Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 August	20 August >

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. Wily D 09:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Clarke (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a political activist and perennial candidate, without sufficient sourcing to get him past WP:GNG in lieu of his failure to satisfy WP:NPOL — with the exception of an Elections Ontario table of political party leaders which constitutes directory coverage, once I stripped some references for being deadlinky or youtubey the only ones left were of the "publication and date" variety without the actual article titles for verifiability purposes. And with only six of those, even, the volume of coverage needed to get him over GNG simply isn't there. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Numerous reliable sources can be found through a cursory google search. (For example:[1][2][3]) With another six sources in the article, I don't think the subject fails WP:BASIC.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed candidates are not notabile.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs work, for sure, but the notability seems to be there. Right now it reads like a list of sentences rather than an article, so that needs to be fixed. Also, it would be good to find a few reliable sources that aren't the Toronto newspaper. However, if those can't be found, it may not be a problem because he is definitely a local celebrity. (If there were a Canadian Wikipedia, and this would be a no-brainer.)LaMona (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not delete deadlinks (youtube is another matter) per WP:LINKROT#Keeping_dead_links: "A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead. With a dead link, it is possible to determine if it has been cited elsewhere, or to contact the person originally responsible for the source." Using the wayback machine, I was able to retrieve at least the first reference nominator deleted: KEVIN CLARKE:He's concerned about the quality of drinking water. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meetss WP:NOTABLE with multiple news coverage. Harrison2014 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wily D 09:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Girodes

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

Contested PROD. Primary candidate; does not appear to meet notability guideline at WP:POLITICIAN. Kinu ^t/_c 23:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, other aspects do not meet WP:GNG--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, also removed Jon Girodes (candidate), a redirect to the main article--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. It could be WP:TOOSOON if he were to get elected but Republicans generally don't get elected where he lives. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, WP:NPOL dictates that unelected candidates do not qualify for articles on Wikipedia just for being candidates; if they haven't already established enough notability for other things that they already qualified for a Wikipedia article before they became candidates, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough. I swear to gawd I'm going to make this into a template so I don't have to keep typing it out every time a campaign manager posts their boss's campaign brochure. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but right now it's a big fat delete. Note also that this version is basically an exact copy of the article that was posted a few days ago at Jon Girodes (Politician) by User:Jon Girodes himself, and was speedied A7 within minutes — so in addition to all the other things wrong with this, add conflict of interest to the pot too. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I figured there were some SPA/sock issues here. If anyone cares to investigate, feel free. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bearcat's reasoning above. Solely running for an office does not suffice for notability. Upjav (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gregory (cricketer)

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

promotional and not notable -- CSD A7 by another ed. declined, but I might have accepted it DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale given. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not eligible for speedy, as there are at least two claims of notability. But he doesn't cut sufficient muster for WP:ATHLETE or WP:ENTERTAINER. Pburka (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:GNG. I agree with DGG - probably should have been A7d. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has already been speedied previously as an A7. AlanS (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So, any article that has been speedied should always be speedied? McKay (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should if it was unchanged. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins make mistakes. Recreation of a speedily deleted article isn't grounds for speedy deletion on its own. Pburka (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the circumstances. If one is correcting a 'mistake' then that needs to be unambiguously established and not just be a judgement call. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not fail A7, but probably fails WP:GNG, mostly lacking "significant coverage". McKay (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not A7, but a pretty clear failure of WP:GNG. If appearing on TV a couple of times is good enough to make one notable, then even I qualify; quite a ridiculous proposition! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

starting that article now, you been be on the wireless as well, and in local newspapers. :) Gnan garra 07:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been moved to Matthew Gregory (cricketer). If the result of this discussion is a delete Matthew Gregory (real estate agent) will need to be deleted as well. AlanS (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and fails guidelines for cricketers as well, no 1st class games either in England or Australia and his most notable achievements as a cricketer are for a club that doesnt fulfill the notability requirements... as a RE agent was the best possibility but again not sufficiently notable for that either though the couple of tv appearances would assist in establishing notability in the future should there be some significant occurance in the future. Gnan garra 06:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from a cricketing perspective he fails WP:CRIN as has made no first-class/List A/Twenty20 appearances. The rest fails WP:GNG. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:CRIN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CRIN and, separately, WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Notability Guidelines and article looks like a promotion of some company.--Param Mudgal (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looked like it had a possibility of a weak keep with better sourcing and stylistic rewrite, but the notability clearly isn't there and OTHER real estate agents named Matthew Gregory come up before this one when you search him. Cricket career also fails to be notable as well. Upjav (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this band, and cannot verify the Rolling Stone article or the entry in Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. Gongshow talk 00:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per WP:N. The details about Soulscraper in McFarlane are found in the iNsuRge entry link. Whist they are on the trivial side here McFarlane's Encyclopedia is properly researched. A large list of his source material can be found in the Encyclopedia and it is from these sources that McFarlane would have compiled his entry. It is safe to presume that Soulscraper is covered in the reliable sources used. They did receive coverage in Beat Magazine and/or inpress (McFarlane used both) but I don’t know how well archived those publications are. The Rolling Stone (Australia) article can be verified by reading issue number 483, dated May 1993. The Rolling Stone article was quoted in a book which I believe was Sound Tracks: Popular Music, Identity, and Place By John Connell, Chris Gibson [4]. I can't see the page in question due to google books restrictions, perhaps someone else can. If that's the right book then it also verifies the Rolling Stone article. It doesn't help that they were around in 91-93 from when online coverage is scarce. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duffbeerforme - David Gerard (talk)
Keep per duffbeerforme – shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Thanks for all your hard work on this and for changing my mind. Boleyn (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wily D 09:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shelter to Home, Inc.

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

I could not establish that this is an organisation which meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has also been tagged for notability for over 6 years, and no other editor has established it yet. Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find sources and therefore cannot establish notability. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will userfy as User:Chris troutman/Shirleene Robinson per editor's request. Deor (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shirleene Robinson

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Userfy There's coverage of her same-sex civil union and she's mentioned in some third-party academic publications but she doesn't appear to meet criteria. This article, written by an SPA, is an eyesore as is and I'd like the closing admin to add it to my userspace for rehab. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She comes no where near meeting notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the material I could find when searching for her were books she was involved in writing or journal articles she had written. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. AlanS (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added four references (independent reviews of her books) from HighBeam Research, which indicate that she meets WP:PROF #1 and #7.I am One of Many (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have citation impact to meet the WP:PROF that way. Reviews are nice but few and in some cases limited to highly specialized and local outlets. Holdings are minimal. I could not find enough to meet WP:GNG either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- one book (probably her thesis recycled) and editing a collection is not enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Coghlan

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

An autobiography that fails WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. Listed sources fail WP:RS. A Google did not yield enough to ring the N Bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find anything in reliable sources independent of the subject to support WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NBOOK. Disclosure: I have followed this here from a brief discussion in WP:FTN. As noted there by User:Dougweller, there is a potential COI in that the article was created by User:Ronancoghlan. Location (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - web search top results shows book store links and other social links, however I did find a National Library of Australia link related to his work [5], however not much else I could find that is reliable and provides significant coverage on the subject. ///EuroCarGT 20:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable autobiography. --Seduisant (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to meet any of our notability guidelines. My own search turned up nothing substantial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. and above. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Didn't turn up any RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikimedia Foundation. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Bart de Vreede

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

This is a perfect example of navel gazing on Wikipedia. Whilst de Vreede is the chair of the board of trustees, this does not carry any inherent notability. The only two sources present in the article has one being a directory type listing at his place of work, and the other is a miniscule profile in a directory type listing on Newsweek. He just isn't notable NoNavelGaving (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct This same information is available on the Board of Trustees page. In fact, this page has been re-directed to the BoT page at least twice, which is what seems appropriate. LaMona (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Wikimedia Foundation, as it is done for Vrede's predecessor Kat Walsh. Can't find any in-depth coverage of Vrede in independent, reliable sources, only a few mentions in passing. So fails GNG and agree with nom. that his position carries no inherent notability. Iselilja (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above --Belladonna2 (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect AAA3AAA (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Meta where WMF stuff belongs and delete from Wikipedia. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Contributions of initiating user indicates that he is likely yet another User:Russavia sock. Mangoe (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As has been noted in similar AfDs, a WMF chair is not an inherently notable position, so unless there is strong reliable sourcing that comes along, this person does not satisfy the project's notability criteria. Also, if hay is to be made about who the nominator may or may not be, then I'll be willing to take over the AfD as my own. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why would we redirect it to the WMF article, rather than to the article of the company (if it has one). It's still navel gazing to some extent. 175.106.60.100 (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per above. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Business Intelligence

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

Another Microsoft Gold Certified Managed Partner that fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established per WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No inherited notability from Microsoft. None of the sources are reliable, and the majority are from the company's own website. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 20:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. and above. Maybe even Speedy Delete A7. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails organization notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage. Doesn't suffice for notability of a corporation. Upjav (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Schmidt (Gynaecology and Obstetrics)

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

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

Non-notable person. No indications of any significant achievements or independent coverage of this doctor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a professor, fails WP:NACADEMICS. In addition, much of the page seems directly translated from the second source, which could raise copyright issues. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPA heavily at work here: Ab.bekhit. Nothing academic; no scientific discoveries. Probably a fine doctor, but not notable. LaMona (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This article has been repeatedly recreated and I can't find any evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what's going on here. The article creator - who so far has not edited anything else - initially created this as a copyvio in German, and it was accordingly speedy deleted. This time it was built up entirely in English, with the sources appearing as external links, but the last time the creator removed the AfD template, he also substituted copyvio German text. The article was tagged again as copyvio but I have removed that speedy deletion tag - having just rewritten and expanded the article, and noticing that the duplication detector was simply picking up the titles of the newspaper articles referenced. All that said, while there are now three newspaper articles cited, they are all about him, and it is immaterial to notability that they are all in German: two have the identical text and they are in two regional newspapers. I have been unable to find additional sources except reports originating from the university, such as this and this. While he had a distinguished career including both effective administrative service and furtherance of important research, is still a sought-after expert, and has received honorary doctorates, I do not believe he qualifies as notable under our guidelines. If someone else can find further independent sources, please ping me, I'd like to be able to save this. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two newspaper articles are not identical: one was published at his 65th birthday, one his 70th. There was significant copvio from them to the article until I rewrote it--it was not picked up because it was copyvio from the Google translation. Normally we treat honorary degrees from important universities as proof of notability, and I think we should cntinue to do so. It's a clear and distinctive marker. As for underlying notability, the head of a major hospital is a notable physician. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't think it meets the relevant notability guidelines. I wish it did though. Salt as well, please.Forbidden User (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has been moved to Werner Otto Schmidt. Reviewing admin should remember to delete both articles should that be the outcome of this AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wily D 09:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amy ruffle

