zero support to delete a mall of size 727,000. As for 500,000, this is getting closer, but I'm not aware of good examples of AfDs that deleted malls of between 300,000 and 500,000, and I can cite two recent AfDs that were kept. The definition at allbusiness.com is a verifiable benchmark for 300,000 sq ft, suggesting that a "larger" shopping center is also more then 300,000 sq ft. And the word "regional" means something in the real world. I agree with your premise that malls at the smaller end of this spectrum probably need more attention. This particular mall as I've already said has distinguishing characteristics. Unscintillating (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of what the size of a mall is that is deemed notable, absent unusual RS coverage, to solicit input from editors other than the two of us I've asked for their input here. Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of soliciting input User:VMS Mosaic and User:Dough4872 probably want to weigh in here. Me5000 (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The standard as best as I can determine is...Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. From WP:GEOFEAT. I have not had a chance to look around but this is likely to come down to that "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources." -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree with the premise of the nomination that malls this size don't normally get kept at AfD, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince of Orange Mall. Many malls this size will pass WP:GNG. Some digging into French sources may do so here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thanks, Epeefleche, for opening the discussion here and at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Malls. As I wrote there, "there is also a strong consensus that less than 500k sq feet is too small. Whether the dividing line is 600k or 1 million is not settled yet." Bearian (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Under this consensus, this mall fails. Delete. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there is an effort underway to lower the inclusion bar a bit below my comfort zone. I don't have a hard number in mind in terms of sqft, though I think I would lean towards one million. But this mall is well below any number I'd be comfortable with. And then there is the question of significant coverage mentioned in GEOFEAT. In the end however, the bottom-line is that I am not seeing anything here that makes this mall stand out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Decisions at AfD have varied widely, as with most types of articles: you can find ;anything in the AfD archives.I suspect the actual factor is how many people shows up, and who they are. My view has been and remains that merely regional centers in the US and any other developed country are not notable unless there are special factors involved. I do not see any here. The sources, as usual for such articles, are very local and routine, and can be interpreted however one pleases to get the desired result. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:OUTCOMES. This is a Regional Shopping Center per the definition here. Me5000 (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it relevant that per that definition it falls into a category of malls that are as low as 300,000 sf? Are you suggesting that WP:Outcomes mandates that we keep all malls as small as 300,000 sf? I don't see the connection between your two sentences. Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well WP:OUTCOMES is very vague simply stating "larger" and should be more specific, I'll admit that. Until it is changed to at least listing square footage however, we must interpret it ourselves. Using the defintion at allbusiness, "Regional Shopping Center" and "Super Regional Shopping Center" are what I consider large and "Community Shopping Center", "Neighborhood Shopping Center" and "Strip Shopping Center" are what I consider small. Me5000 (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be setting a breathtakingly low bar for inclusion. However, as noted above community consensus seems to have come down pretty firmly against malls of less than 500,000 sqft. Where the line is drawn above that is not clear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence above is two malls, one of size a bit above 100,000, and one of size between 300,000 and 400,000, and neither was deleted or merged. Unscintillating (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Ad Orientem said. Furthermore, it is instructive to understand two things. First, "Common Outcomes" refers to the typical outcomes of past AfD discussions for some commonly nominated subjects; none of the subjects of common outcomes pretend that there may not be, for some atypical reason, an atypical exception. But no reason for such an exception is present here, and nobody has even suggested that one exists. Second, as the nomination itself states, "We don't generally retain stand-alone articles for malls of this size, absent unusual circumstances not present here." The fact that unusual circumstances were present elsewhere does not change the fact that they are not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just don't see the harm in keeping articles about shopping malls nor do I see any general consensus on limits on deleting them. 18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"I don't see the harm in keeping it" is not a valid reason to !vote for keeping it -- that thinking could be applied in nearly every AfD discussion, if it were compelling. Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my vote Epeefleche, There is no general consensus as to what makes a shopping mall notable, (Example: Size, Shape, Age etc.) so that being said, "I don't see the harm in keeping it." But we shall see what the votes say?22:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Understand that it is your !vote. And that we shall see what the consensus is. But just fyi, for !votes to be given weight by the closer, they have to be based on wp policy, for example GNG (which does not seem to support retention here), which shows the article to be notable per wp standards. Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the issue here is WP:GNG, not its size. In its current condition, it fails WP:GNG. If it is bought to WP:GNG, then I would say Keep. WP:OUTCOMES is based on size (500,000 appears to be reasonable), but it is only a reason for keeping, not a reason for deletion. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The main policy and guideline-based arguments given to delete are failure to meet general notability (WP:N / WP:GNG). Arguments over its size are irrelevant unless secondary sources can verify the notability thereof (WP:V). Furthermore, common outcomes at AfD (WP:OUTCOMES) is a descriptive essay of what someone, in their original research or personal opinion thinks happens or happened at some point in AfD history—it is not a consensus-backed policy or guideline. On top of the issue of WP:GNG, the article in its current form is a directory entry, and, failing a clear assertion of and verification of reliably-sourced notability, it is also in violation of that policy, too. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) is also not a policy or guideline yet. On top of all of that, we don't take our hints of what's notable from a glossary section on "allbusiness.com," nor do I personally believe we should start to. Ever. --slakr^\ talk / 00:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking above and I have yet to see any editors who have provided evidence that this topic fails WP:GNG. Confusing WP:V and WP:N is just that. WP:V is a core content policy. I just now clicked on Google books and I immediately saw two relevant books. This is exactly why we have a WP:BEFORE guideline, that ensures that we will not venture off into deletion discussions without minimal evidence. We recently had a deletion discussion on another mall at Sumter Mall that started off without WP:BEFORE, and led to a DRV and now a second AfD. Just as there, we do not have WP:BEFORE here, so we have a fractured discussion. How can we expect the world at large to take our discussions seriously if administrators don't support our own guidelines? On another point, at Wikipedia, we follow the sources, so your personal opinion does not stand above allbusiness.com. Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the size of the complex is irrelevant, what is relevant here is that there don't seem to be any reliable sources that offer more than routine coverage to this mall. If it doesn't satisfy the GNG, it doesn't matter if it's ten million square feet in size. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"I don't like size as a criteria" and "Don't seem to be...sources" is the basis of your !vote? Which carries more weight? Evidence that we normally keep malls of this size, or your argument? Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:OUTCOMES is an essay and the "malls" aspect seems to be heavily contested based on this discussion, so I don't ascribe any serious weight to it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Your argument and my argument agree that we have not looked for sources. Your argument is opposed to metric-based evidence, and my argument presents metric-based evidence using industry standards. Unscintillating (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles based on industry standards. We keep them based on wikipedia policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another non-notable mall. Specifically, fails WP:GNG because I can't find any reliable, independent, secondary sources to demonstrate notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - I suspect the only way this will be kept is if someone actually does the work to source it even if all the sources are local. Claims that sources exist is not proof that sources exist. WP:OUTCOMES applies to larger malls which at least meet WP:V. While it is open to debate if this is a "larger" mall, at this point it does not meet WP:V because it has not been shown that sources exist. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are referring to WP:V#Notability. Unscintillating (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and relies on primary sources. 1292simon (talk) 00:56, 8 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 04:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Beer Chicks

