Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 April	15 April >

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 keep. This does not mean the article should not be cleaned up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion-Twin[edit]

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

Originally tagged this for speedy deletion under WP:A7, but then I noticed the claim that their game Twinoid has a community of 15 million registered users, which arguably indicates significance. However, there still seems to be no indication of notability, as none of their games or awards have articles and there are no references. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't appear to be linked yet when I visited the enwiki page, but Google popped up with an article on frwiki: [1]. There appears to be 3-4 french language sources there that aren't self-published, may help in resolving AFD. -- ferret (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep - Of the French article's sources, the only one that jumps out at me as a probable RS is Libération, but there seems to be some other RS coverage in English (like here at gameindustry.biz, and here at mcvuk, and some scholarly coverage at Google Scholar. Motion-Twin seems to be a pretty big player in the French video game scene so we should probably be focusing on French sources like jeuxvideo.com, etc. -Thibbs (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mush (video game) has an article, but it was located at Mush (computer game). I moved it. That article has fairly substantial coverage, but some is in French. I think there is more coverage to be found under "Twinoid", the name of the company's big social-network game. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Subject is probably notable. However the article is ridiculously over-detailed and promotional. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is just way too much in this for an article with no sources. It needs to be cut down to a stub until RS sources are added. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 15 April 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 Snow Keep per request made below. It's a blizzard here. If anyone objects, feel free to contact me and either renominate or send to Deletion review. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indosat[edit]

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

I am a volunteer on WP:OTRS. Occasionally we get requests from company representatives to delete an article about their own company from Wikipedia. Our standard response is to offer three choices: (1) Nominate the article for deletion yourself, (2) ask us to do so in your behalf, or (3) specify corrections you wish to be made. The standard response also makes it clear that there is no guarantee that options 1 or 2 will result in deletion.

In this case, a public relations representative of Indosat wrote to OTRS to complain about errors and request deletion, in OTRS ticket #2014040610001427. In answer to the standard response, the representative chose options 2 and 3. Per option 3, the requested corrections to the article have been made. Per option 2, I am proposing this article for deletion in their behalf, as requested to satisfy the issues raised in the OTRS ticket, knowing that this company likely meets WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important company. I see no problems with the article, but if there are, they can be fixed by editing. I support permanent semi-protection, which could be applied by the closing admin. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Absolutely massive company, one of the largest telecommunications companies in one of the largest cell phone markets on Earth. Hundreds of possible sources, both in Indonesian and in English. That this article appears to have been the target of concerted efforts to paint them as part of MNC Media Group (see the page history), and that the company can't edit the page to its liking because they don't know how to reference (we've had the same issues with the Indonesian version of the article) doesn't mean they can just say "Fine, we're taking our toys away". The article may need permanent semi-protection, but it is quite valid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's major company with a significant market share in mobile telephony and internet services, as well as substantial assets. Davidelit (Talk) 03:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The subject meets almost every criteria for WP:CORP. The only problem with the article is that quite a few of the cited sources are primary. I have added the appropriate tag. Suggest speedy close per WP:SNOW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 15 April 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lisch[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by author without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2014

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2014

~~Delete~~ - Per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that he has made his debut, the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SOurce below indicates player now passes NFOOTY. Needs work to improve to GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now passes WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 11:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the preceding comments. Subject fails WP:NFOOTY and no evidence of other notability seems to exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new information indicating subject passes WP:N.-Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - He's in the starting 11 for Pittsburgh Riverhounds for today's match which means he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. So this article should be kept. – Michael (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2014

@Mikemor92: can you provide a source for the appearance, I don't see one in the article. Happy to change my vote if this can be done. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: here. – Michael (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why bother nominating articles for deletion that are with first team, and very likely to start soon. Even if he had been deleted, would likely recreate soon. WP:COMMONSENSE suggests that there is WP:NORUSH and we can afford to wait a few weeks, and see if the article is indeed a keeper. Nfitz (talk) 23:33, 19 April 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sherard Reddick[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NHOOPS. The leagues he's played in do not qualify for automatic inclusion, nor are there enough independent sources written about him online. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The modern ABA is several steps below leagues that carry notability. Rikster2 (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This is one unimportant player on one unimportant team in an obscure sports league. Subject is far past non-notable. The fact that someone even decided to make an article about him brings up thoughts of "does the creator know this guy?" Mr. Guye (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hamilton Health Sciences. Tawker (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation[edit]

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

no evidence of notability, no references tagged for three years Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hamilton Health Sciences and edit for NPOV.--v/r - T P 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per TP. No evidence of any independent notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hamilton Health Sciences--Ciofeca (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hamilton Health Sciences. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 22 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So-lo Discount Stores[edit]

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

Only finds are directories and listings fails WP:GNG Murry1975 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: When an article is offering only a business listing and the telephone directory as links, it is falling short, probably to a CSD A7 degree. Some coverage of firms of the same name in the USA can be found, but not in depth and they do not appear to be the same firm anyway. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable store. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Snappy (talk) 16:17, 19 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four Lanterns[edit]

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

Local non-notable only directory listings and ads turn-up. Fails WP:GNG Murry1975 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find much about the chain and I don't think this would be considered reliable. Book sources not much better unless we want to use this bit to note the servers are "scumbags"? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found some sources Eyewitness Travel Family Guide London, and [2]. Then I also found some non RS that doesn't hurt notability Standard UK. Restaurant appears to have been established in 1970 and is an established chain. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, the restaurant you are talking about is a Greek restaurant in London. See their website. The website says it is "named after a small bridge in the town of Limassol, Cyprus." Other than the name, I don't think that restaurant has anything to do with chain of 7 or fast food restaurants in northwest Ireland known as Four Lanterns, 4 Lights, and Four Lanterns Subs. As best I can tell the Irish restaurants are named for the four Green Lanterns of Earth in comic book lore. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the Greek restaurant was the one in question. Removed my vote. Thanks for the clarification! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Snappy (talk) 16:17, 19 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jones (businessman)[edit]

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

I don't see how this person passes the GNG. The one citation from Forbes is nothing but a brief mention that could support an article on Sarrell Dental, but says nothing really about our subject. Other coverage is local (Crimson White is the campus newspaper), and Google didn't deliver anything useful. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find much useful information after some research to validate this person qualifies for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XjiGsawyouthx (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've performed some cleanup and reformattting to improve this article but agree that there is not sufficient in-depth coverage for subject to cross the notability threshold. Two of the three listed bibliography items are essentially self-published. - Dravecky (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps some of this could be merged to Emercy (which is itself woefully under-referenced and out of date) then convert this to a redirect. - Dravecky (talk) 18:31, 15 April 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. from discussion it appears it can meet notability, AfD is not cleanup, with that being said, article should be cleaned up and sourcing improved wherever possible. Tawker (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA Camp Wanakita[edit]

(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 18:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There are 200,000 people who have benefited from the camp's programs and it is frequently mentioned in the news publications of the surrounding cities. The article has 15 citations and evidence for some of the uncited statements can be inferred from the 7 public domain images that I included.