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

This is a re-creation of Amy Ruffle, which has already been deleted (WP:PROD) by Huntster and Monty845. Subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I could only find mentions here, here, and here. I don't think it's enough for an article. If anything this ought to redirect to Mako: Island of Secrets. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for a recreation of a previously deleted article and an unsourced BLP. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above, just deleted from expired PROD, total of three PROD deletions, unsourced, minor WP:ACTOR (other "mermaids" have a much more significant acting history) so also WP:TOOSOON--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. I think this article does not qualify for Speedy Delete A7 which has a lower bar than WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. AlanS (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment page has been moved to Amy Ruffle. AlanS (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Full protection for a year to prevent recreation seems like enough to me. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mako: Island of Secrets and then Protect the redirect to prevent recreation, until a suitable draft that shows she unambiguously meets the WP:GNG can be provided. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freeda Foreman

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

Non notable female boxer. Only coverage is because of her father (George Foreman) and notability is not inherited. No significant coverage and fails WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Does not meet WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 19:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Seems not to comply with WP:NBOX.AAA3AAA (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Adjei Jr.

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

Currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL (lots of prominent junior teams and notable relatives but no senior appearances or notability in own right) and probably should have stayed in userspace for a while longer. COI issue with the creator, but more of a crystal ball problem than outright spam. Koumz (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 19:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 19:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 19:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 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) 21:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he has never played in a fully professional league and doesn't appear to have any special coverage to satisfy WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wily D 09:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Dela Cerna

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

Don't believe she meets WP:NBADMINTON. Has only won medals at college level competitions. Lacks RS - the only ref is her college Gbawden (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. All I could find are Facebook pages and the aforementioned college mention. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that it is too soon for being notable according to Wikipedia standards. AAA3AAA (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of coverage in reliable sources is a big issue here. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 15:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arshiya Lokhandwala

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

Fails WP:GNG, It has been more than 4 years when this article was created and there are only 1,800 results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Weak Delete I only found one news source with a mention of the name and cannot establish that it meets WP:GNG. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I found one primary source (you could count it as a secondary) that establishes notability, and it says that see founded a museum: http://curatorsintl.org/collaborators/arshiya_lokhandwala MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article lacks significant coverage and fails the general notability guideline. CutestPenguin (Talk) 05:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - curators of private art galleries rarely qualify, and this appears to be no exception. I had wanted this speedied as spam, and the worst has been removed. Now that the trashy stuff has been removed, it's obvious that the subject's notability was tenuous. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't really see a claim of notability in the article, nor the in-depth coverage of her and her works (not just announcements of shows by other artists at the gallery she runs) that would be necessary for WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of vedic astrology software

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

Non-notable list Jayakumar RG (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Non-notable stand-alone list that has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. The only reference is a commercial site that, surprise surprise, sells vedic astrology software. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable aspect of a fringe theory. There is already Astrology software to discuss the general concepts of astrology software (which should also probably be deleted since the sources are crap and out of date, but whatever), Second Quantization (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but Hinduism isn't a fringe theory. That doesn't make the article any more notable though :; Philg88 ^♦talk 20:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTPURP as list of non-notable software. If the one bluelink in this list is actually about notable software (which is highly questionable; PROD away, folks), it can merely be mentioned in Hindu astrology (to which Vedic astrology redirects), though note that there is (unsurprisingly) no section in that article just for software. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 20:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable stand-alone list SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list consisting of entirely non-notable entries, and lacking independent refs. The one piece of software mentioned that has a wp article is non-notable, itself lacking any independent refs.Dialectric (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and Non-notable stand-alone list.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Injustice in East Boston

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

This is written like an essay or opinion. Is this notable enough for an encyclopedia entry? Gbawden (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Articles based entirely on original research have no place on Wikipedia. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is entirely an essay. The contributor is a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this is, and I invite her to put this up on a blog, where it'd be a better fit. Ravenswing 15:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ravenswing and Gbawden.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV, OR, SYNTH, SOAP, essay/blog. It's pretty much axiomatically true that poorer people tend to live in the less salubrious parts of town - there's nothing particularly remarkable about the same phenomenon occurring in Boston. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV title. That there has been pollution or environmental shenanigans in a place does not necessarily imply the overarching thesis of this original essay. Perhaps if there were coverage akin to Love Canal about systemic abuse, then some sort of NPOV title could be hammered out and the subject approached, but this ain't it. Violation of the prohibition against OR, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oibviously an essay or original thought. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above a clear POV ,OR essay.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Noting that while there is a fair bit of opposition, it largely originates with those who have a clear COI regarding this subject (thanks especially to User:Dharmadhyaksha for some good research). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Blogging ka Itihas

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

Following books, all authored or edited by Ravindra Prabhat, claim no notability and fail WP:NBOOK. All PRODs were contested by edit summary "This article is supported by the Indian literature workgroup". I propose deleting all these books and magazines listed below. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove, I think above articles are within the scope of WikiProject Books and has been rated as start & Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.Mala chaubey (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and redirect to Ravindra Prabhat. None of the publications shows individual notability. This is a bit of a walled garden, seemingly created to promote Prabhat. I would suggest deleting Template:Ravindra Prabhat as well, but maybe that's not possible in an AfD. --bonadea contributions talk 11:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! I would submit the template for deletion post this AfD's result. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As per Dharmadhyaksha and fails WP:NBOOK .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete all This is true that all authored or edited by Ravindra Prabhat, but this is also right that all articles are supported by the Indian literature workgroup.Naziah rizvi (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That an article has been tagged with a particular Wikipedia workgroup template does not imply that the subject is notable. Anybody can tag any article with any workgroup template; the articles under discussion have all been created by the same two editors, and the same users have tagged the articles with the India/literature workgroup templates - in some cases they mistakenly tagged them as high-importance, which was rectified by other editors later, but none of this means that the books are notable. --bonadea contributions talk 15:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SIR, I respect your skills and knowledge. This is correct that the above mentioned articles had been created by two users. But I totally disagree with your quest that the books are not notable and this had been done by mistake. History of Hindi blogging. This is the one and the only book concerned with Hindi Blogging. which is popular and likewise there are other many more books.Mala chaubey (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, It appears that this isn't a single book, but a trilogy, and I was able to find coverage enough to show that the series as a whole passes notability guidelines. If we were looking at each book individually then they may not necessarily pass, but as a series they seem to be notable enough.Naziah rizvi (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Naziah rizvi: Which 3 of the 10 articles nominated form trilogy? And if you have found enough coverage, please present them here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews don't have to be for the trilogy as a whole (3 novels, 3 none fiction, 2 poetry book & 1 magezine). They can be for the individual novels (Taki Bacha Rahe Loktantra, Prem Na Hat Bikay and Dharati Pakad Nirdaliya) and still count towards notability for the series as a whole. It's actually incredibly common for us to have an article for a series as a whole, especially if the books might not otherwise have enough coverage for each work to have a page to themselves. It's very, very, very common to keep a page for a series and I've seen countless AfDs close with "redirect to series page" because the coverage for all of the books does equal out to notability for the series as a whole. Just because the articles here cover specific books instead of covering the entire series doesn't mean that the series as a whole isn't notable because they don't review the entire series. Individual reviews still count towards notability for the series as a whole. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you- I think that individual reviews still count towards the overall notability for a series and there's no precedent to say that reviews have to mention the entire series in order to count towards notability for a series page. What you're suggesting here (that series page has to have series coverage otherwise coverage doesn't count) hasn't been part of the policy to date. I'll mention it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, but I'm almost 100% positive that individual reviews count towards notability as a series.Naziah rizvi (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copying arguments word for word from other deletion discussions doesn't actually make your case stronger, especially since a lot of the content in the post does not apply here! I think all of us appreciate how difficult it can be to participate in discussions in a language that is not our native language (I'm not a native speaker of English, myself) but please try to use your own words anyway, because using other people's words only confuses the issue. The three books you mention do not appear to form a trilogy - from what I understand from the descriptions and the sources, they are three stand-alone books by the same author, which is not the same thing as a series. And it seems that neither the individual books, nor the books as a group, have received significant coverage in multiple independent sources. If you are aware of other sources (that talk about the books, not the author), please post them here. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 14:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To get inspired by some other ideas and scripts is not wrong. In my view I had tried to express the same in my own words. I don't think that the series should be deleted. If you have any type of suggestion please do suggest. All Books does have some coverage in Hindi and English language sources. I think the series is notable.Notable topic with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Needs improvement but that is no reason to delete.Naziah rizvi (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not wrong to be inspired, but it is important not to pass other peoples' opinions and experiences off as one's own. The suggestion is still to present the significant independent coverage of the books which you have mentioned, rather than simply stating that it exists. Since the articles lack that sourcing, there is no way to tell that the books are notable. I have put in a bit of work in the articles to eliminate inappropriate text and links, so I know that there was never any such coverage, and there still isn't. (Sources that simply mention the books by name do not constitute significant coverage. Sources about the author do not show notability for his books. Library records do not show notability.) --bonadea contributions talk 07:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to equipment maintenance, Library records do not show notability. Please wait, We expect them to be available again by the evening of Sunday, August 24. Thanks. Naziah rizvi (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, library records do not show notability at all. That a book is catalogued by the Library of Congress shows that it exists, but not that it is notable. Please take a moment to read up on what the notability guideline for books actually says. --bonadea contributions talk 08:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Naziah rizvi for reliable views. Some serious work has been done by myself and others to improve related all above articles. It now meets notability and neutrality standards.Mala chaubey (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Naziah rizvi: The Library of Congress link you provide above gives nothing but just that the book exists. Please read WP:NBOOK and point-wise state which notability criterion these books meet. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha:Completely pointless argument. Wikipedia is not paper. Just because something references is not notable to someone from subject, doesn't mean that it's not notable. I trust your judgement on the sources so that confirms my hunch that it's notable.Naziah rizvi (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I & other users completed a cleanup. All this article needs is a good polishing and copy edit and it is in good shape. I feel all hindi & some english references which are in the article are good enough. This is most likely notable.Mala chaubey (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you two don't understand it. Carry on! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No evidence of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. This is actually perhaps a case of cross-wiki spamming and WP:COI.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 15:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notability evidence of Hindi Blogging ka Itihas: (1) olcc worldcat(2) open library (3) qsensei scholar (4) oclc classification (5) oclc classification details (6) openlibrary details (7) History of Hindi blogging (Google Book)(8)Review in Hindi: ब्लागिंग पर रवीन्द्र प्रभात की अनुपम पहल Mala chaubey (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notability evidence of Hindi Blogging : Abhivyakti Ki Nai Kranti:(1) Hindi Blogging : Abhivyakti ki nai kranti in Sensei scholar (2) Library of Congress Catalog Record (3) olcc worldcat (4) openlibrary details (5) GOOGLE BOOK (6) News regarding book release in South asia Today Mala chaubey (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mala chaubey: Only the links 8 in first list and 6 in the 2nd list perhaps can be of any value in determining if or if not these books are notable. Rest of the links only show that books exist, which no one is denying. I am bit surprised that you are an admin on a well running Wikimedia project (Hindi Wikipedia) and you still lack sufficient knowledge of notability guidelines. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 12:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vigyani: in my opinion, this is a totally farcical nomination. because Should be analyzed all book one by one.Mala chaubey (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with saving the community some time by grouping a bunch of similar articles into one AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ADMIN ON HINDI WIKIPEDIA!!! Am shocked. I should also run for adminship there even if I make many Hindi spelling mistakes. And btw, I agree with you Vigyani. These few accounts and IPS have been using WP for promotion. No wonder why that author Ravindra Prabhat has articles on 48 Wikipedias; many of which are edited by this particular user. I will make sure that most of those are deleted. I have already nominated a huge chunk on Hindi Wikipedia for deletion and am going to keep a track of them over here. Do join me if you wish to. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)All the articles are related, and are created and largely worked upon by the same editors and using same/similar sources. In such conditions it is common to nominate a group of articles together. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 12:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all If consensus is if all the above articles should be removed without delay.Mala chaubey (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Clearly a walled garden and almost certainly a form of spamming. We need sources that discuss the books in some detail, not catalogues and passing mentions. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
check http://www.amazon.in/gp/aw/d/9380916140/ref=mw_dp_mpd?pd=1 http://www.southasiatoday.org/2011/04/new-book-hindi-blogging-expression-of.html?m=1 in this image x-cm launch the book. so notibalty of this book is true.Amt000 (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A source that writes the kind of cripple English that this one uses is not something I can take very seriously... When I go to the homepage, this looks like a kind of blog. In any case, it does not look like a professional publication. --Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the value of the source, one brief account of the book launch comes nowhere near the multiple non-trivial publications required - this is a trivial mention, not an in-depth article, and even if it had been published in the Guardian it would not be enough to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what about this http://www.amazon.in/gp/aw/d/9380916140/ref=mw_dp_mpd?pd=1 . amazon should notibale if notAmt000 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is a book seller, being listed there is absolutely not a sign of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI & Promotion: User:Mala chaubey and User:Naziah rizvi have been accused of promoting Prabhat, the author of all these book, on Hindi Wikipedia. A long discussion on Hindi Wikipedia is over here (sec 36 to 41). (Most of it is also in English.) Prabhat's son-in-law Aalok Bhardwaj, an actor and also at AfD now]] is interviewed for South Asia Today by a certain Nazia Rizvi. This source has been used on en.wiki mostly in relation with Prabhat. In such case, should SAT be considered reliable for Prabhat related article? One such reference is being provided here at this AfD to claim notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of the accounts used for Promoting Ravindra Prabhat, his writings, blogs, sayings, etc across English, Hindi, Urdu, Arabic, Ido, Esperanto, Japanese, Vietnamese and many more WMF Wiki projects. --Muzammil (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 15:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Lee (actress)