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

Article had been tagged for external link cleanup since May of 2010. I removed the self-promotional links, but the remaining article seems like a lot of self-promotion for people/an organization of very borderline notability, and the article itself is very hazy about whether it's about the people, the website, or both. I really didn't find any sources or assertions of notability outside a very small range. rahaeli (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zeus^u|c 06:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've pretty much decimated the article. I am finding some small coverage for them, but not much overall. The coverage as a whole is fairly limp. The main problem is that most of the hits are coming up as articles that they wrote themselves, so a lot of otherwise usable sources would be seen as primary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if their business is rightfully removed as a focus of the article, they meet simple author notability with two books from a major publisher, a magazine award, a TV show with named roles, and media attention both from RS magazines that monitor the industry[37] and mainstream RS (if the LA Times called them experts in their field,[38] and they've published multiple books with Penguin, it passes a threshold beyond self-promotion or mentions in specialist literature). The article clearly needed a massive haircut when nominated, and has been improved by it. It's great that self-promo and bad/no sourcing was removed. But basic notability is not dependent on how bad an article used to be or whether an article still needs some work. They are cited as published beer experts by enough high profile independent reliable sources to have an article based on that, regardless of what it once looked like.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm neutral about whether it's better kept at the present title or moved to something more like "Christina Perozzi and Hallie Beaune" (The Siegfried & Roy-edness of this is bothersome, but that happens editorially with duos who achieve notability solely through combined production. If they start producing stuff independently of each other, the article could be split.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include:

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of source coverage of topic. — Cirt (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NorthAmerica's sources suffice. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create Synchronicity

