Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 October	12 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Praga Khan. We've got to decide sometime, and redirect seem ssafe enough DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love Power (Praga Khan song)

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

Song that has been tagged for nearly 3 years with no notability. Probably should be redirected to the singer Wgolf (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 3 October 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Glossary of video game terms. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camping (gaming)

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

It has several issues, like original research, how to content, and written like a debate. It also has two sources. Does this even matter? EMachine03 (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) EMachine03 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - essay and original research. LS1979 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found a previous discussion from five years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camping_(video_gaming) . Seems that a suggested rewrite hasn't happened and this can really be Merged into the Glossary Salvidrim has suggested. LS1979 (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Glossary of video game terms - Seems like a natural fit. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:15, 11 October 2014:: (UTC)

That might just work! However, we might need some more consensus. EMachine03 (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to glossary. It's worth attempting to engage the page history and/or talk page before coming to AfD—page probably could have been merged with little fanfare. So "camping" has coverage, but not quite enough to source more than a few good definitions on its variations and maybe some examples. I doubt most of the 27kB of OR at hand here can be sourced. Might be worth differentiating between spawn/base and other kinds of camping in the glossary, though. Some sources: [1][2][3][4] czar ♔ 04:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Glossary of video game terms. It can always be recreated later if more sources are found to demonstrate notability. A WP:VG/RS search turns up results, of course, but the hits are generally not in depth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or selective merge to Glossary of video game terms. I seem to have a little more faith in the notability of the subject than others here, but not a lot more. The camper isn't just an activity or tactic but a quasi-character and trope that comes up repeatedly in fan fiction, etc. (see Diary of a Camper, one of the earliest and best known Machinimas). Some other sources that talk specifically about camping: Kotaku - In Defense of the Camper, Conference paper - Playing Dirty, and also things like this: "That's not the way you play the game" -- about camping operating under thea ssumption readers know what it means [or will understand per the Reddit post title]. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, I'm supporting keeping the article as a notable subject -- the content goes overboard and would need to be substantially edited. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cerebellum (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horacio Cambeiro

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

Not notable. Another promotional piece for this minor local reporter based on poor sourcing, originally posted at Hori Cambeiro to avoid scrutiny. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Has a decent number of references but they are a mix of blogs, publications he has worked for, routine announcement, local interest pieces and a passing mention. Nothing significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. I don't carry any brief for people who use sockpuppets, facebook, twitter etc to publicise themselves. However, Cambeiro's list of interviews in newspapers from Argentina in spanish seems to be genuine, I checked several of them and all were short magazine articles about him, supporting the claim that he is a notable journalist in the Spanish-speaking world.--JohnLeeAnderson (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote is a modified copy from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Nan disingenuously posted here. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability --Lfrankblam 17:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)

Delete Link one is dead. Link 2 is to the verso of a title page with him named as one of the "collaborators", but he is not listed on the cover or title page (meaning he had a small roll, e.g. did research, provided photos). Link 3 & 4 are about him as a pilot, both short "human interest" pieces. Link 5 is a short notice of a radio show. 6 & 7 get a 403. 8 is another short piece about the radio show. Interesting fellow, but none of the articles establish notability. LaMona (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelled Moon (band)

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Looking at the sources: Allmusic ref is just a listing. MTV listing is not independent. 3 is the frontman talking about the band, not independent. Next 3 are mostly about other bands and is there to verify membership of other bands. 7 does not have significant coverage. 8 is not a reliable source. 9 is not a reliable source and the coverage is not significant. 10 is their label, not independent. A search found nothing better. Closest to WP:BAND they come is by having 4 3 bluelinked members but looking at them shows the band falls short. Johansson is not notable independent of Yngwie Malmsteen. Chuck Wrights notability is dependent on the bands he has been a member of. Rieckermann redirects to his band, he is not independently notable. ~~Rooney has no notability outside this band.~~ duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rooney article has been deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable, sources such as MTV, this entry may be of interest to fans. --Lfrankblam 17:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard William Paul

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

This article probably does not meet any of the notability criteria in WP:GNG

It seems to be a small independent paid service (management or HR) for universities to contract, of the size and economic scope of a cafeteria service or taxi service.

The person that the article is about does have a PhD in his subject, I'm not sure if someone having a PhD makes that person notable or not, probably not.