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

Unsourced article of unclear notability. Article fails WP:BASIC. IMDB is not a reliable source per WP:IMDB Wikicology (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did search for sources, and didn't find coverage of her. Note: this is a distinct figure than Maia Lee, the Singaporian singer, for whom coverage does exist. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one movie listed in the AFI database (Dear Lemon Lee). She is not listed in the cast. – S. Rich (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wily D 09:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JGramm Beats

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

The subject lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. He also does not meet WP:MUSICBIO in any way. STATic message me! 08:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that subject doesn't meet any part of WP:MUSICBIO. No secondary reliable sources about the subject. Appears to be a vanity article. Rockypedia (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Not notable yet. Does not fulfil requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. Therefore I suggest deletion. AAA3AAA (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing much here to establish notability. Any sources that might be reliable don't really speak about the subject, and the rest appear to be unreliable. I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 14:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Deane-Johns

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

fails WP:PERP, no long term notability. not the first nor last Australian to be convicted for drug trafficking. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above - fails WP:PERP as this person is not notable for anything other than this crime, and the crime itself is neither unusual nor noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historical event. Is also on the border of failing WP:BLP1E - Australians convicted of foreign drug trafficking are not perhaps entirely run-of-the-mill, but outside of death penalty cases they are not so noteworthy as to satisfy the 1E criteria. It is (mildly) interesting that the Federal Justice Minister would make a representation to his WA counterpart regarding a prisoner transfer, but that is more relevant to the David Johnston article than to this one. Euryalus (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have removed a bit of material as a consequence of links being broken. Given that there are three sources left that essentially deal with one event, as per nom I believe this article should be deleted. AlanS (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This might not be much of an issue since the article is being considered for deletion and it may be a BLP issue, but a reminder: according to Wikipedia:Link rot, "Do not merely delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer." --Paul_012 (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say my removal of the material had consensus since it occurred a week ago and no one's reverted. Aside from which, the material that was removed really didn't say a hell of lot more anyway. AlanS (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Boxing Hall of Fame

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

Basically unreferenced except for its own website. No other indication of notability. Website does not give an address, and vaguely refers to LA Athletic Club, but LAAC webpage gives no mention. Google searches give WP mirror info. Webpage for the WBHoF show a photo of a home, but nothing more in terms of location. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only primary sources and questionable notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by OP – one link is fixed and another added. IMO the 2008 information in them is noteworthy, but the info itself is not enough to establish notability. – S. Rich (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article consists almost entirely of a list of members without a single reliable independent source. Papaursa (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one claim to notability (ie. being recognized) is unsourced.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khanjar: The Knife

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

per WP:GNG NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 13:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference is an IMDb entry. Per WP:RS/IMDB: "IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged."--Rpclod (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: Pardon... but in actually, IMDB is used in this new article only as an allowed external link and not as a reference. But yes, even with their staffers having oversight and vetting of user-submitted information, IMDB is generally considered unreliable as a reference... but mostly due to a lack of editorial transparency. BUT for released films it offers information that can take our searches for sources away from IMDB. WP:BEFORE through WP:INDAFD gives us results for Khanjar: The Knife (the film) Chander Sharma (the director) and Saroj Khan (the writer), so IF sources are available for improvement, notability would be found through their availability, not their use. Time now to go looking. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially unreferenced with anything other than press releases or directory entries. Wasn't able to find anything of substance on this film, at least in English. If it turns out there are foreign language sources, then the article can easily be recreated. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Deane-Johns

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

fails WP:PERP, no long term notability. not the first nor last Australian to be convicted for drug trafficking. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above - fails WP:PERP as this person is not notable for anything other than this crime, and the crime itself is neither unusual nor noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historical event. Is also on the border of failing WP:BLP1E - Australians convicted of foreign drug trafficking are not perhaps entirely run-of-the-mill, but outside of death penalty cases they are not so noteworthy as to satisfy the 1E criteria. It is (mildly) interesting that the Federal Justice Minister would make a representation to his WA counterpart regarding a prisoner transfer, but that is more relevant to the David Johnston article than to this one. Euryalus (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have removed a bit of material as a consequence of links being broken. Given that there are three sources left that essentially deal with one event, as per nom I believe this article should be deleted. AlanS (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This might not be much of an issue since the article is being considered for deletion and it may be a BLP issue, but a reminder: according to Wikipedia:Link rot, "Do not merely delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer." --Paul_012 (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say my removal of the material had consensus since it occurred a week ago and no one's reverted. Aside from which, the material that was removed really didn't say a hell of lot more anyway. AlanS (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudology

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

Possible hoax. I can't find any refs for the Cloudology Institute or a Patrick Reed related to the term. Also, the study of clouds is nephology. Article flat out fails WP:GNG if it's not a hoax. Ish dar ian 05:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudology isn't just the study of clouds, it's the art of photographing and then studying the clouds. It's a very new and contemporary field. There isn't very much on the web about it because it's small and relatively unheard of. And another reason you may not be able to find find anything is just because they don't pay for google hosting (it's a no income field and really more of a hobby). I have a cooy of patrick reed's Cloudology if you can't find one online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesfankk (talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Jamesfankk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also, adding to what janesfankk said, you seem to think that the CIA is a very large scale thing- it doesn't even have a building. It's more of an organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudophile (talk • contribs) 13:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Cloudophile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

These two are very correct. Cloudology isn't a field of science that people enter to make money. There is almost no money to be made. Cloudologists simply have a passion for photographing clouds and examining them. "Cloudology" by Patrick Reed is not readily available online, but I too have a copy in print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Cloudsofband (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong delete due to lack of coverage of the field in independent reliable sources. There's no sign of any coverage in newspapers, magazines, scientific journals, etc. The only source anyone seems to mention is Patrick Reed's book. Since he's held out as the leading expert on the field, he can't verify his own field's notability. Since no other reliable source stands to show the notability, this topic should not have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Frank and myself are also published authors on the subject in our online journals. I can provide other sources than Patrick Reed's "Cloudology", his is just the most notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The official citations will be up later this afternoon. I am at work and have no way to get them up right now. Please give me at least until 3 pm CST to have them up, as that is when i'm on my lunch break. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The problem should be solved...moving the little numbers to the appropriate places — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "official citations" are all to blogs at the blogspot website. As a rule, nothing hosted at blogspot is a reliable source. I don't see anything here to make these exceptions. Far from the problem being solved, this only reinforces my perception that this subject is not notable and should not have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, C. Fred. I completely understand what you mean by not seeing BlogSpot as a reputable source. However, BlogSpot is merely being used as a place to post these publications, as they are not available on the market. If you'll note that BlogSpot isn't an author or a publisher, and merely a host, I think you'll understand better And BlogSpot is not being used as a source, the documents on the BlogSpot page are the sources