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

Borderline notability, and the primary contributor is the author of the software. (The article had been tagged for external links cleanup since May of 2010; I cleaned out the promotional external links, but I'm not sure if the article itself should stick around.) rahaeli (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: from the references already in article I can't see even borderline notability. All that I could find off-site are The Best Free Software of 2011 from PC Mag (although it doesn't actually contribute to subject's notability: being 18th out of 208 is not too much of accomplishment, not to mention that there were similar lists for other years) and full length DIY: Free Windows backup tool Synchronicity HowTo-style article by TechRepublic. Blog post, albeit in reputable collective blog, and entry in Best N of year Y do not satisfy WP:GNG requirements. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 5 June 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Correctional Services Museum

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

fails WP:ORG. museums are not inherently notable. unreferenced for 8 years except for its own website. looks like a travel advert given the article tells us what buses to catch there. a search indicates 1 line mentions in tourist books and museum listings. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Museums are inherently notable, being places devoted to the collection and curation of historical knowledge in which we are especially interested. They put the M in GLAM and the worst case for any stubby entry would always be that we consolidate into some list of specialist museums and/or an article about the locality. The only reason to delete would be a hoax or other gross misrepresentation and that's not the case here. Andrew (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

museums are not inherently notable, there is no WP guideline which says that. Secondly some museum articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please list some examples of museums which have been deleted — I will then see about restoring them. Andrew (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the guideline or policy that says all museums are inherently notable? WikiProject Museums disagrees with you, and they actively advocate the deletion of non-notable museums. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies here are WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Being policies, these are stronger than guidelines, which in the case of notability, are mostly too vague and subjective to be useful. Andrew (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these policies state museums are inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

basically you are saying WP:ITSNOTABLE with not supplying any sources to show WP:ORG or GNG is met. LibStar (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this (translation). I can't read a single word of it, but the Google translation makes it look relevant. It's from The Epoch Times, which is apparently a reliable source. Also, there's this (translation), which looks like a press release from Xinhua News Agency. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I haven't used the Chinese sources your research identified because they are a bit general. I will find others if necessary but it should be OK with the English ones. 06:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I wasn't sure if they were 100% relevant or not. I don't trust machine translations, and I was hoping a native speaker would comment on them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three reliably source references added to establish notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wish I could find the guideline that says "unreferenced for 8 years" was a deletion criteria. At any rate, keep, as sources have been added !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 May 2014‎

Keep, notable and well-linked from other pages on Wikipedia. Citobun (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as museums are by default notable subjects, and many references can be found. Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

museums are not inherently notable, this has been discussed above. LibStar (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jannat Jahan-ul-haq (naina)

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

Not notable. A google news search only yields three results JDDJS (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Chandigarh is large and internationally prominent enough that a member of its municipal council could qualify for a well-written and well-sourced article, this article is neither of those things. At the same time, nominator should be aware that for most publications Google News only aggregates news hits from within the past couple of weeks, so it's really only a useful test for the verifiability of a brand new claim, such as a person who purportedly won an election that just took place last night — it is not an infallible gauge of the basic notability or non-notability of a topic whose claim of notability is several years old, as many valid sources may exist outside the range of dates that will turn up in a GN search. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can create a good version that cites real sources. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:37, 28 May 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech versus blasphemy