There are 32 YMCA Summer Camps with Wikipedia articles and the highest quality ones are Camp Ralph S. Mason, YMCA Camp Wanakita and YMCA Camp Fitch on Lake Erie. Deleting articles in the top three would set the precedent that summer camps cannot be covered on Wikipedia at all. The last thing this site needs is further indication that its user base has no interest in outdoor activities. Connor Behan (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You appear to have been on Wikipedia for a while, so you must know that 200,000 people benefiting from something is not a criteria for inclusion per WP:ITSUSEFUL, nor is the number of other articles on the same topic, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Does it satisfy WP:GNG? I'm not sure but it actually does not have 15 citations. It has one, the Spectator article. The rest are affiliated with the camp and therefore do not satisfy WP:RS. freshacconci talk to me 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I counted 9 sources directly affiliated with the camp. These were for things that had a fairly low burden of proof like the length of the swimming pool. Nevertheless, I added 4 secondary sources to the article today. I also found sources connecting Wanakita to Camp Rock and Jeremy Fisher, so I might add those later. Normally I am a deletionist, but objective camp information in the form of images and prose is not pointless trivia. It's something that sets a good example for all the crappy point-form articles out there. Connor Behan (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. --do ncr am 08:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a little long and overly detailed. It also has a non-neutral tone to it and I have tagged it accordingly. But none of that is fatal. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have made a post on the talk page about this. Connor Behan (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sinclair Butt[edit]

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

I think this fails WP:BIO for notability but as this is the first article I've submitted to the AfD process I'll be glad to hear what other more experienced editors have to say. Mfbjr (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability in any of the sources given, and from the sounds of his biography, it seems unlikely that any other sources exist that would demonstrate notability. Seeing as the article's creator is currently blocked, I'm going to assume that they were only interested in Butt for his surname. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography is strong evidence of notability. Frickeg (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frickeg. If kept, a hatnote should be added to a different Charles Butt. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Even after reading the article referenced by Frickeg I am not really sold on the subject's notability. But in cases where it's a close call, I tend to lean on the keep side of things. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 15 April 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. (WP:Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V. T. Rajshekar[edit]

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

Relatively non-notable journalist. The Journal he founded may be notable , but it does not translate into notability for the editor or founder of the journal. References are poor and strong enough to back the article. Uncletomwood (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references need improvement, but he appears to be notable. I added his receipt of the London Institute of South Asia (LISA) Book of the Year Award for 2005. Coverage on him is not recent, so you really can't expect to find it in electronic sources. His book The Black Untouchables of India has been through multiple editions and is widely cited. In fact, looking at his citation history in Google scholar can give one a better understanding of his importance. --Bejnar (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll admit borderline, but I think there's enough sources to pass WP:GNG in this case. Granted many of the sources are not third party, but I believe that a few are (unless I'm incorrect) and that's enough to establish notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR with major award noted above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 15 April 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. There is a consensus that the reliable sources currently present in the article are sufficient to establish the notability of this camp. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Center Day Camp[edit]

(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 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 17:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG -- even with what is already reflected in the article, which includes full articles devoted to the camp, which was established 65 years ago. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Epeefleche. --do ncr am 08:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it has enough WP:V and WP:RS in the article. IZAK (talk) 17:51, 18 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sense Technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can not find a single reliable source to this "Hi Sense Technology technique". It is said to be in close relation with another technique "Remote Influence", and sources are about "Remote Influence" not "Hi sense technology technique". It appears to me a hoax! It reads a bit like an WP:ADVERT, as well. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hi Sense technology is not actually a remote influence technique but it seems similar to it. This technology is widely used everywhere but didn't have a name. This name was given recently and thats why there are not much published sources are available ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arisepeter (talk • contribs) 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not published sources available as the creator admits. Fails notability. It is not suitable for inclusion for now. Even if it is not a hoax, and what creator claims is true, it simply a case of WP:TOOSOON. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even assuming good faith that this is not simply a hoax, it would certainly be considered a fringe topic, and subject to the sourcing and due weight expectations of WP:FRINGE. In any case, nothing like a reliable source appears to exist. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to locate any WP:RS sources. Article subject thus fails WP:NFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say not only fringe, but and advert as well based on phrases like "The company". Dolescum (talk) 00:57, 16 April 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. The nominator is only proposing the non-deletion action of merging, and no delete !votes are present other than the nomination. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Guilin[edit]

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

Should be merged with Bukit Batok Town Park. They are about the same subject. Professorjohnas (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Speedy Keep - Applicability section 1 Nom has made no argument for deletion. This is not a merge forum. Suggest tagging the article for proposed merger. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G3. (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Ziade[edit]

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

The article appears to be a hoax as there is no mention of this person on Al-Shaab's website or in any online sources. Even if this footballer were to exist, there is no evidence of notability or any sign that it could satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Giant Snowman 18:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: either a hoax or completely non-notable per WP:ATHLETE. Nothing about him online in English or Arabic. Ruby Murray 06:01, 15 April 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gray (actor)[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Still no sources apart from IMDb, despite being tagged for sources and for notability for two months. The first page of hits from a Google search for "Andrew Gray" "Troy Burrows" consisted of YouTube, IMDb, wikia, several tumblr pages, a site describing itself as "an unofficial fansite", the Wikipedia article, and two Facebook pages. The next couple of pages contained nothing better: no sign of coverage in reliable independent sources. (A PROD was removed by an IP editor, without any explanation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:RS LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No clear evidence of notability per WP:NACTOR and no RS sources. Am open to reconsideration if RS sources are found establishing notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 15 April 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Pandey[edit]

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

Yes, he has achieved one record which is recorded by the Guinness World Records. But this does not seem sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia entry. The subject's blog suggests that his purpose in breaking the record was solely to obtain publicity for Buddha, Mt Everest and Nepal (see http://reversespeller.com/Home/About, linked as a source for his place of birth). Does Wikipedia need an article for every record-holder recognised by Guinness? Article was earlier PRODded as BLPPROD, but does have the one RS of Guinness World Records. PamD 12:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Harsh (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recognition by Guinness World Records is probably enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holding a Guiness record is not really a good claim to notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 19 April 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 Kantar Group. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MySurvey[edit]

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

The listed sources establish that the company exist; but all are trivial mentions. While the company is certainly associated with several notable companies, notability is not inherited and this company itself does not meet the threshold of notability at this time. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is notable enough to stay in wiki page. As "The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index", the most widely accepted index among the United States media, like USA TODAY- Consumer confidence hits highest level since Jan. 2008, businesspeople, and many consumers, is conducted by this company, reference: Reuters, foxbusiness. - User:Lsrpopwiki (Lsrpopwiki • contribs) - 05:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one is questioning that The Conference Board and their Consumer Confidence Index are notable; but, notability is not inherited - ie: MySurvey must establish its own notability. Even if that were not the case, neither link you list even mention MySurvey, and certainly don't provide verifiability that it is used for the CCI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ABCNEWS [3] reference did mention about MySurvey, in the article it mentioned "Sites like MySurvey and iPinion also pay to fill out brand surveys." and it also have the hyperlink to the webpage as well. --- (Lsrpopwiki • contribs) - 07:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the trivial mention I pointed out in the nomination. In total, the article contains five references; I'll spell each one out in more detail:

alexa.com site traffic report for the website archive.org ... presumably this is a typo; but even if changed to MySurvey.com, it's only statistical data
bbb.org report for Lightspeed Research which operates MySurvey.com - has a trivial mention of "Lightspeed Research also doing business as mysurvey.com" and a pair of links
abcnews.go.com article on shopping sites has a trivial mention of "Sites like MySurvey and iPinion also pay to fill out brand surveys" and a link
reuters.com article about an Ad Council Campaign - does not mention MySurvey.com by name, instead indirectly references via the trivial mention "The Ad Council tracking study was an online survey, fielded by Lightspeed Research in June 2012 and June 2013"
usatoday.com article about Super Bowl marketing - no mention of MySurvey.com, instead a trivial mention of Lightspeed Research stating "Nearly two-thirds of 18- to 34-year-olds planning to watch the Super Bowl have smartphones and intend to use them while watching the game, says Lightspeed Research"