One of the three purported blogs was created today. The other two don't exist. Is there anybody else who thinks this should be speedy deleted under CSD A11, material that has been recently made up? —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two blogs were created today to display the sources you were asking me to provide. I'm putting this in caps not because i'm angry but because I feel that nobody understands. THE SOURCES ARE THE DOCUMENTS ON BLOGSPOT NOT THE BLOGSPOT PAGE ITSELF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the sources are essays that your colleagues wrote last year. I've tagged the article with {{db-madeup}} as a result. —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dead links are typos, fixing now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband (talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have 10 Cloudologists in my neighborhood and 3 of them even work at my office. I don't understand how "phantom rings" are considered legitimate but a field of study I have dedicated a portion of my life to isn't — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudsofband (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as either WP:CSD#A11 or WP:CSD#G3. Considering the WP:SPA nature of the keep proponents in this discussion, I'm beginning to smell as WP:SOCK. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this isn't a hoax, it's a good approximation of one. The Cloudology page history says it was created TODAY. The blogs were reportedly created today. Maybe one should let the ink dry a bit before creating a WP page? LaMona (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad someone's got a copy of Patrick Reed's book, because Amazon hasn't. In fact, the only ghits (two) are to do with this article. People have been photographing clouds and studying then since cameras were capable capturing images of clouds. Nothing new there. Blogs are not reliable independent sources. Whether or not someone has made up the term 'cloudology', there is no sign of notability. Someone on the talk page says that it is "small and relatively unheard of". That is, it's not notable - by our standards. Our field, our ball, our rules. Yes, we WOULD tell a student of Watson to avoid writing the article because of conflict of interest WP:COI, and they couldn't use any private knowledge not yet published because of our policy on original research WP:OR. Hell, we'd even tell WATSON not to write the article himself (WP:OR and WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI). Peridon (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I can wait for "the ink to dry a little bit" I suppose. But just because the blog is new doesn't mean the term or the field "Cloudology" is new. Cloudology just hasn't had a reason to be on the internet until now. We figured to help raise awareness we should start a Wiki page. The blogs were created to move the sources online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahafalagian (talk • contribs) 21:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was also a national decision on part of the CIA, we took a vote to create a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahafalagian (talk • contribs) 21:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So shall we add blatant promotion to the reasons to delete the page? —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:N and WP:OR. Specifically, WP:SPIP. Feel free to remake this page when it's discussed by reputable, independent sources. mol uɐɯ 21:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will remake this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudophile (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Review of the arguments set forth show quite a bit of debate on whether or not the subject is notable. After considering both sides, I found that most of the deletion !votes indicated lack of notability due to lack of reliable sources, and the keep !votes indicated there may be more reliable sources and notability than once thought, even providing links. As such, I think we're at a consensus deadlock here, and I would recommend that some real work be put into this article to flesh it out and add some of the sources conferring notability to the article. Otherwise, I can see this article being speedily renominated and this discussion happening all over again. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 15:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Martial Arts Games

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

This is a 3 sentence article with no indication of significance and no independent sources. Jakejr (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims of notability are not supported by references. As a "top martial arts event" held over several years there is surprisingly little coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to question the claim of being a top martial arts event when the only sources are primary. Papaursa (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The city newspaper of Richman Canada talks about it. [6] Read far more information at [7] which says "The International Olympic Committee has officially granted Patronage for the 2014 TAFISA World Martial Arts Games." They are a member of TAFISA [8] Dream Focus 07:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 06:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage. Even the sources mentioned above have only 1 independent source and that's an announcement in the local paper about the upcoming event. Mdtemp (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limited to primary sources, page content is limited by length and vagueness, and doesn't show the significance of this event. Upjav (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was initially reviewing this for close but after reviewing Dream Focus's statement, I conducted my own WP:BEFORE search and came to the conclusion that the event is notable. To avoid super-voting, I am adding my argument to the keep camp. I would like to point out this is being described as an inaugural event and is set to take place on September 3-7 -- it hasn't happened yet. However, we cannot ignore the fact that there is significant coverage on the teams being sent; looking through a SET there are hundreds of results covering teams being sent [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. The Richmond Review reported, "[the event] will showcase 700 athletes from 30 countries around the world.". For me at least, this indicates a very large scale competition. I would also like to point out that much of the debate would perhaps represent surmountable problems in sourcing or the article state -- I do acknowledge the notability concerns as well though. Mkdw ^talk 15:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has happened before [15], just not as as part of TAFISA. [16] Dream Focus 17:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware. I repeat myself, "this is being described as an inaugural event". You literally provided the source that stated, "The Association for International Sport for All (TAFISA) is joining forces with the Richmond Olympic Oval Corporation on the inaugural TAFISA World Martial Arts Games Sept. 3 to 7". This further highlights my point that stating it's occurred in the past and has not received significant coverage only proves the rationale that in the past it was not notable. Now that it's part of the TAFISA and essentially a different event, there is an argument for notability now. Mkdw ^talk 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As martial arts events go, 700 competitors is not that large. I'm sure that there are plenty of articles in local papers about competing individuals, but I don't think that shows the competition is notable. The event has been run since 2006 so if it's truly a globally significant event I'd think it would be easy to find plenty of sources over the cousre of 9 annual events.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The event previously was not part of the TAFISA. Additionally, per WP:EVENTS, an event does not need to be "globally significant" to be considered notable. My rationale for the coverage on the teams was to demonstrate WP:DIVERSE. The teams are part of the event. Mkdw ^talk 22:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the article says this has been "one of the top multi-disciplinary martial arts events worldwide." If so, coverage shouldn't be an issue. Adding TAFISA to the event's name doesn't make it a new event and being connected to TAFISA doesn't make it notable since notability is not inherited. It still lacks significant independent coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An event can still hold that title and not necessarily have coverage issue problems. You're making the assumption that if it's a top level competition, therefore, all top level competitions receive an abundance of coverage. Secondly, actually, yes it's association with TAFISA does make it a new event, especially when it's being billed as the "1st TAFISA World Martial Arts Games". We know nothing about the format or how significantly the event has changed now with the involvement of the TAFISA to justify saying this year is a continuation of previous. So before all these assumptions are being made, I think it's important to review the existing cited information when presenting a delete rationale. Mkdw ^talk 19:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hi. For an article to be kept, it must have at least something in the way of hinting the reader towards notability. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what all the links found do. Notice the thing I quoted about the Olympic Committee? Plus its part of TAFISA, which is run under UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). Dream Focus 19:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Mkdw has presented significant coverage, enough to meet WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 12:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what he presented were articles from local papers about teenagers who will be competing. I'm not sure that qualifies as significant independent coverage of the games themselves. Also, claiming notability through TAFISA/UNESCO seems like notability through relationship and notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a few comments about some of the above posts. According to the organization's website TAFISA was its patron (whatever that means) for the 2013 event as well. As for its significance I compared it to the Irish Open, which is sanctioned by WAKO. Last year the Irish Open had over 2700 fighters (not counting forms competitors) from 5 continents. That dwarfs this competition in size and notability is not inherited by being connected to TAFISA or the IOC. I still don't see significant independent coverage of this event, except for the article in the local paper. That's not enough to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:45, 25 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wily D 08:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Software-defined application delivery

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

WP:VERIF bpage (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is deceptive to call weblinks to product review websites "References". There are no citations to any real refernces anywhere in the article. It is an article with no references. A Google search showed a facebook page, a couple of blogs and the company website. bpage (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' without discussing the general notability of the subject, or these particular references, references to product reviews in responsibly edited sources are the ideal references for the article on a product, or indeed any subject covered by such reviews. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the entry. it's obviously entered by a company that wishes to make money off of this strategy. There are no references and it lacks a balanced view. I just received spam from a company trying to sell me their services by enabling my website with this strategy. They promise 15%-20% increase in my conversions and link to this entry on wikipedia as validation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.137.122 (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SDAD or Software-defined application delivery as it is widely called is a breakthrough technology and even though currently there are only a handful of players like Citrix, Instart Logic, Riverbed etc. this is the future of the content and application delivery technology and the world will rapidly start moving towards it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.251.146 (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This term is used in the context of one company that appears to be attempting to promote either the concept or phrase. Wikipedia should not be a platform for press releases. If the phrase catches on and becomes a broadly used, generic term then it can be re-visited.--Rpclod (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with the response given by Brandon Connor, it won't be too long before we see all the companies adopting this technology as part their solution to offer better and faster services to their customers. Software defined application delivery is still evolving as a service & sooner many companies will adopt this service.

Also, in reference to Rpclod's comments - software-defined application delivery is a generic term used by many companies. I feel this article caters to learning more about "software defined application delivery" and should be retained on Wikipedia as it serves the learning purpose.