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

I removed a previously declined PROD from the article. ~~The IP that initially declined it is suspected of being a sockpuppet, but as that has not been proven, I think we need to assume good faith and accept the decline of PROD as valid.~~ In any event, there really needs to be a full deletion discussion, given the length of time this article has existed and the number of edits made. I am slightly leaning to delete on this, but frankly decent keep or delete arguments could be made here, so I will keep my mind open on this. Safiel (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note the IP has been blocked for being a sockpuppet, but really doesn't matter, as this needed an AfD discussion anyhow. Safiel (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inherently POV. This article, to the extent that it addresses its topic (i.e., beyond just what would be covered in blasphemy laws) is largely a mix of unsourced opinion, unsourced examples, examples where people are using their free speech to speak out against blasphemy (which is not a conflict between the existence of blasphemy laws and free speech). Blasphemy laws are inherently a limitation on free speech, so this is really not a separate topic from blasphemy laws, but more of a POV fork. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "lede" reads like an essay. It is also unreferenced and inherently non-neutral. As for the rest of the article, that is an indiscriminate list of random factoids and offers no support as to the notability of the topic. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could be renamed to "List of blasphemy controversies" or something like that, since it is more of a list than an article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you'd find that just about every religious schism and war with even a slight religious taint includes an accusation of blasphemy somewhere in it, making it a rather huge an undirected list in the end. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the article could be cleaned up? What if the list would only include cases with wikipedia articles? There is also List of Islamic terrorist attacks, which is not less controversial (therefore has same problems with NPOV...). The topic itself is notable, and NPOV and COATRACK can be fixed by editing. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I note, controversies in which someone throws in the word "blasphemy" at some point would be a huge and fuzzy list; that it include lots of things that have Wikipedia articles (wars, pieces of art, religious schisms, just about anyone to ever comment on religious, and so forth), and with reaction ranging from mild criticism to state-sponsored wars. I don't see that the use of that accusation is sufficiently unifying to create a clear list... and to a certain degree, we're getting into "this could be a good article if we replace the title and the content", which is always inherently true. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I second Nat Gertler's arguments. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 11:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable topic, but current content is blatant OR (in particular, original synthesis). I sympathize with Calypsomusic's argument, but I think a list would become a coatrack for incidents where someone shouts "blasphemy" and the other shouts "freedom of speech". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Nat Gertler. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a major violation of both WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The topics "freedom of speech" and "blasphemy" are individually notable, but the only connection here is that drawn by the article's creator. The body of the article just consists of various examples of what, in the creator's opinion, constitutes conflict between how the creator has chosen to define the two aformentioned terms. It's a great term paper but not an encyclopedic article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a list article. Being a list is appears as a synthesis but every list does. That it needs work is another matter. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange as it may seem, it is not what Wikipedia defines as a list article, rather it's a collection of random factoids. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree that the structure and name of the article is unsatisifactory, but it is not a random list of factoids. Rather it is a list of cases where there have been accusations of blasphemy, in a context where the defence is one of free speech. Rename to perhaps List of blasphemy allegations. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, User:NatGertler puts it well. Yes, another article with another title, as proposed by some of the "Keep" votes, might be acceptable, but that's rather missing the point that this article is a hopeless tangle of original research. Would not oppose it being moved into someone's userspace if they want to try and re-use some of this content in another article or list. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:32, 7 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Federation (Britain and Ireland)

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

Non-notable, was tagged as dubious in 2011, no effort has been made to find a secondary source. I cannot find one either. 123chess456 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A 2001 article in The Independent says they are "considered very influential" ([39], via Questia, subscription required). The same newspaper has a 2010 column by Dominic Lawson about/against them ([40], also via Questia). Neither these nor the various other pieces of shock-horror media coverage returned by Questia makes it as a reference for the article as such but they are indicative of continuing coverage. AllyD (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the size of the article four primary sources for references and very little significant coverage (that I can find). Murry1975 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by AllyD establish GNG. This article may need to be cleaned up and made concise. An argument that we delete an article because it is too long for the number of sources is unheard of. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point being ONE RS and four self published sources are not enough sources for an article of that size and none of them show substantial independent coverage that would lead to an article being kept. Cleaning it up would leave the info from one RS and would fail WP:GNG for multiple sources for articles. Murry1975 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 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, slakr^\ talk / 02:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks sufficient coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Staberinde's argument has already been disproven by AllyD. Murry's argument is that the content is not cited, but NGOs are a reliable source of their stated principles. It is like quoting the Constitution as a source for statements defining its content. Unless someone decides to raise SYNTH as an objection, which I laugh at in advance, I think we are done here. Anarchangel (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading AllyD's comment (I cant check those sources myself) I personally didn't read out a confirmation that it satisfies WP:GNG as "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Also I would note that AllyD didn't vote either way so I guess he/she isn't so sure either.--Staberinde (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hey @AllyD, I have Questia access and I can't find the articles you mentioned (either by your links or via searching). Can you relink them? czar ♔ 17:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, they're not working for me any more either. A Questia search doesn't seem to be returning any Independent articles any more, though it does still provide others, for example Daily Mail 2001, Evening Standard 2011. Here's a non-paywalled link to the 2010 Lawson article from the Indy's clunky search facility: [41]. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I assume that this is effectively a minor political party. However, I would be happier if there were some indication of its membership, to show that this is not a small drinking club. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources found by User:AllyD are thin, but probably just enough to push this past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - as per Staberinde. 1292simon (talk) 00:58, 8 June 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. This is pretty evenly split between "Keep" and "Merge", but there's an obvious consensus not to delete the content. Suggest listing this at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to test if there's a consensus for that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tara (cat)