None of these meet the threshold of notability listed at either WP:ORG nor WP:N (follow those links to see Wikipedia's guideline on establishing notability). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lsrpopwiki: - As you submitted this article to AfC multiple times, are the page's primary contributor, have not worked on any other unrelated Wikipedia articles, and your handle's "lsr" corresponds to the site's parent company LightSpeed Research, I have to ask about whether Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline should apply? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Kantar Group#Lightspeed Research. Can't see this survey has sufficient notability to justify its own page, but it could be mentioned in the page about the parent company and have a redirect to there. Qwfp (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems an ideal solution to me; similar to how Lightspeed Research already redirects to Kantar Group. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough coverage to establish notability. Some examples: [4] [5] [6] [7] Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those links appear to be blogged opinions, not actually articles about MySurvey, so wouldn't appear to meet the threshold of being reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per Usr:Gene93k. I'm find with it being merely mentioned else where, but no need for it to have it's own article. SarahStierch (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources, as per WP:GNG. Random uncritical blog don't count as reliable. If coverage is found and refs add to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - As with comments above, it fails the GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:46, 21 April 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Twilight League[edit]

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

Amateur league which shows no reliable sources and does not establish notability. Wizardman 15:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 8,000+ hits on Google News archive. That is significant coverage. Alex (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS. "Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number." -- GreenC 17:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. Non notable amateur league.. their are a million like this in the country. Only source is to league website. Spanneraol (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG Secret ^account 23:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Northern Antarctica ₵ 02:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Porn 2.0[edit]

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

May not be notable. Notability tag present since November 2012. HYH.124 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEO. This subject does not in itself have enough notability to justify the existence of an article. If there's anything worth salvaging here, it ought to simply be merged into existing articles on pornography or internet pornography in particular. Ducknish (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a noteworthy topic. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Split and merge. I found three mentions of the term in reliable book sources: Feona Attwood (2010). Porn.com: Making Sense of Online Pornography. Peter Lang. pp. 11–. ISBN 978-1-4331-0207-3., David Glen Mick; Simone Pettigrew; Cornelia (Connie) Pechmann (26 January 2012). Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well-Being. Routledge. pp. 500–. ISBN 978-1-136-69874-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) and Sarah Schaschek (5 December 2013). Pornography and Seriality: The Culture of Producing Pleasure. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-1-137-35938-4.. Arstechnica, cited in the article, is reliable, [8]. Google Scholar shows some use of the term, too ([9]). That said, I am not convinced that this term is the most often used. The term seems to be used either to what is described at Amateur_pornography#User_generated_online_content, or Internet_porn#Video_files_and_streaming_video, and the article is somewhat of a mess trying to talk about those two concepts; not to mention there's some unreferenced spammy content, too. My current recommendation it to split and merge it between the two linked main articles. As written, it seems an inappropriate synthesis of two topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split and merge per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Porn 2.0 should end up being WP:DAB. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a topic of academic interest. See, for example, "Demystifying Porn 2.0: A Look into a Major Adult Video Streaming Website," by Garrett Tyson, et al. Passes GNG. Additionally, this article is a useful navigational device as a de facto "List of...". Carrite (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another piece of significant independent coverage, for the record: Jacqui Cheng, "Porn 2.0 is stiff competition for pro pornographers," ARS Technica. Carrite (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes the GNG per Carrite and what I found among the Google Books hits. [10][11][12][13][14] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely used term among numerous academics and scholars in multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:29, 20 April 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan Thicke[edit]

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

Doesnt meet notability guidelines. Has 2 film credits. LADY LOTUS • TALK 23:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's mentioned 14 times here. Also mentioned six times here. This link is broken but his name is the title. From everything I can see, and I have done some digging, he is mainly known for the being the son and brother of two famous people, and for having diabetes. He has been mentioned several times, but he is always secondary in that coverage, so I feel I would have to say that Delete is the logical conclusion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two of the four sentences in this stub are about his relatives. None of his roles were notable. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 14 April 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. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Turabi[edit]

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

This article has been deleted under other names including Sheikh Abdur Rahman Madani and Abdur Rahman Madani. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Flat Out let's discuss it 09:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing this as no consensus despite all of the keep !votes. Among guideline-based rationales for article retention is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus essentially meeting WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. However, this is countered by guideline-based rationales relative to WP:PERP, in which the subject may not be of historical significance. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Jerome Manning[edit]

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

The crimes of which Manning was convicted were not of historic significance. One of his cases was linked to wider issues (a state court decision and FBI reviews of testimony), but only indirectly, and only for a short period of time. Smallnslow (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERP The crimes of which Manning was convicted were not of historic significance. One of his cases was linked to wider issues (a state court decision and FBI reviews of testimony), but only indirectly, and only for a short period of time.Smallnslow (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion is a copy of this edit of Talk:Willie Jerome Manning#Proposed deletion of this page dated 18:36, 28 March 2014. Replies and additional information should be added below this copied discussion. Regarding editors who do not follow up and endorse or modify their previous statements, AFD closers should use discretion in whether and how to consider these pre-AFD comments. This "closed discussion" section replaces a copy-and-paste of the text of these comments added by the nominator in an earlier edit. @Smallnslow, Anythingyouwant, Magnolia677, and Xoloz: as you all have made comments that were copied into this AFD, you may wish to endorse, retract, or modify your earlier comments. Rather than modifying the text in the "closed discussion" box, please add any endorsements, retractions, or comments to the bottom of this AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed that the article Willie Jerome Manning should be deleted, for the following reasons: Per WP:Perp: An article about Manning would be appropriate only if a well-documented historical event has emerged from the crimes of which he’s convicted. And, to quote WP:Perp, ‘Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.’ Manning’s cases don’t fit this profile.

There’s nothing in reliable secondary news sources to suggest that the crimes of which Manning was convicted were in themselves of historic significance.

Reliable secondary sources covered issues arising from one of his cases at a national and international level for a short period around the date of his scheduled execution in May 2013. These sources reported first the state supreme court’s denial of DNA and fingerprint testing to Manning, and then the subsequent revelation by the FBI/DOJ that Manning’s trial hair and ballistics testimony had been flawed. However, the ‘significant attention’ of reliable sources was only indirectly related to Manning – the focus was instead on the court’s unusual decision and the FBI’s review of hair testimony. Reliable secondary sources have never suggested that Manning had any role, let alone a significant one, in either the court’s decision or the FBI review.

Manning’s case was mentioned again briefly in reliable sources in July 2013, when the FBI admitted that his case was one of 27 death penalty cases to have suffered flawed hair testimony; again, there was no suggestion that Manning had played a role in this – he was mentioned only as an example. Apart from this passing allusion, Manning’s case hasn’t persisted in reliable sources beyond the news coverage at the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion for reasons given, but if any of the information would fit well into other relevant Wikipedia articles then it ought to be put there instead of being completely removed from Wikipedia. Maybe there isn't any such information, but it would be good to check.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Manning committed two double homicides, which may pass the WP:CRIME threshold that "the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual". But Smallnslow made a good point, and I'm not 100 percent convinced it does pass this threshold. If the article stays, however, it should not be about Manning, any more than the 2012 Bain murder-kidnappings was about Adam Christopher Mayes. The article should summarize these terrible murders, and only notable court proceedings regarding Manning--using sources other than court records--should remain. Maybe call the article "1992-1993 Manning double homicides". I too feel this crime should not be lost from Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contested I have contested this proposed deletion. The proper thing to do now is to take any further discussion to articles for deletion. Anyone desiring deletion should follow the procedure listed there. Xoloz (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All murders are terrible, but there are huge numbers of them worldwide each year. For instance, ‘Globally, the total number of annual deaths estimated by UNODC to be homicides in 2010 was 468,000.’ http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Global Study on Homicide, Executive Summary (P.9). While a particular murder or murders understandably horrifies the community in which it’s taken place, this horrified reaction must be occurring regularly across the world. Though each case must feel dreadfully noteworthy to the community affected, it/they would need to stand out from other murders in some way to be ‘noteworthy’ or ‘historical’ enough for a Wikipedia entry.

In Manning’s cases it’s been suggested that it’s the two double murders that stand out. But the motive given by prosecutors for each of the double murders was theft. If someone plans to steal, and doesn’t mind killing in order to do that, presumably he kills anybody who obstructs his purpose. So I assume if there had been one or three people in the way, the murderer would have killed that one or those three if he had the wherewithal to do that. Two, then, is a random number in each case. There’s nothing premeditated, unusual, noteworthy or historical about both incidents involving double murders – it’s just coincidence. Changing the name of the article wouldn’t alter this.