Comment This is a fairly interesting computer science based software approach to application delivery technology - seems to build on some of the concepts of software-defined networking and apply them to CDNs. While I'm not qualified to discuss the merits of the technology, it does seem to have been around for a couple of years. A quick Google search reveals content by several companies on the topic:

As far back at Nov 2012, by a company named BrightTalk, in a webcast video https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/499/58279 "integrate your ADC platform with automated provisioning and capacity management, using new tools for software-defined application delivery"

Citrix also refers to this concept in a whitepaper about "software defined application services" Advanced application delivery over software defined networks: http://www.citrix.com/content/dam/citrix/en_us/documents/partner-documents/advanced-application-delivery-over-software-defined-networks.pdf

The F5 company website also has references to this: https://f5.com/about-us/news/press-releases/f5-enhances-synthesis-architecture-to-extend-reach-of-software-defined-application-services

IBM as well: http://www.a10networks.com/resources/files/A10-CS-Advanced_application_delivery_over_software_defined_networks.pdf

So has Riverbed: http://www.riverbed.com/products/application-delivery-performance/for-software-defined-data-center-sdd.html

The primary flaw with this article is not enough reference links to other companies - those can easily be added. As this is an emerging technology area, we should let the page be up and update it as more references to the context surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.127.179 (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Winset

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

No indication of notability except for his getting fired which falls under WP:BLP1E. Otherwise he's not notable as an academic or anything else. Jakejr (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Nicholas Winset Firing or such. He certainly does not pass WP:ACADEMIC, nor would he be expected to (he is/was an adjunct). But I am with a version of keep on this one because, if renamed to be about his firing (addressing the WP:BLP1E concern) and rewritten around the Controversy section, the article becomes about an event that looks to have legs. Besides the current links including BoGo and WaPo, it is featured on the Chronicle ([17]), which in turn links to another article published on Salon.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was a story that generated a brief amount of news coverage. All the sources are from April 23 and 24, 2007 and I think WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS both apply. Jakejr (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a textbook example of both WP:BLP1E, since his firing seems to be the only noteworthy thing about him, and WP:NOTNEWS, since all of the sources appear within a week of each other. As they say, "the story did not have legs". My own search did not find any significant coverage of him that did not involve his firing. Since his firing didn't seem to lead to anything significant, I also don't see where it is a WP notable event. Papaursa (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with previous delete comments. Both WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.18 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither the person nor event qualify as notable. None of the criteria set forth in WP:EVENTCRIT appear to be met and the individual's only potential notability relates to the event.--Rpclod (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) buff bills 7701 12:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ROAD Fighting Championship

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

Article on this organization was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road FC, but my CSD was removed by one of the main editors. So I've decided to put it up for AfD, just in case it's become notable. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable independent sources, but I'm willing to see what others say. Jakejr (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When old "Road FC" article was deleted in 2011, this organization was just yeanling local promotion in very dim future. But now ROAD FC is becoming one of notable asian MMA organization which featured almost 20 events in past 5 years, especially 8 events (including confirmed upcoming events) in 2014. Some of their former champions, for example Kyung Ho Kang, Yui Chul Nam, are now fighiting in UFC, and they have now 3 reigning champions in different weight classes and scheduling to make new champions other vacant weight classes in near future. They have a lot of world class fighters including former UFC fighters (Riki Fukuda, Issei Tamura etc.), former ONE FC champion (Soo Chul Kim), world top class female fighter (Seo Hee Ham) and very prospective young fighters (Takasuke Kume ect). So there is no "notability" problem. Also this article has right wikipedia links to theire fighters and proper reliable sources for facts. IMO there's absolutely no reason to delete this article. Frenchcafe (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Road Less Traveled: Korea's Newest MMA Promotion Takes a Different Path
Road FC Head Moon Hong Jung Talks Development of Korean and Asian MMA
MMA and the possible looming battle for Asia?
SOUTH KOREA’S ROAD FC TO HOLD 15 SHOWS IN 2014 THROUGH PARTNERSHIP WITH CJ E&M

Above articles cannot be examples of "attributed to reliable sources"?? Not routine news articles like announcements of upcoming cards and listings of results, but covering ROAD FC in detail.. and of course written by independent publishers.Frenchcafe (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Submitting to AfD was correct. The subject has advanced quite a bit since the first article was deleted but it is unclear that it has reached the notability threshold. It is worth discussing. Generally speaking how associated fighters have done since or in the past is not really that relevant to the promotion and neither is the number of events. The improved coverage given in the article is more important. I am leaning toward Keep but want to reserve my vote till I see some more opinions.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Most of the sources are routine sports coverage, but there are at least two good independent sources discussing the organization.Mdtemp (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but would strongly recommend improvement for this article. Notability I think is there to meet the GNG, but only barely so as established. I would recommend to the creators that they dig up more sources and more background to help firmly establish its notability. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkweaver Legacy

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

I could not establish that this series meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything to show that this self-published series is ultimately notable enough to warrant an article at this point in time. It could redirect to the author's page, but I'm having a bit of trouble finding things to establish notability for him either. I'm a little surprised that his page wasn't nominated as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've PRODed it, as he wouldn't qualify for an WP:A7, but I'll take it to AfD if anyone disputes it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no sources to establish either notability or verifiability, and even if there were, the article is so cruftily written I would still argue to nuke it and start over. Reyk _YO! 03:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wily D 09:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numix

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

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}}.

Non-notable; niche organization with little significant press coverage; unencyclopedic writing/format; only citation is to official website. Article creator has a COI (single-purpose account). Cloudchased (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only references are self-published, article appears promotional in nature. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm a Numix Project member. One Numix user made this page yesterday, so we just edited it to fit Wikipedia rules, adding more press articles and deleting unencyclopedic format. We hope it's fine now. Thanks you! Paolo Rotolo (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi, Paolo. Just to let you know for future reference, editing or creating your own organization's page is a conflict of interest WP:COI (if something is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, it usually ends up there), but since you just did copy editing and provided more sources, it shouldn't be much of an issue. Editors on this deletion will look at the sources and notability of Numix and determine the outcome of the deletion discussion. Upjav (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking independent reliable source coverage. Current refs are only to dev's sites, blogs, and download sites, (WebUpd8 is a blog, Softpedia is a download site) and are not useful in establishing notability.Dialectric (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks notability and coverage, WP:TOOSOON. Upjav (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EleMints

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on the four sources cited by a participant in the previous AFD, as to why they may not be reliable or shouldn't count towards establishing notability? postdlf (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No reliable independent sources. Appearing on the app store doesn't constitute notability. And the BW "source" from the last AfD don't even mention this product. -- 101.117.89.21 (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: the actual material is published not in BusinessWeek, but in this blog post. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A couple of positive reviews can be found (amidst more about the mint oil product of the same name) but my view is that for an encyclopaedia these fall short of any of the WP:NSOFT inclusion criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no reliable sources on this subject at all. The sources from previous AfD are not reliable and are overly promotional. I can't find anything to establish notability of this software elsewhere either. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be festering self promotion. Maybe it is a good map, but nothing in searches is saying it's particularly notable. mol uɐɯ 22:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eximbills

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The guy knows what he does. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does this comment mean?Dialectric (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Looks to be a substantial piece of software that dates back to the Wang computer days.... and has garnered no independent coverage at all. 28 ghits at gtreview.com alone, but they all look like press releases. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced software stub of unclear notability; per Lesser Cartographies, no independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International broadcast of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

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

The full details of the international broadcast of television shows is generally discouraged by the TV Wikiproject. We had purposely removed a table of international broadcasts from the main article for this reason. Additionally, too many of the sources are fan sites, making the reliability of this article an issue. MASEM (t) 16:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a copyright violation and it's not supposed to be deleted. It was made by me copied from the original article from Wikia and it should be exist. --Allen ^talk 16:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling it a copyright violation (Wikia is CC-BY-SA so it can be copied from there to here with attribution). But it is not material appropriate for Wikipedia nor has the higher sourcing requirements we need for articles on WP. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it's okay for copying the article from Wikia to Wikipedia and it's a CC-BY-SA for creative commons attributions. For international broadcast of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, it contains a channel broadcast and an language dub broadcast. --Allen ^talk 16:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not the source of the text (Wikia), but that on WP, we are not a collection of indiscriminate information, and per the TV Wikiproject, the international broadcast of a show are trivial details that should not be included. You also have a problem that all the references are from fan sites, meaning they fail reliability. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. International broadcasting details are not notable enough for Wikipedia. WP:TVINTL also discourages listing every country a show airs in. Jockmon (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jockmon: Please don't do that. --Allen ^talk 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this article to be kept, find sources for its notability. In its current form, the article provides no notable info. Gial Ackbar (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gial Ackbar: Okay thanks for having an advice, however I didn't want the article deleted so it stays there for the same reference. --Allen ^talk 19:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Couldn't we at least keep this article as a redirect instead of outright deleting it? A section under the main article exists to which this could redirect, see My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic#Distribution. I would prefer this article redirect there instead. Considering people might search for this, if we redirect, the history is at least kept and any noteworthy, well-sourced information not already covered there can be merged. A similar debate is currently going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Disney's Lady and the Tramp characters. 64.134.27.24 (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a unlikely search term. If it were, sure a redirect would make sense, but not with a title like this. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I'm okay with that article, just remove the delete template there. It's possible that the international language dubs of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic page still exist. --Allen ^talk 05:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not understanding. This page is the one we are reviewing for deletion, the deletion tags stay until we decide what to do. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I (you or other users) just want to keep this article not deleted. It's just an international broadcast seen on this article was a suggestion. --Allen ^talk 04:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article undeleted, the content copied from Wikia from this article was good. I'm relating international broadcast was broadcasted in some countries consisting of language dubs that was official. --Allen ^talk 18:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Personal Attacks - keep your Wikia drama on Wikia

Irrelevant to AfD. Please do not modify this section.