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

This one is a doozy. If WP:BLP1E would apply, this is it. The cat Tara is only provided in context of this one event, in tons of news coverage. Albeit substantial news coverage in reliable sources and a viral Youtube video, I believe that this is a clearcut case of WP:NOTNEWS in this instance. Tutelary (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of cats. It clearly is an example of WP:NOTNEWS, but it can be cut down and made into an entry on the list of cats article, and be recreated on a later date if the cat receives lasting and enduring coverage(which may happen as many viral videos tend to live on and spread). If there was a List of viral videos article then it could also be added there.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLC1E. No, Redirect and merge with List of cats. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and Redirect) to List of cats per Ai and Cullen.--Seduisant (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge List of cats should have been where this started with so makes sense to put it there. Amortias (T)(C) 14:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (do not merge or redirect) per nominator's "single event" rationale. I disfavor redirection because the topic lacks significant notability, and disfavor merging because the Tara is already listed in List of cats with an appropriate amount of coverage. I just added a bit more to the sentence about Tara on List of cats, and included a reference, which I think should be there regardless of what happens with this article; there would have been more reason to merge info when the above "merge" votes were recommended. There are two side stories I've seen related to Tara, one is about the cat being honored by throwing out the first pitch in a charity promotion by the town's minor league baseball team (ESPN), and the other about a brief online store presence cashing in on the cat's fame (Metro, TMZ), but they're in such a close timeframe to the initial story that they don't demonstrate the type of sustained coverage expected for notable topics. Agyle (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this more, and maintain the same vote, but wanted to respond to User:GRuban pointing out below that WP:BLP1E is for people; it's a good point, as BLP1E is specifically geared toward protecting the privacy of low-profile living people, presumably for legal and ethical reasons most people would not extend to animals, so I wouldn't consider it here. I think WP:ONEEVENT, which is similar but geared more toward topic importance, is a better guideline to consider; it still refers to people, but I think Tara is analagous enough that much of what it says still makes sense. One of the issues it raises is should there be an article about the individual (in this case Tara), about the event, or articles about both. In this case, a third possibility is an article about the YouTube video. In addition to the general notability guidelines, I considered the guidelines for people, events (WP:EVENT) and films (WP:FILM), and any angle about this just seems to fall short of established guidelines. While some aspects of WP:GNG are met, those guidelines also caution that "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." (Again, Tara is a cat rather than person, but the subject seems reasonably analogous). In the future, the cat, the video, or the event could meet notability requirements for any number of reasons, but right now all lack appropriate historical significance. Agyle (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The story of how Tara saved Jeremy has become a story of international note, and keeping a separate article devoted to the story would be most helpful for someone seeking information on this event in the future. Wikipedia has the "list of cats" topic; but how many people know that Wikipedia has a "list of cats" subject for people to reference. In the future, when someone learns of this story and wants the details, they are going to be searching Wikipedia for "Tara" and not "list of cats" Krell Altair IV (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability on Wikipedia, It's widely being reported in Japan. Now, She is a famous cat. FNN JNN ANN [42] [43] [44] etc. also Ceremonial first pitch, Reporters came from Deutschland and Japan. ([45] [46] [47])--Benzoyl (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC) --Benzoyl (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP1E is meant to protect people from negative effects of publicity. Not cats; cats aren't going to be applying for jobs or being checked for notoriety when crossing a border. This is a fine story, which received international coverage, and more attention than most of the contents of Category:Individual cats. --GRuban (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to have second thoughts about my perhaps too-hasty Delete recommendation (above). I'm reminded of Scarlett (cat), a similar article, which deals with a "one-event" cat. Scarlett rescued her kittens, one by one, from a burning building, and suffered grave injury in the process. Since Scarlett's event occurred in 1996, there was no Internet storm of recognition, but she became famous anyway. So I'm coming around to thinking Keep. (Also check out Room 8 for a similar cat scenario, this one a "one event, year after year" occurrence.) --Seduisant (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those two examples provide a good contrast for topics that I do think are notable. Scarlett (cat) was famous for one event, but was the subject of three books, published up to ten years after the event occurred. Room 8 was also a subject of a book, regular news coverage spanning 15 years about the cat's life rather than an event, and inspired the Room 8 Memorial Foundation that was active at least from 1972 to 2013 (more than 40 years). If there are books or documentaries made about Tara, or even ongoing news coverage about the cat in coming years, it would establish notability, but a viral video from a week ago hasn't yet demonstrated the "sustained coverage" described in WP:15MOF or "lasting significance" in WP:LASTING. Agyle (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let it be. --91.149.114.86 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is Notable, after all. Zince34' 06:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable! Could also be justified on "Keep for now" grounds, waiting for book deals, more coverage, more awards, more public appearances, etc., which are conceivable as happened for Scarlett (cat). We don't need to delete it and then plan to restart it; simply keep it. --do ncr am 02:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of cats - The cat had became notable for pretty much one event so obviously BLP1E applies. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cats, while BLP1E does not apply because its not a person, there simply isn't enough content to justify a standalone article. Event that makes this cat notable can be easily fit into List of cats.--Staberinde (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As doncram notes above, these 'one newsworthy event' cats tend to become even more notable and popular as time goes by. I say keep, and if interest declines, renominate for deletion later; rather than the reverse... Fylbecatulous talk 13:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Fraser (artist)