Regarding possibly moving this elsewhere, there’s a section in the Wikipedia FBI article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation on ‘Controversies’, but nothing about the Hair Review controversy. In the existing subsections under ‘Controversies’ there’s only a very small amount of text for each. So even if a Hair Review section is created in the future, Manning could conceivably warrant a mention, but no more than that – his case is only one example of many. Smallnslow (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion for reasons given, but if any of the information would fit well into other relevant Wikipedia articles then it ought to be put there instead of being completely removed from Wikipedia. Maybe there isn't any such information, but it would be good to check.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion and censorship of Wikipedia. This is a notable case that has been written about in most of the major media of the United States. The case has led the FBI to rethink its policy on issuing evidentiary opinions. That aspect of this alone makes it a notable case. The crimes in question are extremely unusual -- who else in the history of the world has been convicted of two separate double murders? The case has been discussed in RS secondary sources over a long period of time, now exceeding 21 years. The editor who has proposed this deletion is a SPA (single purpose account) who has only edited Wikipedia for purpose of pushing a POV on this particular article. Since he/she can't dictate the article, he/she wants it deleted. That is censorship, plain and simple. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a nationally important case that has been written about in the Atlantic Monthly and New York Times, among other RSS. If there really are problems with the article as alleged above, they seem to be minor enough to be dealt with by editing rather than deletion. Shamrockshake (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being "written about" in the NYT in and of itself does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This case has been discussed nationally and inter(?)nationally. When a case is discussed nationally, it becomes notable. This is different from a murder that is only written about in the local paper and then forgotten when the trial is over. 205.197.176.130 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsing my earlier archived comment: I've proposed that the article Willie Jerome Manning should be deleted, for the following reasons: Per WP:Perp: An article about Manning would be appropriate only if a well-documented historical event has emerged from the crimes of which he’s convicted. And, to quote WP:Perp, ‘Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.’ Manning’s cases don’t fit this profile.

There’s nothing in reliable secondary news sources to suggest that the crimes of which Manning was convicted were in themselves of historic significance.

Reliable secondary sources covered issues arising from one of his cases at a national and international level for a short period around the date of his scheduled execution in May 2013. These sources reported first the state supreme court’s denial of DNA and fingerprint testing to Manning, and then the subsequent revelation by the FBI/DOJ that Manning’s trial hair and ballistics testimony had been flawed. However, the ‘significant attention’ of reliable sources was only indirectly related to Manning – the focus was instead on the court’s unusual decision and the FBI’s review of hair testimony. Reliable secondary sources have never suggested that Manning had any role, let alone a significant one, in either the court’s decision or the FBI review.

Manning’s case was mentioned again briefly in reliable sources in July 2013, when the FBI admitted that his case was one of 27 death penalty cases to have suffered flawed hair testimony; again, there was no suggestion that Manning had played a role in this – he was mentioned only as an example. Apart from this passing allusion, Manning’s case hasn’t persisted in reliable sources beyond the news coverage at the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to comment made by Bundlesofsticks

Being written about in most of the major media of the United States doesn’t make Manning’s first case notable, as this degree of coverage lasted only a few days. The longer-term reporting in local news outlets reflects the length of time Manning’s cases have been going through the courts rather than anything notable about Manning or his cases.

You’re mistaken in thinking that Manning’s first case led the FBI to rethink its policy on issuing evidentiary opinions – this must have happened much earlier. On July 11 2012, the Washington Post reported http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/justice-dept-fbi-to-review-use-of-forensic-evidence-in-thousands-of-cases/2012/07/10/gJQAT6DlbW_story.html “The Justice Department and the FBI have launched a review of thousands of criminal cases to determine whether any defendants were wrongly convicted or deserve a new trial because of flawed forensic evidence... The undertaking is the largest post-conviction review ever done by the FBI. It will include cases conducted by all FBI Laboratory hair and fiber examiners since at least 1985 and may reach earlier if records are available… The review comes after The Washington Post reported in April that Justice Department officials had known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of potentially innocent people but had not performed a thorough review of the cases.”

Presumably if the FBI was worried about the mistakes that its agents had made in the past, its policy on issuing evidentiary opinions for current and future cases must already have become more stringent at this point (i.e. nearly a year before Manning’s scheduled execution).

A sentence about the FBI hair testimony was removed from the lead by Magnolia677. If you felt this aspect made Manning’s first case notable, why didn’t you replace the sentence?

The United Nations’ figure of 468,000 homicides worldwide in the year 2010 (see my comment on 29 March) suggests the probability that globally there have been tens of millions of homicides since the process of convicting began. Thus statistically the likelihood of there being no other double murder convictions must be infinitesimally small. In any case, what’s notable about 2+2 murder victims, as opposed, for instance, to 1+3, or 3+2, or 1+2+1, or any other combination of numbers? Unless something of significance generates or influences the numbers involved, the numbers are just that – numbers. And in Manning’s cases the motive of theft would have produced a random number in each case (see my comment on 29 March).

Re PoV pushing - this is being done by the editor who has accused me of doing this, not by me. For instance, this editor resisted and protested the change from ‘committed murders’ to the more neutral ‘been convicted of murders’. And he/she resisted the replacement of text linked to a court record to make what he/she called a pertinent point, whereas I followed WP:BLPPRIMARY and substituted a secondary source rather than another court document. I’ve been attempting to make this article more neutral, not pushing a point of view.

Re censorship – I’m not guilty of this, but it has been attempted by the editor who has accused me of it (this editor at one stage suggested that I should go away and look for an easier article to edit). I've simply followed WP:PERP when evaluating Manning’s claim to notability and historic significance, with reference to reliable secondary sources. All editors are entitled to contribute to the discussion, and I welcome any valid points that are made.Smallnslow (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shamrockshake: Per WP:PERP Coverage in US national media lasted only a few days - it didn’t persist beyond contemporaneous news coverage and it didn’t devote significant attention to Manning’s role (the focus instead was on the court’s decision not to allow DNA/ fingerprint testing, and on the FBI announcement re flawed hair and ballistics testimony). No amount of editing would alter this. Smallnslow (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Purge all content sourced to primary sources; as it stands the article is an WP:Attack page with not a single positive statement. Delete because I'm not seeing anything notable about this. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to be funny? The page is about somebody who killed 4 people. Should it have a paragraph about his hobbies or the pet turtle he had as a kid? 205.197.176.130 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting adding basic biographic details in a neutral manner. For an excellent example of how this can be done, see Hitler. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I heard about this case on the news and read WIkipedia to learn the background. I really think that's what Wikipedia is for and think removing useful articles is nonsense. 12.219.81.130 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Readers need to feel confident that Wikipedia articles are neutral. This article isn’t. It uses primary sources, and its reporting of secondary sources is selective and biased. You would have got more accurate information from reliable online news sources. Smallnslow (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2014 (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 04:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the main complaint about the article is improperly sourced statements, why not either add reliable sources or delete the statements in question. Any editor can do that. There is no need to delete the whole article. Bellczar (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue being discussed isn’t improperly sourced statements – it’s whether Manning’s notable or of historic significance as in WP:PERP.Smallnslow (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the complaints here seems to be that the article is not properly sourced. that is not a reason for deletion and easily fixed. Especially in a well covered case like this.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is at AfD because of Manning’s lack of notability, not because of its poor sourcing. Smallnslow (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the notability of this case is clear. Widespread news coverage. Perhaps the article could be rewritten, but there is notability here. Bali88 (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Widespread news coverage occurred only for the period around Manning’s scheduled execution. This doesn’t amount to notability per WP:PERP, which requires ‘sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role’. Smallnslow (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as extremely notable, As above it needs rewriting but other than that I see no valid reason to delete. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PERP: I’ve explained at length why Manning is not notable. You haven’t said why you think he is. Smallnslow (talk) 22:23, 16 April 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lars R. Trodson[edit]

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

Non notable author. specifically: (1) His novels are almost unknown and probably self published eagles fly Alone is in 2 libraries a/c Worldcat, tide Turning is in none at all. (2) No evidence of any of his films being of the least importance--they were shown at festivals, but he only prize is a specialized prize at a festival so minor it does not even have a WP article, (3) I see no evidence that the plays were ever produced at a venue significant enough to even get into Google.