As a side note, I've been hearing about Allen constantly for several months because of his antics on Wikia even though I have never interacted with him directly. You guys should block him now and save yourselves the headache. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have seen him cause a lot of drama on the MLP wiki, amongst other wikis; he clearly does not speak English as his native language and has the habit of being blocked on nearly every project he joins. Hopefully Wikipedia will wisen up and realize that he does not adhere to WP:CIR at all. 90.208.45.158 (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What, Bobogoobo is that you? I feel comfortable here on Wikipedia. --Allen ^talk 01:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Way too much finite detail (who gives a flip if Tesco is sponsoring the British broadcast from week to week beyond the obsessed?) Outside the appropriate yet unsourced rundowns of other countries and the Japan continuity, the entire UK/AU section seems like schedule/out of order episode airing whining that's unencyclopedic and doesn't belong here. Nate • (chatter) 05:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTTVGUIDE as above. If people want that much detail they can get it from a dedicated MLP wiki. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a storage receptacle for television trivia. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic#International is sufficient. — Wylie pedia 16:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. 23W 01:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, there is enough content already. Frmorrison (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Seeing the reference below, it was broadcasted in other countries of existed language dubs. --Allen ^talk 16:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't warrant it staying. 94.10.182.88 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per no international broadcasting for consistency. 94.10.182.88 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: AllenHAcNguyen (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. —LucasThoms 02:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Outside Wikipedia's scope of coverage. Also, copying CC-BY-SA material verbatim: Legal? Sure. Helpful? Only if it can comply with Wikipedia's policies. mol uɐɯ 22:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination rationale. I am One of Many (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTTVGUIDE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Bager

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

A recent spate of vandalism has helped draw attention to the fact that Bager fails WP:MUSICBIO. Laun chba ller 21:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sufficient notability, the whole text being an exercise in puffery, potentially involving some conflict of interest.-The Gnome (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article passes both WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The sources include significant coverage in major newspapers like Berlingske Tidende [18], Politiken [19] and The Guardian [20], which provides enough to pass our general notability guidelines. Any problems with POV language and style can be addressed through editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middling Keep after fixing/removing dead links (6, 7, 8). Current information, added recently, seems to be heading toward substantiality. Note: You can push a web page to the Internet Archive at the time you cite it, and get a persistent URL for it, so link rot doesn't happen in the (near) future. Go to https://archive.org/web/ and use the "Save Now" box. LaMona (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I read PWilkinson's comment as Delete... Closing as the same Wifione ^Message 06:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telugu Brahmins

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

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for standalone lists. (If someone one would please be kind enough to explain to me why there is an unreferenced BLP tag on the page, I'll be obliged.) Laun chba ller 21:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination. CutestPenguin (Talk) 17:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The list may well potentially meet the criteria for standalone lists, but subject to criteria that are not clearly the case at the moment. Firstly, membership of the group concerned should be mentioned, either explicitly or in terms that require no significant synthesis, in each of the linked articles for the individuals, and reliably sourced either there or in the list. So far as I can see, if this criterion were applied to the list, it would still exist but would be far shorter. Secondly, the criterion used to assemble the list itself should have some notability in its own right and, except where used simply as a method of splitting a list that would otherwise be unwieldy, not a juxtaposition of two characteristics with no significant relationship with each other. At the moment, I am not entirely convinced, either from the list or from its related article, that Brahmins who speak Telugu constitute a group which has such notability. PWilkinson (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 06:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hap Hatton

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

One newspaper review doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability per AUTHOR. The article's author put a link on their talk page to some document, but after ten minutes of loading the file turned out to be corrupted. There was nothing else I could find but the one link already in the article, and that's not enough. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable - AAA3AAA (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 06:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Anas

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

Sources are inadequate. No indication of notability found. Italian version of page also lacks RS, by the way. Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:NMG. --Λeternus ^(talk) 19:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biography. The Italian page is more detailed but doesn't indicate a strong claim to notability, nor do the given Discogs page and Last FM provide much in that direction. No evidence that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. CesareAngelotti (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not notable yet. Doesn't fulfil WP:MUSICBIO yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaMART

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

Sounds very much like an advertisement with phrases like "With tremendous achievements made in past many years, IndiaMART has even bigger expansions planned for its user-base. It intends to become the search engine for businesses." all over the article, speedied 4 times before, current version was G11d by Deb before being restored for AfD after a discussion on IRC. WP:SPAM. Thanks, and cheers, Lixxx235-Talk 16:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite to remove all promotional phrasing. Articles like this one, already used as a reference, establish quite clearly that this is a highly notable website in India. Of course, we should have an article about IndiaMART. Normal editing is the solution to the article's problems, not deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The India Times refs (2) are good, but nothing else seems reliable. The sources are currently borderline, can anyone provide examples of more reliable sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two The Economic Times refs and one The Times of India ref. Red Herring top 100 is also good. And here are some more: Business Line [21], The Indian Express [22], one more The Economic Times [23]. It's also in the Bharat Bhasker's book "Electronic Commerce" published by Tata McGraw-Hill. So I would say that it has the necessary significant coverage. --Cosmopolite1 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Delete information without good references. --Cosmopolite1 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Violating and promotional contents can removed. CutestPenguin (Talk) 15:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keepand rewrite to avoid WP:COI. Harrison2014 (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Habib Ullah

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

The article only has one indepth place where coverage of him occurs. One article is not enough to pass GNG. The others are just passing references. Nothing about him makes him distinguishable from all the other detainees at GuantanamoJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator is mistaken. There are 12 sources in the article, all of whose depth and focus on the subject far surpass what I normally get to read at AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional sources can be seen even with the first "find sources" link. None of them are "in passing", and it is tortuous logic to describe years of detention as a single event. Most notably New York Times: http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/626-noor-habib-ullah . Also Andy Worthington, the unsurpassed expert on this subject: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2011/08/11/wikileaks-and-the-guantanamo-prisoners-released-from-2002-to-2004-part-seven-of-ten/#more-13631 Anarchangel (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unlike Israr ul Haq and Alif Khan, also up for deletion, there is the additional BBC source. Anarchangel (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the same as the Israr_ul_Haq article. There are no sources that give significant information about this individual, and the Tom Lassiter articles are about Gitmo in general, and really are being used here as padding. If these articles provide new information, they should be used on the Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp page, and they are not there.LaMona (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a parent article. I am not seeing sufficent in-depth coverage of the subject as a person to warrant stand-alone article. Seems like a case of "mentioned in passing due to one event in life". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With only one "keep" opinion, what consensus there is is to omit the article. That can change if new sources come to light, of course. Sandstein 08:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israr ul Haq

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

This whole article is built on just one article about him. That in and of itself shows a failure to follow the GNG, which specify multiple articles. There is no clear claim to notability. He was one of hundreds of people detained at Guantanamo, and there is nothing to set him apart from the others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 4 August 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 August 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. No indication of notability. CesareAngelotti (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator is mistaken. There are 9 sources in the article, all of more than adequate depth and focus on the subject. Anarchangel (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. Delete vote fails...well, anyone can come here to AfD and make any damn assertion one wants to, without evidence or accountability of any kind. But it still fails, I contend. Evidence? Even the very first "find sources" link shows a New York Times source, http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/515-israr-ul-haq . Anyone conversant with the subject knows Andy Worthington has files on all the captives, and therefore on Israr ul Haq specifically: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2011/08/02/wikileaks-and-the-guantanamo-prisoners-released-from-2002-to-2004-part-six-of-ten/#more-13601
Comment There are 9 sources, but I cannot find Haq's name in the ones that I have checked. In other words, the sources are about Gitmo, but not about the individual. There need to be sources that are about this person, and it needs to be more than a simple mention. Also note that the 9 sources are parts of a single series of articles, with subtitles: Day 1, Day 2, etc. So those are really a single source. If you think this person is important, then you need to find more information about him. LaMona (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redirect Redirect to List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees; Add this name and add these cites to person's name there: [24], [25]. (Note that there are many detainees with separate WP pages. Ones I viewed have quite a bit more information than this one.) LaMona (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon rereading this debate, it strikes me that, in adhering strictly to discussions of policy, I have left unaddressed the nominator's discussion of the content of the article, which description is quite misleading. The narrative of Israr ul Huq's pre-arrest, arrest, and detention is unique, as are all of the detainees'. You may say, this makes no difference to notability? Then why does the nominator make a point of asserting that his story is the same as the others? No matter, now the balance is restored. Anarchangel (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 06:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Assessment

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

1. Does not fit Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of company product: has NOT received coverage in a reputable newspaper (or other similar news source); and has NOT been detailed in-depth in a published book written by an author considered to be an expert in a related field; 2. Page created by a blocked (sock-puppet) user; 3. Page created to be inflammatory, biased and to disparage company's products; 4. Sourced with ill-intentioned, self-published, derogatory, inflammatory, and sensationalistic websites (e.g. references, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 13: 4. Written with non-neutral point of view, biased, and unbalanced - e.g. presents case where tool not accepted in court, but not the court cases (majority) where accepted; 5. page already flagged in March for not meeting quality standards Sim2001 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am finding it impossible to assume good faith about this nomination. The GBooks and GScholar searches show multiple detailed discussions of the Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest (to give the full name of the topic) in reliable sources, in direct contradiction of the nominator's first point. I also note that the nominator seems to be a single-purpose account, whose only other Wikipedia activity seems to have been to propose for deletion the article on the assessment's creator (who would seem fairly clearly notable under WP:PROF#C1, with GScholar showing an h-index of over 40 for him). On that basis, I will be shortly requesting that article's undeletion. Also, while the page does seem to have been created by a sock-puppet, the relevant investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence of the sockmaster being an already-blocked user to justify deletion for this reason. Having said that, the remaining reasons (apart from the last one, which is an argument for improvement, not deletion) are more justified. This assessment procedure is undoubtedly controversial, with several of the available GBooks sources apparently regarding the procedure as being a relatively inexpensive one with diagnostic uses but not being specific enough for the use it seems to have got in court cases. However, the article as it stands is a rather unnuanced attack page and, while I am not a fan of trinitrotoluene, undoubtedly needs severe stubbing before being rewritten (preferably by knowledgeable neutral editors) using better sources. PWilkinson (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Gene Abel has now been undeleted. XeroxKleenex (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's all over Google Scholar. Deletion requested by WP:SPA, even if we WP:AGF here, this article should not be deleted. XeroxKleenex (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 11:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With over a thousand hits in GBooks and over 300 hits in GScholar, with many papers, some secondary, discussing the topic in depth, this topic clearly passes notability threshold per WP:GNG. The article structure itself seems fine. Fixing neutrality problems and presenting POVs with due weight are a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. A notable topic and no insurmountable article problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 154 results in GBooks. The number on the first page is an estimate. James500 (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I get 1,060 with this search. Not sure what the difference is. --Mark viking (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full Disclosure: I de-prodded this article prior to this nomination, so of course I think it should be kept. The procedure is undoubtedly controversial, but is also clearly notable given the results returned by Scholar and Books. There are issues with the tone and neutrality (though recent pruning has happened), and there are a few dead links, but as mentioned, those can be fixed by editing rather than deletion. Sim2001 is clearly familiar with the subject (not a bad thing), so should be encouraged to contribute to the article and add content to balance out the tone. He mentioned the absence of court cases where the technique was admissible, so that's a perfect place to add some balancing content. Crow^Talk 17:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hard to understand why this was even nommed for deletion per arguments above. Harrison2014 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 06:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Geraldine

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

Non notable actress, Fails WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based solely on her acting credits so far, the subject seems to fail WP:NACTOR since she's had only minor roles in film and television in Germany. As far as GNG goes, I looked around in google.de for some material in German. There is some, but I don't think it's enough to prove she meets the guideline. For example, apparently she did do some presenter work for MTV Germany, but I couldn't actually verify the full extent of the claims present in the article. Perhaps it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 11:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If she really hosted the European Music Awards, she is notable. However, a source needs to be added to that. AAA3AAA (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced "notablity". — Wylie pedia 16:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 06:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Stringfellow

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

After research, it appears that Pete Stringfellow does not pass our WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICIAN guidelines. I was able to find sources, but, only two different publishers with the majority only being from the same publisher.