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

An Australian artist who started working full-time on her art in 2011 and seems to have had a couple of paintings exhibited outside of Australia at a New York gallery. Article seems to be autobiographical - the image uploaded is clearly a 'selfie'. I've searched around and can only find one news article in her local newspaper. I can't find any proof of the claim she has her work in public art collections (she doesn't even have her own website to verify the claim). In my view I'd say she is clearly moving in the right direction but not notable enough for WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG yet. Sionk (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom has it right. There's 1 legit source, but that's from a local paper. The rest are all web ephemera, including at least 1 paid-for listing. Falls far short of WP:GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that the two events together push him over the WP:BLP1E threshold. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Knapp

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

Administrative listing (i.e. I have no opinion on the outcome). See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_May_20. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC, I do not feel BLP1E is applicable here. I believe that a million edits on Wikipedia is more akin to a body of work (such as that of an artist, like myself) than a single event. Knapp's millionth edit may have been an event, but the million edits as a whole are something entirely different, and I find the sourcing to focus on the latter, not the former. A single example: Many articles discuss the range of topics Knapp edits in, none that I saw says what the topic of the 1,000,000th edit was. I came across this argument at the previous DRV, looked into the sources involved, and find it compelling. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly not "a single event". Might change my stance if other editors equalled this feat. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the only guy with more than a million edits. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References are solid and easily push the article over the general notability threshold. Not a single event per WP:1E as this was (is?) an ongoing phenomenon. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No reason to delete has been provided and so there is no case to answer. Andrew (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly-articulated reasons to delete in the discussions that RoySmith links, so there's a case to answer. But I don't think it's a very good case. WP:BLP1E is not applicable. WP:BLP1E itself says it only applies to low-profile individuals, which Justin Knapp is not because he's agreed to be interviewed about his edits. WP:BIO1E, on the other hand, could apply. If we decided to enforce BIO1E, then strictly speaking, Justin Knapp would need to redirect to an article called Justin Knapp's 1,000,000th edit. I do not think this is a very good idea so I don't think we should enforce BIO1E here.—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason(s) are not clearly articulated here. If the nominator can't be bothered to summarise and state a reason to delete then the proposal should be summarily dismissed. The alternative is that we start to guess at reasons to delete and then rebut a variety of straw men and other red herrings. You then get a train-wreck discussion and that's exactly what we don't want here as it will not establish a clear consensus. For example, my view is that the main reason people want to delete this is petty jealousy of a rival Wikipedian. This is a poor reason which seems contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. Do we really want to go there...? Andrew (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a DRV, the closer sometimes decides the best answer is to relist at AfD. In this case they should present both sides of the argument neutrally and the simplest way to do that is to link the preceding discussion so we can read it for ourselves. Making the closer summarise these arguments creates an awful lot of work for them just to save us a click, don't you think?—S Marshall T/C 10:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well. If you go to DRV now, you find that the discussion has been closed up but the closer's summary provides no details of the supposed reason(s) to delete. Relisting is supposed to attract attention from other editors, so that we don't just repeat what's been said already. These new editors should not be expected to unearth and analyze the content of previous discussions. That's the job of the closer(s) who are expected summarise the discussions. If they have provided proper summaries then it should be no great labour to put the relevant reasons here too. Absent such clear terms of reference, this discussion will otherwise ramble. For example, I notice that the subject is rather beardy, unlike other prolific Wikipedians such as Simon Pulsifer or James Heilman. Perhaps pogonophobia is the issue here, as recently noticed by Jeremy Paxman? Tsk. Andrew (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Indeed, now the truth is out! Who's next, one wonders. But has James H. had an emergency de-whiskering? Having just watched that video clip of my arch ink-blot rival, however, I now see how immensely reasonable and likeable he is. Should WMF be sending out branded razors instead of t-shirts?) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC) ... now we know[reply]