Google shows an absence of third party significant references--the only material is minor notes by local sources and his firms own press releases. Editor in chief of Manchester Union Leader would be notable ; "an editor" is not.

Not suprisingly, this appears to be an autobiography. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I have to agree with the nominator - at this point we do not have third-party reliable sources which would establish notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although for a different reason: even if everything could be sourced, this is a local reporter and editor of a seasonal, small-town paper, which has a market smaller than the whole of Washington County, Rhode Island. He previously wrote some plays that were produced locally, and was a middle-level journalist at a small city newspaper. How is that not run of the mill? How is not just a resume? Bearian (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable author. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:UNOPPOSED is enough at this point for me, but the reasoning above seems clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:34, 21 April 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. Lack of independent sources not resolved, claims of mentions by other authors not backed by references to non-trivial discussion of the subject, therefore the policy based reasons favour deletion. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Goddard[edit]

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

This is a biography that has no independent sources, although it has lots of primary ones. My internet search did not turn up any of the significant and independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Since all his categories list him as a writer, I also also looked to see if he meets WP:AUTHOR, but I didn't find anything there to support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources and no indication of notability.131.118.229.18 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Books shows a lot of mentions about him by other authors. -- GreenC 05:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you can point out sources that have significant independent coverage of him (and please add them to the article). I found a few passing mentions, but nothing to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you can see there are more than a few by looking in Google Books, past the first page of results. "Significant" doesn't mean "long". -- GreenC 17:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my search the first 3 pages are all his writings. Then I find his name in single sentence mentions which seems like the classic definition of "passing mentions" and not "significant independent coverage". Show me some significant coverage and I'm quite willing to change my vote--I merely happened upon this article and noticed that it had no independent references and that he seemed to fail to meet the criteria at WP:NAUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the first few pages are his works but then there are a significant number of mentions of his name in various works including some direct assertions that he is someone of importance to some people. "Significant coverage" can mean anything including a significant number of mentions by other authors. -- GreenC 19:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is "someone of importance to some people". So far, I'm not convinced--can you give some specific examples? The ones I looked at were not enough to convince me of his notability. These should also be added to the article before someone else comes along and reaches the same conclusion I did. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just need some convincing. Until I came across this article I'd never heard of him so I have no vested interest one way or the other. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa, I think this person is notable and the sources are sufficient. -- GreenC 21:09, 6 April 2014 (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 03:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per GreenC. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is entirely sourced to his own writings, and when a reasonable search fails to find secondary WP:RS sources talking about the subject, that's usually a good sign the subject isn't notable enough for an article. I request that anyone who wants to keep it give us the secondary sources that we've missed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mentions appear to be passing in nature more than anything substantial enough to show notability or build an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, no significant discussion in RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:31, 16 April 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. The SPAs aside, the consensus here is that this is simply WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice is inferred against recreation at a later date when notability can be verified through reliable sources. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Cerrito[edit]

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

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

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

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

No indication of notability, only local news coverage. Nothing helpful found via Google. Huon (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Seems the type who might become notable soon, but possible future notability can't carry the day today. BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject should not be deleted. After reading guidelines about notability, subject meets them. Also, subject seems to be multi faceted. His references, NJ.com,

Are not "local coverage" NJ.com is the state of New Jerseys, news website and subject has been covered in it more then a few times (via google.) Mario Cerrito should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikePlant1 (talk • contribs) 08:06, April 1, 2014 (UTC) — MikePlant1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Read references and they are legitimate per criteria of notability on wikipedia. Has worked with notable Renoly Santiago on project. I vote keep it, seems there will be a lot more to read about him in the future as well. With a notable start and valid references its ready. Lot more to this guy then pages like this have.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Ellis_(author)CaliforniaWave (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC) — CaliforniaWave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not sure what Huon was talking about, I read this and it seems notable. Subject has clout. Keep.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RedNecker13 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 9 April 2014 — RedNecker13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete without prejudice. With respects to the SPA "keeps" above... yes, Mario is just beginning to have mentions in reliable sources,[15][16][17] but per WP:GNG (and WP:PEOPLE) an article on Mario is simply a bit TOO SOON. Notability is dependent on a longer career, more prominent projects, a cult following, or far more coverage. Let his works get out there and gain wider coverage and the article might well be worthy of a return. But not quite yet. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:05, 15 April 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME Maps[edit]

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

Notability of this software is not established. The only non-affiliated, non-self published source that I could find is a post on Phoronix that doesn't establish GNOME Maps "as significant in its particular field". There's also a SoftPedia article, which suffers from the same problem: it says GNOME Maps got improved, but not that it's actually notable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy KEEP. It is part of the GNOME and was merely introduced with GNOME 3.10. But maybe we should delete the article, that took me 10minutes to create and then wait until somebody re-creates it again, when the software will be considered notable enough... sure. Keep up the "good" "work". User:ScotXW^t@lk 11:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason to keep is an instance of WP:INHERIT: being related to something notable does not imply sufficient notability to warrant a separate article. Also, please stay civil and don't take this personally. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:14, 29 March 2014 (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 03:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is WP:SNOW instance. GNOME Maps is rather new application – it actually has preview status within GNOME, which is local analog to beta. Given that GNOME is one of most widely deployed UNIX desktop environments, most likely this application will recieve its share of reviews and other sorts of public attention rather sooner then later. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning goes directly against WP:CRYSTAL, and I don't see how the snowball clause applies here. There's enough precedent for deleting pages about very minor computer programs, including open sources ones and including ones that are part of larger packages that do meet the notability guidelines. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL only talks of article about future events, why did you mention it? Anyway, I added several references to several news items and even two reviews, so this article may be considered barely satisfying WP:GNG. – — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being part of GNOME doesn't make this particular application notable (and GNOME has 100s of such apps). The only references around are mostly list of new GNOME apps where maps is listed as one of them. --CyberXRef^☎ 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of selectmen of Lakeville, Massachusetts[edit]

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

Political office in a town of 10,000 that has not received significant coverage outside of the local newspaper Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a list of political officials from a small town is not likely to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - while normally I would delete such a list as trivial, I'd like to see if this could be fixed and proven to be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 NAB Challenge[edit]

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

2014 NAB Challenge does not meet notability guidelines

Delete Prior to 2014 the NAB Cup was a stand-alone pre-season competition which concluded with a Grand Final, with a trophy and prize money awarded. In 2014, the NAB Challenge was changed to a set of practice matches with no winner and no prizes. This gives it no stand-alone notability as a competition, no continuity with previous pre-season competitions, no lasting historical significance, and is therefore an WP:AVOIDSPLIT violation. I go one step further to say that the primary content (the match results) is inconsequential judged on either a stand-alone basis or in the context of the 2014 AFL season, and therefore in my view it should be deleted as a whole from both 2014 NAB Challenge and the parent article 2014 AFL season, and that the most suitable location for pre-season results is the individual club season pages (e.g. 2014 Carlton Football Club season). However, I would say that a valid compromise would be to merge the results into 2014 AFL season, and format the match results in a collapsible table that defaults to the hidden condition; that leaves the content accessible but reflects its lower importance. Aspirex (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Australian Football League pre-season competition has changed formats a number of times over the years. Perhaps it will change back (in which case this will be notable as the odd one out), perhaps it won't (in which case this will be notable as the first season of a new format). It doesn't matter, really - regardless of our personal opinions as to the worth of the competition, it received significant coverage in independent sources. There was a clear distinction between the coverage of the NAB Challenge and the practice matches - for example, statistics were published for the former but not for the latter. St Anselm (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has significant coverage, is part of the set of pre-season comp articles, so it belongs in it's own article for categorising rather than hiding in the main season article. Individual club season articles don't exist for all clubs. The-Pope (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I dispute your assertions that the series has "significant coverage". If you refer to WP:SPORTSEVENT, under bullet point No. 4 it makes reference to determining notability of a game or event as "widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game". In the case of the NAB Challenge, all coverage has been routine; therefore the existence of coverage alone does form the basis of notability. Aspirex (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2014 (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 03:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 14 April 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 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Wolf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aaron Wolf