Createangelos (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is a sort of argument against the deletion which I'm recommending, the guy's website criticalthinking.org does have some nice writing on it by his staff or collaborators such as

"The enlightened person may well be perplexed: Where, in this mission statement, is the concept of education? Is “success in college and careers” to be equated with educating the mind? Is developing the ability to “compete successfully in the global economy” the same as cultivating minds capable of reasoning in good faith within multiple perspectives? How does this core curriculum integrate critical thinking, education, and the deep learning of content? How will this curriculum help students develop the intellectual virtues that define the ethical, or fairminded, critical thinker – virtues such as intellectual empathy, intellectual integrity, intellectual autonomy, intellectual humility, intellectual perseverance, confidence in reason and fairmindedness? To what extent are these virtues desired (or feared) by the business community, educators, parents? Is the Core Curriculum compatible with emancipating the mind, liberating people, and making the world more just for all humans and other sentient creatures? Have we so lost our way as to believe that the cultivation of the intellect is to be equated with developing “thinking skills” that simply help people function better as workers?"

(end quote) Createangelos (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example something like this article from 'riffwiki' whatever it is, would be nice in Wikipedia, but the problem is, it is like an ad http://riffwiki.com/Foundation_for_Critical_Thinking These critical thinking guys seem to need some help, they have some good ideas, but using Wikipedia as a marketing tool is not one of them. Maybe a small article which actually describes the organization or how it defines 'critical thinking' might be OK. It might be notable that several universities believe it, whatever it is, it it can be described or characterised by anyone who actually understands it. Createangelos (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed up the AfD page. ansh666 22:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no real evidence for notability besides that his organization has sold his program to a few minor universities and colleges. . DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable regional academic person. COI suspected in article-creation: originally written by a 1-subject (this one) account. Note that the subject's own website is called CriticalThinking.org and the article original writer is a user named: Think-Critical. looks like self-promotional autobiography. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete- I'm not sure if any of those calling for deletion have any knowledge about the subject, but Richard Paul is an acknowledged leader and innovator in the field of Critical Thinking. (and no, I am not a relative or paid by them to say this). He is cited in most of the scholarly articles in education relating to critical thinking that I have read. He is an innovator because the Paul/Elder theory on Critical thinking encompasses a humanistic component ( strong minded vs weak minded thinking) that was never discussed prior. While his work might not be recognizable to those not actively engaged in the field, anyone taking the time to actually reading his work, must be impressed, for it is incredibly well thought out and enlightening. (neefly)

neefly, strange as it sounds, much of your impassioned defense of Richard William Paul is irrelevant in the wonderful world of Wikipedia. "incredibly well thought out and enlightening" doesn't matter. "acknowledged leader and innovator in the field of Critical Thinking" doesn't matter, except to the degree it causes him to receive mention/citations elsewhere. However, "He is cited in most of the scholarly articles in education relating to critical thinking that I have read" is more important. See my separate comment below. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I search google scholar for "RW Paul" instead of "Richard William Paul", a lot of hits pop out, with citation counts in the hundred, even up to just over 1,000. I'm not familiar enough with WP:NACADEMICS to know if this meets notability requirements. Aynone out there who can enlighten me? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page was set up by an SPA User:Think-Critical that shares a name with the organisation it promotes. As it stands, it's solely promoting this organisation. Delete and if he's notable as an academic, someone will undoubtedly set up a new page for him at a different time. AdventurousMe (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are zero secondary sources in the article, so he'd fail WP:GNG and WP:42. He's not cited widely in the leading undergraduate textbooks. (See: John Chaffee, Thinking Critically (9th ed.), ISBN 978-0-618-94719-5; Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker, Critical Thinking (10th ed.), ISBN 978-0-07-803828-0; Peter Facione, THINK Critically, ISBN 978-0-295-73845-8 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. He is cited once, in end-note 1 from page 2, of Hassham, Irwin, Nardone, and Wallace, Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction (4th ed.) ISBN 978-0-07-340743-2. I don't think that allows him to pass the PROF test; however, if you can find additional evidence, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of Speech- Clear Discription

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

Not a manual appears to apply, article is in its entirety a description of how to use the Enlgish language. Amortias (T)(C) 08:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this is covered under not a how to guide and what Wikipedia is not. It is also entirely unreferenced. Although the misspelled title and other errors in the article might be fixed, I don't think it's a suitable subject. Libby norman (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A10 as a duplicate of Part of speech. —teb728 t c 10:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content is more like duplicate of the individual articles of each part of speech (Noun, Verb etc), not so much of only Parts of speech itself. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedy delete Speedy delete per TEB728. My delete reason is that I am pretty sure it is a bad case of WP:NOTMANUAL, and it is entirely unreferenced. It is WP:NOT even. Can't we just delete this and move on? EMachine03 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music 19 (N.Z. series)