Keep meets WP:N and I don't believe we've one event here--rather an extended effort which was recognized for passing a milestone. That's not an event IMO. Hobit (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is what I call a "fake AFD", with no person actually making a case that the article should be deleted. This is the first i've seen coming from DRV. Others come sometimes when an editor wants to develop a topic, and wants insurance that it will be kept, and nominates own topic. To pre-empt legitimate concern that community might or might not have later. This is also a waste of AFD attention. We ought to change guidelines somewhere to disallow these. --do ncr am 15:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Closing_reviews, in particular the part starting from, If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review... for why this is at AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it may not be an event that he made one million edits, it was the only thing he was covered for. So WP:BLP1E is applicable. wirenote (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the people who participated in the last AFD and the recent DRV should be notified. @Starblind: @Tarc: @Everyking: @Eluchil404: @Thincat: @Scott: @DGG: @Drmies: @John Cline: @Daniel: @WilyD: @Candleabracadabra: @Oakshade: wirenote (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As before, straight WP:BLP1E, a position not refuted by "meets WP:N" and the like. We've already established that the subject appears in reliable sources, but 1E is the exception that allows us to disregard that. "Keep he's notable!" is a failing argument here, which is why the article was deleted i nthe first place, and should be deleted again. News blips for being a prolific editor on a website is the event, and the only reason that this is getting more attention than normal around here is because of knee-jerk navel-gazing. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I gave this considerable thought during the drv. His second "event"; addressing the United Nations, adds to his first event, making it a solid two. Reliable sources verify the events, and satisfy wp:gng.—John Cline (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of BLP 1E in this instance is wrong. Being engaged in a continuing activity of years is not an event, but a career or an avocation,and a person can be notable for either. If he had contributed only one article here, which had attracted notice, that could reasonably regard as one-event. 1E is best seen as an extension of NOT TABLOID to those events covered by respectable sources-- the victim of an accident, for example. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the crux is whether or not he is notable as a Wikipedian per se. I do not think he is, at least per the "significant coverage". Instead, he is "notable" only for his million edits and that allows for a valid invoking of 1E. So far the sources aren't interested about his articles or what else he does on Wikipedia. The thing of note is only the millionth edit achievement. Compare the depth of coverage to that of the other (deservedly) "notable" Wikipedians like Sue Gardner or Jimmy Wales. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rationales of User:Joe Decker, User:John Cline and User:DGG above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment because I was pinged. I can see perfectly good reasons why some people think we should not have articles like this but to me the BLP1E argument seems absurd. I wish we could be more straightforward and say things like "delete – I don't think this is a suitable topic". On the whole I think we should keep this article but I don't feel strongly enough to !vote. Thincat (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete United Nations source is a "passing by" mention and is not enough to substantiate notability. Did it attract coverage from other media outlets? Nope. The rest are just repeated mentions of the same thing. I personally think that the one million edit thing might be a wonderful achievement in WikiLand, but from a non-Wikipedian's perspective it probably is just a trivial, non-impactful matter. Definitely no long lasting impact. Kill a million people, yes. Write a million books, of course. But make a million edits? A bot could too that as well. The article also fails to have much biographical focus for a BLP. 82% of the page talks about Wikipedia and Wikipedia. Early life (only an uncited birthdate)? Professional job (oh wait)? These are what a BLP should rightfully entail, at the very least. With all respect to the man, it's a clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. As a weaker alternative, I suggest making a small mention at the appropriate History of Wikipedia. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

did it take place? Events happen *: A misguided and feeble test I know, but "Justin Knapp" + "Wikipedia" => 14,700 Google search hits. ("Justin Knapp" on his own gets 29,400.) And I'm not sure gaps in a BLP article are ever a valid reason for deletion? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

"Bonkers The Clown" gets 216,000. Wanna compete? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks! I get only 54,100. But he's available for childrens' parties, apparently Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question For those arguing "one event": if it is a single event, on which day or small number of adjacent days did it take place? Events happen at a defined time. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the existence of multiple, good-quality sources for a notable subject. A recent academic source has popped up as well, title = Common Knowledge? : An Ethnography of Wikipedia; author= Dariusz Jemielniak; page=230; publisher = Stanford University Press; date = 05/2014; ISBN= 9780804789448. Perhaps someone with more interest in the article can make use of it. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter that the subject made 1 million edits, or that someone else has made more edits, or that someone might have more hits on your favorite search engine. What matters is that independent, reliable sources (the Telegraph, Indianapolis Monthly, et al) have decided the subject is notable by publishing articles. Dictioneer (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The person does appear to pass WP:N with significant coverage from reliable sources. Don't see how 1E applies to years of work and edits. --Oakshade (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty straightforward case of WP:BLP1E, which makes the fact he meets the GNG irrelevant. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