Perhaps others disagree, but, I added what I could dig up to the external links section of his page for now. Missvain (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a local musician with some local success, but not enough to garner sources to clear the hurtle of WP:GNG, although if he is related to Stringfellow Hawke, I would re-consider. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator is to be commended for adding sources to the article, but this person is nowhere near GNG. IMO the article could have been speedied per WP:A7 because it does not even suggest that the person is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 06:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts.ie

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

Non notable, the only source is the company's own website Gbawden (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable company. Snappy (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, clearly fails WP:CORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google books and Google scholar return nothing, and an ordinary search only reveals the website and its social media. Fails the general notability guideline. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 20:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: actually, there is one book that mentions the website, but it's only a passing mention (fails WP:SIGCOV). --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 20:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Mirror Mirror (House). article author agrees, nom agrees, all others in agreement. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giovannini Mirror Syndrome

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

Fictional disease, syndrome was coined for an episode of House (TV series). Reference to the single case does not use this term, may also fall under WP:NEO. Additionally author deleted PROD. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Environmental dependency syndrome or to Mirror Mirror (House) as per talk page discussion. The disease was most likely coined off of that disease, but at the very least it can be redirected to the appropriate show's article. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mirror Mirror (House) seems more appropriate. ★Saurabh P. | ☎ talk 02:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mirror Mirror (House). After searching through Google, JSTOR and Google Books, the only valid source I found with any information on this disease was entitled "Diseases and Disorders in Contemporary Fiction" [26]. Obviously, this is not a real disease (even if it is based off of one). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Speedy redirect - article author agrees to redirect as listed above, to newly created subsection.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 06:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kraft

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

Article's vanispampuffery content is so high it could be nominated for speedy deletion as spam. References are to primary sources, nothing the subject does guarantees automatic notability, and a quick search of the internet reveals nothing to make him pass the GNG. I keep running into articles like this from Singularity University people, and I hope that's a coincidence. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With grudging compliments to the different SPAs that over the years have "maintained" this article: at first sight this looks like an impressive academic. Until you actually start reading... Lots of puffery, nothing of substance. --Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was my experience exactly. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a faculty member at an unaccredited university. Such people are very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Teasing out the academic impact is made a bit harder as there is an homonym working at the Mayo Clinic and University of Minnesota, but the impact seems short of WP:Prof in any case. Going five SERPs deep, I could not find evidence satisfying WP:BIO either; some talks, but no WP:RS about the subject.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see a lot of self-promotion and minor awards, none of which are bad things in themselves but they don't add up to notability. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. And we don't have the in-depth coverage in reliable sources needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 06:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States boy's national under-15 soccer team

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

Non-notable youth national team. PROD contested by author without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Giant Snowman 11:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as currently non-notable, does not appear to have competed in any official FIFA tournament or regional association tournament. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Having reviewed the arguments for each side, no clear consensus has been reached on whether or not the sourcing is adequate, and both the !votes and consensus arguments appear to be about 50:50 with each other. Given the previous delisting and as long as this AFD has ran (for the past 20 days), it's time we shelve this for now. As Dcs002 indicated, this discussion can always be brought up again, and I do feel it will at some point because the matter has not been truly settled, but perhaps for now that is better solved through another process, such as RFC, until a more clear picture of the situation and the relevance of BLP policy on the sources of this article can be better agreed upon. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Hunter Johnson

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

I ask everyone who adds their vote here to please read my rationale and really give it some consideration. This article was sent to AfD twice in the past, most recently in 2007, and kept both times. I realize because of this the initial response to this will be to want to vote KEEP straight off. However, I strongly believe that this article should be deleted for the following reasons.

The most recent !keep in 2007 noted that the article had been sourced (whereas before it really wasn't). Since 2007, the WP:BLP policy has become MUCH more stringently enforced, and for good reason. BLP requires HIGH QUALITY, third party sources.

Currently, this article is sourced to the following: TWO online BIOs from random websites which are certainly not HIGH QUALITY sources and would fail WP:RS, ONE blog (blogs do not satisfy WP:RS, ONE link to the subject's own website (primary sources are not acceptable to establish Notability), and ONE link to what appears to be a reliable source (Kidscreen Magazine).

The ONE link to the reliable source actually contains ZERO information about the subject of this article. Please look for yourself.

The subject has published some articles and books. Simply publishing some books and/or articles does NOT satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO, particularly when there are absolutely ZERO quality, reliable, third-party sources that cover the subject of the article beyond one or two trivial passing mentions.

You can't build a biographical article on a living person (or even a deceased one) off of blog posts, random websites, self-published sources, and articles that don't even mention the subject.

The BLP policy is clear and this article should be deleted. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A WP:RS for someone involved in RPG development would necessarily be RPG news sites, you're not likely to find much in the New York Times. Are you suggesting that RPG authors are inherently not notable? WP:RPG would suggest otherwise. XeroxKleenex (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This argument sounds a lot like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No reliable sources that cover the subject of this article exist. I know because I looked. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 14:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
XeroxKleenex, can you give us any "RPG news sites" to search? Or print journals from the industry? That would help establish notability, one way or the other. Dcs002 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our AfD discussion here already has numerous problems. There are too many open questions and issues for me to !vote to delete this article. Therefore, without a clear reason to delete, I say keep things as they are. Here's what I mean:

The Master, exactly which part of the WP:BLP policy do you believe this article fails? I see no unsourced contentious content or material likely to be challenged that specifically require BLP's strict RS guidelines. (I don't see any of that kind of content at all.) It seems to have no NPOV issues (facts are simply stated), and it does not seem to be an attack or a hoax. If your reason for nominating this for AfD is lack of notability, then say so, and we'll have that discussion. (That can be fixed if that's your contention.) I need to know which policy(s) you believe this violates. We can't go on a fishing expedition for faults because the article has problems. The proper remedy in that case is to fix the article.
The Master, can you define exactly what makes a website a "random" website, and therefore not reliable? And which references you are referring to when you use that term? That term does not appear on the WP:RS page. Please define your terms into something policy-based so I can decide for myself whether this sourcing is a real policy issue. You sound very keen to persuade people to delete this article, and I feel a bit uncomfortable about that. (Using dismissive language like "random websites" is one basis for that comment. You mention several policies, but you do not say clearly how this article fails those policies.) Article deletion is a serious undertaking, requiring dispassionate review of facts and policy.
It looks like he published more than "some books and/or articles." That looks like a lot of publications to me.
The KidScreen page is used to cite the 250,000+ registered users of gToons, not anything about Johnson himself. It is used properly. It substantiates that gToons is in widespread use, and therefore does support notability. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GToons#gToons - usage apparently increased, though the source on that WP article is a dead link.
The French article is a first-person autobiography (e.g., self-submitted), and the Pen and Paper article is a dead link - both problematic.
Does anyone know what it means that Johnson "worked with" White Wolf Publishing to develop gToons? Did he himself design the game? Was he a design worker on the game? Co-designer? This is important if we're discussing notability. We should find this out. If he designed it, and if there were over 400,000 registered users, that argues notability.
WP:DELETE says "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" may be deleted. Has anyone made a thorough attempt? What was tried? (A thorough attempt is different from waiting a long time for someone else to source things.)

The WP:BIO page includes the following:

Insufficient sources

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:

Look for sources yourself
Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources.
Put the {{notability|biographies}} tag on the article to notify other editors.
If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

Not all of these steps have not been followed. I think there is a LOT of work that needs to be done before we talk about deletion. Dcs002 (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer one of the questions: "Does anyone know what it means that Johnson "worked with" White Wolf Publishing to develop gToons?" CartoonNetwork.com contracted with White Wolf for the game, and White Wolf contracted me. I designed it, submitted it to WW, who submitted it to CN.com. I am unaware of any (non-primary) reliable sources for this information, however. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you do think of any 3rd party resources, in print or online (or even in credits for some media - those can be RS too), attributing the game design to you, please do let us know. It would really help us out for purposes of this discussion. Dcs002 (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC