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

Non-notable album. Unreferenced in ~ five years. No obvious reliable sources to use as references in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can we just take care of these all at once instead of one at a time? There are a number of these in the New Zealand and Australia series of these compilations with no indication of independent notability. They sell well because of the "brand", which does have an article, but there is no significant coverage on the individual volumes. Attempts to redirect are continually reverted by IPs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. No indication of SIGCOV. And again as per nom, all these non-notable compilation albums should be dealt with together. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Sorvino

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

Actor/film festival owner who has won only local awards and appears to have only local notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis - 2¢ 01:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Alcohol Education Program

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

small scale local program; highly promotional article, tho my G11 was declined. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nominator stated, a highly promotional article. Gloss 03:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1: there is no valid rationale for deletion in the nomination. Additionally, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saat Phere

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

Reason AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close down - Malformed AFD, while subject is highly notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly merge? Definitely highly notable and should not be deleted, but I think this might be merged with the existing article Saptapadi as I believe both refer to the same part of the marriage ceremony. It's an important subject and would benefit from a bit of attention and expansion from subject experts. Libby norman (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libby norman Saat Phere is little more common term and modern. Previously this article was called Satphere, it remained for a few years, I had changed the title. I wanted to merge first, but I just dropped that idea because both of the articles have different types of content. Both of these words have different origins. Agniparinayana is even more accurate term but not used as much. These articles require some expansion. Some have also confused Parikrama with Saat Phere.

Reason? According to nominator it is:- Hindi term is used for article creation in English wikipedia [5] Nominator is just trying to take revenge because I nominated one of his article for deletion, it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer love (novel). Bladesmulti (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep withdrawn by Nominator. (Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Industry Network

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

Mostly Original Research and/or poorly referenced. Links to local press outlets do make passing mention of the network. Appears to fail WP:ORG —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a tentative keep for now. I agree there are issues with the article as it stands, but I've done a very quick search and I think the organisation may meet notability of organisations guidelines. I've found references in two books and a UN document, possibly suggesting that while it is local in reach its impact is wider. I'd like to take a closer look at the sources and see if this can be improved to a point where solid references justify a keep. Libby norman (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This was nominated and discussed with a consensus to keep all of two weeks ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Industry Network (SIN)), a fact which is noted on the talk page of the article if the user wasn't otherwise aware. It is completely unacceptable to turn around and nominate it again on the same basis. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per The Drover's Wife it was open for 11 days from 8th September 2014 till 19th September Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Industry Network (SIN) .~~Hence do feel it is unacceptable nominate again and so soon.~~It has been nominated again too soon on the same basis.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Primarily because this one was just kept via an AfD that ended just a few weeks ago. GNG/ORG seems borderline, but I think it best to give it some time to improve since it already ran the gauntlet. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Industry Network (SIN). This is too soon. — Cirt (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Far too soon for a new AfD, especially on the same basis as the old one. Frickeg (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN BY NOM. Comments from User:The Drover's Wife and User:Pharaoh of the Wizards my "unacceptable" behavior are not appreciated and fail WP:AGF. The article was marked as unreviewed by a new editor at the very bottom of the new pages patrol feed. I missed the talk page and posted here in good faith for review. Comments against other editors like this are why AfD is so back-logged, because it makes it an unpleasant environment in which to work. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify with apology My sincere apologies just meant to say it was had been nominated again so soon nothing personal there sorry again if my wording were wrong I also never meant that you had done it deliberately or was a comment on your nomination ,it was a general comment that it had been renominated too soon,Really sorry if it meant otherwise .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. WP:SK#1 Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Tour

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

Unverified. The concept of the article - touring while blindfolded - is not supported by the references; they are about tourism by blind people. I thought it might be a joke or hoax, but I did find a few references to individuals doing this. However, it is certainly not a trend, nor did I find any commercially offered tours of this kind - just individuals doing it for a brief time to make some kind of point. PROD was removed by the author with the comment "Give me a day or two to gather up some relevant references. Rest assured this is a prevalent concept, it happens at a lot of places." However, that was a week ago, and the article remains unverified. MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now that more sources have been added showing that this is a recognised concept and has taken place on an organised basis in a number of locations. Maybe needs moving to Blindfolded Tourism or Blindfolded Sightseeing with several redirects from alternative terms.: Noyster (talk), 13:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination @Noyster: great job of finding and adding information from reliable sources. I agree that the article could be better named. I suggest that after the nomination is closed you move it to one or the other, probably "Blindfolded tourism" (small T, of course). --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minhazur Rahman Nayan