What and when was the one event that makes WP:BLP1E apply?--Oakshade (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't address the BLP1E issue in my previous post because I thought other posters had made a good case as to why BLP1E didn't apply. However, since there seems to be some misunderstanding of the subtleties of the policy (it seems like mostly commonsense interpretations are being applied), please consider the following quote from the BLP1E: 'The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.' (emphasis added) I think multiple reliable sources covering the subject over a period of more than two years, including a reference in a newly released academic book, means that BLP1E is not applicable. Dictioneer (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think many editors believe WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are synonymous shortcuts to the same editing policy/guideline; they are not. BLP1E is specifically in place to protect and support a presumption in favor of privacy. BLP1E itself says: "It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared to this policy (WP:BLP1E). Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Justin Knapp has removed any need for a "presumption in favor of privacy" by his overt public appearances and granting of interviews. BLP1E should be "off the table" and every call for deletion which cites it should be discounted as uninformed. BIO1E, on the other hand, would at least be the relevant guideline to debate, but no one has cited a reason to delete under its tenets; offering nothing to debate.—John Cline (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sumela Kay

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

Not a notable actress. It's been nearly ten years since she had any roles. JDDJS (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The ten-year period since her last role isn't a deal breaker, but what roles there were do not appear to be significant (even the X-Men appearance is a cameo), thus failing WP:ENT, and I'm not finding significant coverage to establish that she meets WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 08:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable actress. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it's been 38 years since this guy had any roles! Just saying, WP:NOTTEMP means that's not really a relevant argument. She needs to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR and in my view she probably fails both. She has had fairly high-profile roles but nothing that could really be considered "significant". There's some coverage there too, but (again) nothing that could be considered "significant coverage". Stalwart111 02:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elio Capradossi

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on his Ugandan nationality, which has not bearing on notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY still stands. No indication of any other achievements partnering significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Can be recreated if he ever plays for Roma Fenix down (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CLEAR Framework for Enterprise Architecture

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

This article describes a non-notable framework with no verifiable sources Nickmalik (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up note - I have made an effort to find reliable sources for this article, through Google Books and various search engines including the one at Atos. I could not find a single source that references this topic, not even from an author. With all due respect, there is no evidence other than the image uploaded to Wikipedia that the framework actually ever existed. While I believe that it did exist at some time in the past, it falls below the bar for notability and inclusion in Wikipedia. Nickmalik (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per Nickmalik I have not managed to find references for this framework, including at TOGAF's site whose past editions listed other notable frameworks. As things stand this fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced. gets 1 line mentions in a mere 10 gbooks hits. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Giorgio Moroder. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beat-parade '68

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

Is it real? It certainly doesn't seem to be a notable album, it has received next to no attention, returning only 14Google hits[48]; it isn't mentioned in any books[49] Clearly notable artist, but not a notable album at all. Fram (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find evidence that this release meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 17:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Giorgio Moroder, which presently does not mention the album. It exists, but has not received significant coverage to qualify for a stand-alone article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People-centric

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

Spam for a new book, and not really true either. People-centric is not coined, it is commonly in use in newspeak organisations, from Microsoft with their people-centric IT[50] or Appian's People Centric Process Management[51]. It was commonly in use by the late 1990s, and there are already books about it, like "Humanize: How People-Centric Organizations Succeed in a Social World" from 2011[52]. Fram (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted, the claim is bogus. And if the term originates with a book which has not been published yet, I fail to see how it could be notable. Eseeentially an article about a non notable book.TheLongTone (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and TheLongTone. Even if the word had been coined in the book the article cites, there's no way it could be notable before the book has even come out. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muwema & Mugerwa (Uganda)

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

Non-notable lawfirm. Citations are all to mentions in passing about the firm, or one significant source about Muwema, but as owner of SC Villa, not as a lawyer and not about his firm. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muwema & Mugerwa two days ago. I don't know if this qualifies for a G4 speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Nominator's assessment of the citations is correct. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references just show this to be a firm going about its business, as any firm must if it is to survive. No evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Also worth salting this and other name variants as they emerge. AllyD (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:33, 28 May 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.