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

This article does not meet, in my view, the notability guidelines for people. It is true the filmmaker won some minor awards, but not notable ones. The articles and citations do not appear to be significant nor are they focused on Aaron Wolf. If anything, the focus of the articles and awards are on the production company and the films themselves, and none of those seem to themselves meet the notability criteria either. The article appeared to be more significant when the same person was presumed to be also running for congress, but that is actually a different person with a similar name. Backfromquadrangle (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was going to say redirect, but I changed my mind. I'm sort of neutral over this. I can see redirecting it to Guest House, but there is some coverage for him in relation to one of his other films as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This film makes does not pass notabiity guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2014 (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 04:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I have to say this is the least popular scientific term I've run into on Wikipedia, but the keeps have the strongest evidence for their case. Perhaps this ought to be a redirect, but we'll leave that to the editing process Drmies (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eidonomy[edit]

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

1) The term "eidonomy" is practically non-existent outside of this wikipedia page, a google search barely produces 2000 results worldwide few of which can be considered trustworthy sources and many that use this same wikipedia article as source.

2) The reference from "museumstuff.com" (???) isn't a reference at all is it? the page contains zero information, it makes no sense at all to quote it as a source.

3) The article also contains debatable information (based on established definitions that have been long accepted by the scientific community) such as the statement "anatomy referring to internal morphology" when most serious medical textbooks do not specify this at all. I.e. human skin is an external organ and still considered part of human anatomy. Definitions of anatomy: ^[1] ^[2] Furthermore a distinct division between "external morphology" and "internal morphology" is dubious and lacks specificity.

In any case, I found different quotes:

The eidos or eidonomy is defined by Bateson (by opposition to ETHOS or ethonomy) as the norm of thought of a structured cultural group, i.e. the type of mental operations governing that group's common structure of thought.^[3]

which of course has nothing to do with external morphology, but also:

Morphology breaks down into two main areas: 'eidonomy', taking stock of the external appearance of an organism, and 'anatomy', which looks at the structure of a creature's internal organs ^[4]

and this:

Other specialists regard morphology as a study of only external body structure, and anatomy as a study of internal structure, separate from morphology (e.g. Zakhvatkin, 1986). ^[5]

and yet a different definition:

The description of insect skeletal system (eidonomy) is, as in most of the recent textbooks, too short, but clear and instructive.^[6]

but once again, considering anatomy as the study of internal organs is something that the vast majority of scientific community does not contemplate (hence the few/obscure results on a global search) and the discrepancy of definitions (see quotes) is the proverbial nail in the coffin. In my opinion the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roastpenguin (talk • contribs) 12:24, 20 October 2013‎

Comments I think the article may just be poorly written, which doesn't necessarily warrant its deletion. I'll admit eidonomy is an obscure term to me, but it surfaces occasionally (~85 hits on Google Scholar), is mentioned in current works and seems to be rather popular with European authors in reference to taxonomy and nomenclature. This quote from Dubois & Jean Raffaëlli 2009 may help: "Taxonomy consists in two rather different subfields that use largely different methods and concepts. The first one, the ‘‘science of species’’, was called microtaxonomy by Mayr & Ashlock (1980) and eidonomy by Dubois (2008b,d). Its duty is to define, recognize and describe taxa of nomenclatural rank species." See also Tancoigne; et al. (2011). "Insights from Zootaxa on potential trends in zoological taxonomic activity". Frontiers in Zoology. 8 (1): 5. PMC 3074549. So perhaps eidonomy is equivalent to the alpha taxonomy, the describing of species as entities, regardless of evolutionary studies. Dubois apparently gives a better definition in a 2008 French paper, but the term precedes that. It's possible that entomologists use the term somewhat differently than other taxonomists, maybe akin to "gestalt" or simply external morphology. Pending a better, clearer resolution, the article could be potentially be merged with alpha taxonomy and/or anatomy. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic doesn't seem to exist outside its wikipedia page. Jordanee155 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above account has been indefinitely blocked as a sock abusing multiple accounts to influence a (different) AfD. A pattern suggests this !vote was made to hide the editors tracks and true intentions as a SPA. -- GreenC 16:40, 3 April 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 March 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The scholar results clearly show that the claim this term does not exist outside Wikipedia is false. There may well be some variation in how the term is used, possibly even two different meanings, but this book gives a definition virtually identical to the Wikipedia definition. In any case, variation in meaning is not in itself grounds for deletion of an article—it might, however, mean that we should have two articles. Dubois discusses the subject at length under Taxonomic categories so this is definitely capable of expanding into more than a dicdef. It may not currently be a fashionable means of categorising taxa, but it is still encyclopaedic and its scholarly status can be explained in the article. Spinning Spark 13:25, 5 April 2014 (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 04:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Animalparty and Spinningspark. GScholar shows the term exists in the academic literature and as noted, the term is discussed in depth. An article on this topic can be developed, which is good enough for a keep. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, as it may be better discussed in the context of various defns of taxonomy, but I see no reason to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think combining with a different context would be more appropriate for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XjiGsawyouthx (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 April 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 Stanton, Gloucestershire. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheppey Corner[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Search for sources found nothing significant that mentions this place (other than Wikipedia mirrors, and estate agent details). It doesn't appear on a Google Image search. Fails WP:GNG. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that the nom's claim that there are no sources except mirrors and estate agent details is frankly rubbish given that it's a listed building and there is a link to English Heritage's listing for it (which I added myself before it was nominated). I think we can take that as a significant and reliable source. Note also that it now appears to be called Pixie Cottage, although it's not entirely clear whether "Sheppey Corner" applies only to this cottage or to all three cottages in the listing, including Little Sheppey House. I'm not yet convinced of its notability (Grade II buildings haven't been considered to be automatically notable in the past), but let's not have spurious claims. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, a Grade II listing is not regarded as "significant". Such listings are also giving to paving stones, lamp posts and bollards. We generally consider if it is relevant to mention them in a parent article, but would need something more significant for a stand alone article. If there are enough listed items in one place, then an article can be usefully made out of them, such as here: Regency_Square,_Brighton#Architecture. Do bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory - listing all Grade II buildings is best served by English Heritage given that they list all buildings built before 1700, regardless of their interest to a general reader of an encyclopedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Such listings are also giving to paving stones, lamp posts and bollards". What on earth is your point? Yes, some "lamp posts and bollards" are Grade II listed (no paving stones to my knowledge, although there might be); so are hundreds of thousands of actual buildings, many of them very old (and there are certainly gateposts that are Grade I listed - not sure about either lamp posts or bollards!). But my point was that you claimed there were no significant sources, which is clearly not true. EH listing is a significant source. I'm not saying the article doesn't need more to be kept, but misrepresentation of the facts is never a good idea in an AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At most Weak keep -- The English Heritage listing is certainly a source, but there are too many Grade II listed buildings for WP to have articles on them all. I think that should be limited to Grade I and II*. Anotehr alternative might be to merge the article to an article on the village Stanton, Gloucestershire, which is quite modest in length. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked the listing on english heritage and googled, nothing there, not notable. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the village article, per Peterkingiron. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2014 (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 04:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stanton, Gloucestershire. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 14 April 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real Shia[edit]