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

No significant coverage in independent source. The sources include are not reliable enough to establish the notability. Most of the reference are from IMDb and Wikipedia. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 06:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. – nafSadh did say 16:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way too soon. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: producing one film that got into one lesser international film festival is quite ordinary. When he produces a full-length film, or gets into Cannes Film Festival, get back to us. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S.K (band)

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

No such group exists in South Korea. I can not find any reliable sources that the group has been formed by S.M Entertainment or has any musical releases. Rockysmile11 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nationalities of the band members are given as "Korean-Welsh" and "Korean-Kiwi." The Hangul and romanized verions of their names don't even have the same number of syllables. The article is obviously a joke. Claimsworth (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bamil Gutierrez Collado

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

Looking at the page the subject of this BLP certainly appears notable but I've been unable to find any coverage in any reliable sources independent of the artist. The numerous charts listed are either website or radio station charts and there is also a comment on the talkpage questioning the accuracy of the chart history. I do not believe either GNG or MUSICBIO is met here. J04n(talk page) 23:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish name misspelled. Try searching as Bamil Gutiérrez Collado. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:13, 3 October 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, buff bills 7701 02:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs after 6 months? Is the BLP policy a policy or a joke? Bazj (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amelyn Veloso

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

Keeps on getting the info changed as well as the prod removed so this is the next step-not sure how notable they are either. Wgolf (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be sufficient coverage to meet GNG. "Keeps on getting the info changed" and "prod removed" are not deletion reasons. If you are "not sure how notable they are" you are expected to exercise a little diligence yourself, per WP:BEFORE. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellapaige

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

Too soon it looks like. I think she will have a page someday-but not today. This also seems like a fan's POV not a neutral. Wgolf (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've pretty much removed all of the unsourced, promotional content since it was so non-neutral that she could've been speedied for that alone. There is an assertion of notability here through her association with Bieber so we should have a more thorough discussion, just so we have an official consensus. That said, I couldn't really find anything that talked about the singer apart from her relationship with Bieber. Some mention is to be expected, but I couldn't really find enough out there to show a true depth of coverage about the singer herself. Everything was about her maybe dating Bieber, about salacious rumors of her sleeping with him, and about the cyberbullying she received as a result of hanging out with him. None of the articles really focused on her career at all- it was all about her in relation to Bieber. Since her relationship wasn't well-known enough to really warrant a mention in Bieber's article, I'll just vote to delete. If anyone wants to userfy/incubate this I have no true objection, just that at this point in time it's just WP:TOOSOON. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Ngo

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Tagged for RS since Feb 2013. Cannot find sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Previous AFD refers to possible foreign language sources, but none are included, with or without translation. There's an embedded external link to a movie he starred in, but I'm not sure that can be considered enough, since we need "significant roles in multiple notable films". Begoon ^talk 00:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, subject has received arguably significant coverage in some ethnic media (here, and here) but nothing outside of that that I have been able to find. Therefore, not finding more reliable sources I can't support keeping this article. Furthermore, this article might be subject to speedy delete per WP:G4.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Revish

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person, but created before March 2010 so ineligible for BLP Prod. Not seeing any reliable, in depth sources out there that would confer notability on the subject, thus fails the relevant notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW NOMINATION. My bad I guess. A reference has been added that seems to indicate Revish has won a pile of Emmys and other awards. Not sure how I missed them but there we go. Happy for any passing admin to close this up since there's no other delete !votes. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These things happen. I myself have made similar mistakes. Now I hope nobody will accuse me of saving an article from deletion... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all on you buddy :p Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus route 991

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

Admin bizarrely declined PROD by two other editors. Article appears to be more West Midlands buscruft/original research, cited only to timetables, no evidence of independent reliable secondary coverage about Route 991. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - until we get a clear consensus, such Prods may have to come here. Does anyone have their own standards? Can somebody point to past AfDs for helpful precedents? Bearian (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's West Midlands bus route 94, West Midlands bus route 97, West Midlands bus routes 246, 300, 311 and 313 and West Midlands Stratford Road bus Corridor etc. (which combined 9 bus routes in one AfD). I may look like I have a vendetta, but it's simply the case I raised one at AfD then others kept coming to light. Sionk (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bus cruft with no evidence of notability, All 5 sources on this article are useless (3 point to a wp article and the other 2 are dead ....), Anyway most bus/coach routes are removed unless the sources are up to scratch ... This on the other hand isn't. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are some bus routes which are notable, this one isn't Jeni ^(talk) 09:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 20:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Farr

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

Author contested prod saying there is much info out there to prove notability - said when contested prod. yet same author writes in article that there is very little info out there on Farr. therefore, IMHO, it is non verifiable nn person. Original author can't have it both ways - either there is or isn't much info available. I am going with what he wrote in article. Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (per MichaelQSchmidt's work) ~~Delete (per following paragraph). Comment~~. I haven't yet had time to do a search, but I did make an edit to the article. It used another Wikipedia article (Lady Luck (1936 film)) as its only reliable source. Of course, this is not allowed, and I removed it. The other article lists no reliable sources at all, so there is nothing to borrow for this article. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did some digging, but the news is not good. Patricia Farr apparently starred in at least 3 movies and one 12 part serial, along with lesser parts in more than a dozen other movies. However, to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR, she must have "had significant roles in multiple notable films." Per WP:MOVIE, for a film to be notable, it's not good enough just to be part of a large compendium: "Examples of coverage INSUFFICIENT [my emphasis] to fully establish notability include...listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide...". Well, that's all I found: entries in places like [6] and a book that lists more than 1200 movies. The NY Times [7] said "Farr starred or co-starred in such forgotten fare as Speed to Spare (1937) and All-American Sweetheart (1938)." Sorry, but that doesn't sound like appearance in notable movies. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to MichaelQSchmidt! I've changed my vote, above, to Keep. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACTOR. I found a paragraph in the Ogden Standard-Examiner and another in the Circleville Herald via Newspapers.com, but nothing really significant. Basically she was an up-and-coming starlet who never really got there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 October 2014
Comment: I'm adding her full filmography to the article and while she's done a lot of uncredited roles, I also see where she's been the star in a lot of films. User:MichaelQSchmidt should probably come in on this, as he's good at finding sources for these older films. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like she was a major performer or at least a named one in the following films: Tailspin Tommy (serial), The Lady in Scarlet, Three of a Kind (1936 film), Lady Luck (1936 film), All American Sweethearts (a review for this is mentioned here and there's a brief mention here and here), and Lady Behave!. I am aware that the existence of these articles doesn't automatically mean notability, but the mini review in the one book does make me think that there is coverage for the films- it just never made it to the internet. Not voting yet, but I'm going to keep digging. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tokyogirl79. What worries me about this AFD (and my Delete vote) is that the movies Farr starred in currently have Wikipedia articles -- but with the exception of the serial Tailspin Tommy, the articles (The Lady in Scarlet, Lady Luck, and All-American Sweethart) have no sources showing notability, and in an admittedly quick perusal I didn't notice any. It would be great if some were found. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That worries me as well. Part of me wants to argue keep based on that, but I'd still have to show that those films are notable themselves and so far it's slow going. I'm finding some hints of coverage, but finding coverage for that long ago is like trying to pull the teeth out of a running gazelle with a hammer and a cast on my foot. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was the originator of the Patricia Farr page. Larry Traveling Man says that I used the film "Lady Luck" as a "reliable source". I did not do that. The reference was meant as a footnote to indicate which film was being suggested by me as the one in which Farr appeared as leading lady. I'm highly annoyed that Larry, after perhaps a superficial reading, has misrepresented what I did. To illustrate what I meant without again offending Larry, I have re-written the first line of the page. Akld guy (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if your feelings were hurt, but since all that was provided was a link, I took it as a claim to be a reliable source -- which it was not. If it was intended to be an explanatory footnote (of the previous text ..."in at least one"), then it would have required additional wording, such as "One of the films was Lady Luck (1936)". However, that also would have required a reliable source (which the linked article was not), and so also would have been removed. Thanks to the research being done, it's now possible to add a source; it can be added assuming the article makes it. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as suitable now-sourced and further sourceable stub that preserves a piece of American cinematic history. Tokyogirl79's work inspired me to look, and I found that she has been noted in multiple reliable sources and her body of verifiable work meets WP:ENT #2. While it would be wonderful to have reams of 1930s-40s media covering her work, her career sadly ended with her 1948 death. This may likely never be as all-inclusive and copious an article as something on Marilyn Monroe, but so what? It serves the project to inform our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. It's been improved enough to keep. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This clears the notability threshold, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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