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

Another one of Striver's fiefdom of synthesized articles, there doesn't seem to be any usage of this term in Sunni or Shi'a websites or literature and in fact I'm even having trouble finding it used on polemical discussion forums. There is no proof that this term is even real and in fact it isn't even technically a neologism because nobody uses it. I think this topic is just something the creator made up. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed that there is a version of this article on Persian Wikipedia. It was created over a year ago by a sockpuppet with a rather long rap sheet. There is a single reference but it's to some site advertising for Microsoft products, I think? Either way, the fact that the version in another language is also bogus does sound fishy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There would need to be significant discussion of the topic in secondary sources, not just a mention or two in primary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fact it has only a reference which is a microsoft advertising product. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 15:04, 18 April 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw Mudge & Company[edit]

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

Excruciatingly detailed history of a company which does not appear to have achieved any significant notability. Extensive citations give a false sense of notability, but most "citations" simply link to the website of a mentioned company, but do not actually verify any information in the article. Searches for actual information about the company turn up the standard business directory listings, and little else. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been extensively rewritten since nomination. It now describes a company with little to differentiate it from every other company in the world. Extensive citations are mostly to archived copies of the company's own website, or their advertisements in publications. Some valid references, but not enough to indicate real notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the article nor any of the references tell us why we should care about this company in any way. It doesn't even look like it's been written by a competent publicist, as there's not even an attempt to address notability. It almost looks like it's just a small company where someone has said "we should get ourselves listed on Wikipedia". We're not Yellow Pages, though. If there is a later claim of notability, it'll be easy to re-create this article, but right now it doesn't belong here. RomanSpa (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find only routine announcements about this company, predominantly around its 2006 sale. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:22, 14 April 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhunn(2014)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find evidence of this short film meeting WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gongshow talk 01:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Harsh (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs performed by Sissel[edit]

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

Originally prodded as "Unreferenced, doesn't even distinguish where performed, on the top of a mountain or in a bath, therefore unencyclopedic." Prod removed and links added to Youtube so I guess the songs must be recorded and the title is misleading as well. Richhoncho (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There does not appear to be coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant such a list. Gongshow talk 07:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unreferenced fan-cruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:07, 14 April 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secos[edit]

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

I could not find any sources supporting the existence, let alone notability, of this OS. Article was previously nominated for deletion back in 2004: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SECOS, although the decision does not appear to have been closed. Article was speedy deleted in 2007 as a likely hoax. ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced software article of unclear notability. A search turns up no RS coverage. Article was created by a now-blocked SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Project is dead since 2004. Source code is gone; Server on fire. Single reference is a forum entry which may be conjecture since no one replied. Could be a hoax. No way to prove it. scope_creep talk 22:09 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It should be remembered that in cases like this a WP:BOLD redirect per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a viable alternative. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel-en-le-Frith Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Primary schools have been held to not meet basic notability guidelines. D P 21:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author has claimed "the first forced church school academy conversion", I will await to see the significance of that claim. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary schools are almost entirely non notable. The school appears to be in "special measures", for those who don't know this means its currently so badly run government inspectors have either removed the headmaster or school governors, or perhaps both. If the school doesn't improve it may be shut. No refs or indication of notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such schools always have basic notability by virtue of the inspection reports which are detailed, independent and reliable per WP:SIGCOV. In this case, the school was a pioneer in the use of the internet, as detailed in Handbook for Beginning Teachers and Technology tools in the social studies curriculum. Andrew (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every school has an inspection report so by that logic every primary school and indeed nursery is notable. Szzuk (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Why is this a problem? Does it bother you that we cover every lighthouse and railway station too? Andrew (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about we cut to the chase - there are no refs. Are you going to do anything about that? or continue in your vain quest to list every primary school. Szzuk (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete By longstanding consensus primary schools are not notable in and of themselves. If news about this school's fate were to go well beyond local coverage some other outcome might be justified. Mangoe (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no general consensus about schools as attempts to establish a guideline like Wikipedia:Notability (schools) have repeatedly failed. Instead of a failed guideline, we have the policy WP:PRESERVE which indicates that we should prefer alternatives to deletion. Andrew (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a primary school survive a deletion discussion, which is as good a demonstration of a consensus as is needed. I would also point out that in the USA some school districts have pretty detailed reports and statistics, and some do not; it does not make the former notable and the latter unremarkable. The data is ephemeral anyway. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Szzuk. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and additionally it's an academy converter of which there are thousands now. Nothing notable about this one. Atlas-maker (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information Despite the attitude of several Wikipedia editors there is, and never has been, any such ruling that Primary Schools are automatically non-notable. Also, the comments relating to the status of the school according to the current government is of no concern one way or another. The simple ruling is whether enough third-party coverage of this school can be located and applied to the article. (Of course, as Wikipedia is now ruled by peer-supporting deletionists this article won't survive, and would not survive if the school had been mentioned in a hundred global reports.) DiverScout (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite my POI above, and what reads to me as the false statement of the proposer that Primary Schools automatically fail notabilty, a Google search fails to find much third-party supporting material for this individual school, and Primary Schools do not have the automatic notability afforded to Secondary Schools. DiverScout (talk) 16:34, 17 April 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 Oakland Athletics minor league players. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Buschmann[edit]

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

Run of the mill non notable minor league player. Fails WP:Athlete and WP:GNG. Also not notable enough for a re-direct. Yankees10 22:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oakland Athletics minor league players. Why have those pages if you're not going to use them for what they are for. Alex (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not for guys like this. Good prospects and 40-man roster players should be on those pages not non-prospects and journeyman like this dude.--Yankees10 23:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oakland Athletics minor league players. I would generally agree with what Yankees10 said, but in this case I support a merge since Buschmann is currently playing at AAA. Northern Antarctica (₵) 22:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah he's in Triple-A, but he is also 30 year old journeyman. Like I said above, the minor league articles should be for top prospects and 40-man guys.--Yankees10 22:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless that's a policy, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't see much harm in including AAA players on team minor league pages. Northern Antarctica (₵) 22:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. There is no need to delete, he is in Triple A after all. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:32, 16 April 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burke Ramsey[edit]

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

I speedy deleted this as a7, a minor figure in the case, but perhaps I was too hasty. I still don not think it appropriate for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for your speedy reply, DGG ( talk ). I think that Burke Ramsey is worthy of inclusion because he was one of only four immediate family members involved in this case and theories about which of the three killed JonBenet abound to this day. He has been mentioned in dozens of books (too many to list on his page) and every major news source in the world. Actually, it is hard to find articles on JonBenet where he is not mentioned. With his parents both having articles, I don't see why Burke should be any different in that he is a separate person with theories involving him acting alone or in conjunction with his parents. The media was saturated with every aspect of the family's lives, including Burke, and to this day he appears in the media. I think it's worthy of a separate article because he has gone on to do other things that wouldn't be pertinent in the Murder of JonBenet Ramsey article (going to college, adult work career, dating, etc.). --Kbabej (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or potentially redirect to Murder of JonBenet Ramsey if we really must. I can't see how this isn't exactly the situation envisioned by WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. Going to college, having a career, and dating do not establish notability. The only element of the subject's life that has attracted coverage sufficient for Wikipedia's notability guidelines is his status as a family member of a murder victim (and the requisite subject of theories that he might be involved). The crime notability policy I linked states clearly: "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." And here, we're dealing with a subject that was never indicted or arrested or anything other than having been the topic of speculation. That's not good enough for BLP. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just a member of the family. reddogsix (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree completely with SO. Also, like reddogsix implies, notability is not inherited. Classic WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. And finally: first, do no harm. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A regular person living their life these days, their only notability is being the brother of a murder victim and they refuse to take it. Definitely BLP1E concerns, and I really hate any page that has to Facebook stalk (here using someone else's article, but still, hate it) in order to find out what happened in their life currently. As usual with those who really don't want an article for events that happened to them, no redirect. Nate • (chatter) 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Classic WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME indeed; I'm less than sure the articles on his parents shouldn't be merged into the main article as well. Sideways713 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (I've already voted above). Good points, everyone. I am wondering, then, why JonBent's parents both have articles? How are they different from Burke? Her father wrote a book, but it was about the murder and the aftermath. And her mother has done nothing notable other than being involved with the murder. Kbabej (talk)--18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, to begin with; AFD strives to evaluate each article more or less on its own merits. Aside from that, Patsy's Miss West Virginia title is at least a second even contributing to her notability (if probably insufficient on its own). She is also not subject to the stricter sourcing expectations of biographies of living persons, having died in 2006. I'm less certain that John's political campaign is adequate; I'm not motivated to redirect or nominate for deletion, but I don't think I'd argue for retention. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rumors, conspiracy theories, and gossip don't count toward establishing notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason that all the important things on this person can not be covered in an article on his sister.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 19 April 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican-American women in the U.S. from 1900–60[edit]

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

This is a research paper, with thesis and supportive references. This cannot possibly be redone into an encyclopedic article. We could definitely have an article on the history of mexican american women, but this is not it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't really see a reason why we would need to have an article about this time frame. Certainly an article about Mexican-American women would fly on wikipedia, but I can't see why 1900-1960 is distinct from any other time frame when it comes to this demographic. Perhaps the research done could be used in a more general article about M-A women. I haven't dissected the article, but I worry that it may contain original research as well. Bali88 (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per WP:TNT. While the topic is probably worthy of inclusion (though I agree that the specific time frame seems unnecessary), this reads like an essay and would need to be entirely rewritten. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is an ESSAY, but it has a lot of citations for what appear to the WP:RS. Its current tone is not encyclopaedic. Userify, so that the author can try again? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 20 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aion (company)[edit]

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

Advertising. No notability given. Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 04:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that this carpet retail firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Company. Harsh (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boy George concert and DJ tours[edit]

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

Contested speedy, notability concerns / promotional in nature. Article is not cited in any way shape or form. Tawker (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I will quote what I was told when I wrote something pertaining dates of things on one of my articles, "Wikipedia is not a news service or bulletin board" --KaraokeMac (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

inclusion in Wikipedia - despite the fact that Wikipedia administrators love to delete others' works --HurluGumene (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just too detailed. Imagine how long a page would be with every Boy George concert, DJ set, festival appearance, club PA, etc, from the early 1980s to the present day. Notable concerts (i.e. those which attracted significant press attention, beyond listings/previews/reviews in local press) can be mentioned in his article, or possibly in a spin-out article, but a listing like this is too much, for the same reason that WP doesn't contain complete lists of sports results or TV listings. It belongs on a fansite, but not here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "just too detailed". There are other WP articles detailing concert tours. For instance, see The Rolling Stones concerts!!! Besides, the page would start with Boy George solo career i.e. in the late 80s, not the early 80s! See: Boy_George#Solo_career:_late_1980s. Boy George is not Culture Club and Culture Club is not Boy George -- HurluGumene (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cleaned up the table, but the article is just a table and no prose so there is no way to know what makes them notable. Also, there are no reliable sources, so therefore it fails WP:GNG. Aspects (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank you Aspects for cleaning up an utter mess of an article. Lack of prose or references can be fixed. What can't be fixed is an article that would be made up of over 1,000 entries in a table. There are other articles that contain concert tours, but they are not one gigantic list and are of medium to major people/bands. Bgwhite (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - We don't need to table EVERY single gig he's been to, Thanks Aspects for making the article much more decent and readable too :) . -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:01, 16 April 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lascody[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This article was nominated just over a half decade ago and was kept on the grounds that he was on an MLS team, but the guidelines clearly state that you have to appear in a fully pro league match (or a competitive cup match that feature two fully pro teams) or in an international match for a senior national team. This player hasn't done it, therefore the article still fails. – Michael (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lascody and Wadsworth per nom. Keep Asante which seems to pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Keep Asante, which seems to satisfy WP:GNG. Doug Lascody doesn't even have a source backing up the statement that he played on an MLS team. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Asante due to multiple coverage in reliable sources, at least enough to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - coverage of Asante violates WP:ROUTINE and is not the "significant" coverage required by GNG. Giant Snowman 18:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Players have not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so failNFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. @TonyTheTiger: and @AmaryllisGardener: may wish to refresh their knowledge of WP:ROUTINE, the sources provided for Asante, are all either general match reports / transfer talk, for which there is established consensus that these do not count towards GNG, or are WP:PRIMARY sources relating to his own academy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenix down (talk • contribs) 08:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as fails GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:58, 16 April 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, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Night Fury[edit]

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

A character from How to Train Your Dragon (film) where no other character has a stand-alone article and has no listed voice actor. Enough coverage is given in main article, so fails WP:PROTAGONIST ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's actually not a "character" (that would be the dragon "Toothless") but a species of dragon of which the lead dragon character is one. I've cleaned the article up a little bit so it can at least be considered properly. I can see an argument being made that the character might be notable (multiple films, other media, toys, video games, etc) but the fictional genus of which that character is a member isn't notable. The equivalent to Night Fury/Toothless would be Wookiee/Chewbacca though in that case both are notable. Stalwart111 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Harsh (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stalwart111. I could see if it were a character but this is not the case. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 14 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Chinese export recalls[edit]

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

This page is basically dead. This page has not been edited since it was created and it does not seem like it could be expanded upon. 173.24.165.50 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completing nomination for IP - no comment, for now, on the AFD itself. Stalwart111 03:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No useful information. It's basically a list with only one entry, which already has an article: 2008 Chinese heparin adulteration. -Zanhe (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although being "dead" according to the proposer's definition is not a valid reason for article deletion under Wikipedia guidelines, as Zanhe says - it's already covered elsewhere. If other product recalls come to light (which is unlikely given that this happened more than five years ago), the article can be resurrected. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 08:13, 15 April 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) 09:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Silverhawks[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, especially since they aren't part of any league Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nice logo! Too bad its for an organization that hasn't done anything yet. Someone could userfy if they want, if the organization ever plays any games. Or gets a roster. Or a coach.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Paul McDonald & that was funny! Fails WP:NHOCKEY & WP:NSPORTS. ///EuroCarGT 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally speedy=deleted this article as being non-notable. Rather than deleting it again I prefer that community consensus decide; the article appears unchanged from the version I deleted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly per WP:HAMMERTIME. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:07, 20 April 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) 09:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Dugré[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unsuccessful election candidate, which is not a claim of notability that gets a person past WP:POLITICIAN. The only other substantive assertion here is that he wrote one article in a magazine, which isn't enough to get him past WP:AUTHOR either. I'm willing to withdraw this if a stronger and better-sourced claim of notability can be made, but it's a delete in its current state. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails our notability guidelines for politicians and authors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a perenial candiate for office that rarely recieves over a single percentage point is a clear indicator of non-notability. Hasteur (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anatomy

[2] ttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anatomy

[3] ttp://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631170488_chunk_g97806311704888_ss1-2

[4] ttp://books.google.it/books?id=noTzNDFyLpMC&pg=PT156&lpg=PT156&dq=eidonomy&source=bl&ots=hRmRH35T3a&sig=-D-yrPYNK57AqYI7Ht0h1L8mOXQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=msRjUtvaNYPNtAag14CQDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=eidonomy&f=false

[5] ttp://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/eng/morph.htm

[6] ttp://books.google.it/books?id=y-AaAAAAMAAJ&q=eidonomy&dq=eidonomy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KsdjUvmHFs7Hswb7-oFY&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]