Comment We do not automatically keep BLPs that are unsourced or poorly sourced to blogs and random websites that fail WP:RS. Per WP:RS (the very first sentence on the page: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . I don't see a reputation for fact checking and accuracy from either of the two websites with the bios. I did look for real sources, there aren't any. The above comments do not address the severe lack of sources that cover the subject of this article, whether they are in the article or not. Notability is established by ONE THING ONLY: multiple, reliable, third party sources. The subject of this article fails WP:N at it's very basic level and I've yet to see any argument that it does not. Notability isn't a given, and it can't be established by WP:OR. EDIT: Also, I respectfully ask that you refrain from making personal statements about me, os trying to cast a pall on my motives. Yes, I believe the article should be deleted as it does not conform to policy. There's nothing wrong with that so I'm not sure why you would attach negative connotations to it. I have no personal animosity and my rationale is based on very objective language. - The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 14:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. My words did come off as personal, and I wish I hadn't done that. Instead of questioning your motives, I wanted to point out how a nomination for deletion appears to me when it is not clearly based on a clear statement of policy. I don't like how it looks, and it leaves me with little to go on policy-wise. With that, I feel uncomfortable. From your above comments, I understand that you are basing your nomination for deletion on the lack of established notability. (I would prefer that you make that clear in your nomination.)
Given the question of notability, I think it is more important now than ever to look up those numerous articles and reviews given in the article. There is the one reference giving the number of registered users, at the time, of the game he apparently designed. You yourself described Kidscreen Magazine as a RS in your nomination. That source definitely helps to establish notability as long as his role as the designer can be established.
When you said, "I don't see a reputation for fact checking and accuracy from either of the two websites with the bios," which two websites were you referring to? Were they the two you described as "random websites?" (I would still like a definition of that so we can discuss this based on policy.) The bio I saw in the French website is self-submitted apparently. It's in the first-person. It does not help establish notability.
"I did look for real sources, there aren't any." This is self-contradictory. You did look (for whatever you subjectively consider to be "real sources" - the policy refers to reliable sources, another mistake that affects the appearance of this nomination), and you found none. That is VERY different from saying you looked and there are none. Your own ability to find sources is not the last word here. Again, have you or anyone else looked at all those print magazine articles and reviews? Those seem to be sources, maybe RS, that bear heavily on this discussion.
"The above comments do not address the severe lack of sources that cover the subject of this article, whether they are in the article or not. Notability is established by ONE THING ONLY: multiple, reliable, third party sources." There is either a lack of something or there isn't. There is no "severe lack." This hyperbole, again, reflects on the appearance of this nomination for deletion. There is nothing severe about having one good RS vs. two. Right now we have one. We need those print publications really bad right now. From WP:Delete, the remedy for an article in this state, for which notability is not clearly lacking, is to tag it, work on it, and ask for help, not to delete it, unless there is a risk that any unsourced claims could be contentious in some way. Dcs002 (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in magazine articles and reviews, and has authored books. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me, but what magazine articles and reviews? I was unable to find a single one, would you please link them here? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 22:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources need not be linked. They need to be verifiable. The articles and reviews are not linked, but they are certainly verifiable if anyone here cares to look them up the old fashioned way (i.e., not solely online). That would, IMO, constitute a thorough search for sources for this article, thus following WP:Delete. There appears to be a very reasonable chance that this person, or at least his game is notable, and I don't think we can figure that our unless those articles and reviews are checked. Dcs002 (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject has not received significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Sources presented either do not cover the subject or are unreliable. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, this standard for coverage does not now appear in the article, but we must also consider whether this article is fixable and whether any previous version contained sources for such coverage. Fixing it, if possible, is the top priority, not deleting it. Dcs002 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a preponderance of the evidence, such sources do not exist. My own research into the matter did not turn up any reliable sources that cover Johnson in any significant way. And both prior AfD discussions dealt with the sourcing issues, with the last one saying the article was kept due to sources being added. But those sources are either not reliable or don't cover the subject. The article has remained in much the same condition for the past 7 years, from what I can see, and no other sources existed in the article. There is simply nothing out there. If there was, one would assume they would have been added to the article at some point. In any case, these sources simply do not exist. You're saying you are positive that reliable sources exist offline, if they do then why haven't you presented them here? There needs to be evidence presented of these sources to convince me the subject of this article is notable, repeatedly saying that the offline reliable sources exist without presenting them as a citation or otherwise is not persuasive. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES also seems to apply. EDIT: While Kidscreen magazine may cover the product, it does not mention Johnson at all. Notability is not inherited, so while such a source could be used in an article about the product to establish notability of the product, it can't be used to establish notability of Johnson. Sources must cover the subject directly. EDIT x2: I also present that WP:BIG explains why the books and magazine articles the subject himself wrote can't be used to establish notability. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your historical perspective. It helps. However, I think the print-only articles and reviews likely speak to the subject's ~~credibility~~ notability, or else listing them here would probably be fraudulent. Are they all self-authored publications? If so, have others cited any of them? (There are so many!) I don't see how we can say notability is not sourced by these publications without finding them and actually reading them to see what they are and what they say. Are these self-authored articles and reviews or are they about the subject or his product? Has nobody looked in 7 years? I do not claim anything of the sort that the subject would inherit notability from the game he designed. Quite the contrary. His game does not have a stand-alone article, and might not itself be notable. But the subject has either a long publishing history or a long history of articles about him or his game, and still, after 7 years, no one has looked into the question of these articles and reviews. Waiting for a certain number of years for someone else to look up printed source material is not conducting an exhaustive search. Waiting any length of time is not an exhaustive search for sources. It is passing the buck - making some other unnamed person responsible for fixing the article. This thorough search should be done before nominating for deletion. Who's responsibility do you think it is to look into the print material? It is ours. There is no "us and them." We all share, and we are all failing. The answer to our group failure is not deletion, but action - a thorough search for the print sources. We MUST NOT delete articles because no one has done the work of verifying the print sources since they were originally listed. The sources are listed, and they are verifiable. They only remain to be verified. I contend that since they have withstood the test of time, they should be accepted as valid until proven otherwise. The only question is not their truth, but what they actually say about the subject and his historical contributions. Dcs002 (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Corrected: Dcs002 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty parsing this... Correct me if I'm mistaken but you seem to be confusing the subjects published works with reliable sources. But the two are completely separate. Anything the subject published himself is a primary source in this case. According to the Notability guideline, notability is established by third-party sources, not the subject's own works. If there are article's about the subject's game, then those articles establish the notability of the game. The articles have to cover the subject directly, not other things he is associated with (this is the basis of WP:N). Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your assessment is not correct. You need to look beyond the WP:N to the specific ways different subjects have of meeting the notability guidelines. In this case, since the article is about a person, WP:PEOPLE describes the criteria for our subject to meet WP:N. WP:PEOPLE says, "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." Then, under WP:CREATIVE, standard 3, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Emphasis added.) At the time I wrote the above comment, I did not know what was written in any of the works listed in the Bibliography section. Were they written by the subject or about the subject, or about his works? Now I see they are written by the subject, but so many articles probably have left a mark - book reviews, references in other articles, that sort of thing. What this WP article needs now are "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" covering his body of work, including games and publications. That is all that remains to establish notability under WP:PEOPLE. With the KidScreen Magazine reference, this article is close to meeting that standard. That is one article. The standard calls for multiple articles. Multiple means more than one. A book review is probably out there somewhere for one or more of his three books. That should do the trick under the applicable standard. Dcs002 (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above or Draftify to Draft:J. Hunter Johnson so that it can be worked on and improved. BOZ (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question for JHunterJ: As the subject of the article, I realize your contribution must be very limited in scope, and I thank you for keeping it that way so far. However, it is appropriate for you, if you wish to do so, to point us in the direction of reliable source material that might help us decide what to do in this proceeding. Can you tell us if the seven articles and 25 reviews listed in the article section titled Bibliography were all written by you? If so, do you know of any other author who has cited any of these articles or reviews, and in what publications they were cited? According to WP:AUTO#IFEXIST and WP:AUTOPROB, contributing in this way to this discussion is permitted, and IMO would be quite helpful. Thank you. (This must be awkward to watch. :/ ) Dcs002 (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ: Are there any books, magazine or newspaper articles in a print-only format that cover you directly? This is the crux of the matter.Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles and reviews were all written by me, yes. I think Ken Hite may have cited "Barnstorming Infinity Unlimited"; I'll see if I can verify, perhaps this weekend at Gen Con. I'm not aware of any cites of any other articles or reviews. There was an article in a local paper ("Centerville resident develops word game on the web" by Danielle Coots in the Centerville-Washington Times, June 20, 2013, p. 10A) that covered me directly, in connection with another online puzzle-game, Quizgle. It was republished online, but on a site that is apparently on WP's blacklis. Googling "New internet word game now available" coots will bring it up. I think the previous print-only article was from when I was in high school, "Fort Lawn twins prepare for challenge of college" by Hal Hewell in The Herald (Rock Hill), March 26, 1987, p. 3A -- using my name "Jeff Johnson", and before I started any of the gaming work. Well, that an an engagement announcement. :-) It's not terribly awkward to watch, really. I've known my notability is on the razor's edge of acceptability -- I'm happy that this AfD is focused on (and driven by) that, where at least one of the previous ones was not. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JHunterJ. I'll have a look around. I have been focusing on just adding notability content to the article, and it looks kinda disorganized and lopsided ATM (reviews of your GURPS books are a lot easier to find than sources for the rest of your work), but my priority has been to establish notability based on your body of creative work first and then nice-up the article. (A sloppy article is not a viable candidate for deletion like a non-notable one is.) Hopefully some of these sources will help balance things. Dcs002 (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got the Coots article. Nice to have a game review instead of another book review - more balance :) Dcs002 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I traced the history of the article and found the user, User:Turlo Lomon, who originally posted the Bibliography section, with all those magazine articles and reviews. I posted the following to his/her talk page:

On 13 September, 2007, you added an extensive bibliography section to the article J. Hunter Johnson. Can you please join the deletion discussion here, or can you at least say where the items in this section came from? They remain unsourced. The discussion is centered around the subject's notability, and having more information, especially about the articles and reviews, would be helpful. Thank you.

User:Turlo Lomon hasn't made any edits since last February (6 months ago), so I don't know how often he comes around anymore, but I thought I'd invite him/her. Dcs002 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, Johnson is the sole author or co-author of the three books listed in the Bibliography, confirmed on GoogleBooks, published by Steve Jackson Games or Psi (ISBN's available). I have also verified him as the author of the first article listed, "'The Much-Maligned Will', Pyramid, Issue #9", from an online pdf of the table of contents. If the rest of these publications turn out to be similarly verified, that alone speaks volumes for his notability. These are not self-publications. They still have to be discussed in other sources, as far as I know, to confirm notability, but it's a pretty wide net with this many publications. Dcs002 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This discussion isn't as close as a !vote count would make it appear. There's little approaching WP:IRS applied to the page and a reasonable search doesn't find anything much better. As pointed out by the nominator, the only source that looks at all reliable (Kidscreen) doesn't even mention the subject. The standard for WP:GNG is significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Nothing like that here. I don't see any assertions above which refute the nominator's statement that the even more stringent WP:BLP isn't met by the sources applied. I would have no objection to draftifying, but as it exists, there's nothing here to keep. Even a presumption of possible notability via WP:PEOPLE requires some sourcing for verification. We don't have anything meeting the standard. BusterD (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In my opinion only, not making any accusation or implying anything about process participants to date, I'd like to state that I hope we wouldn't consider keeping articles factoring in that the subject happens to be a wikipedian. It is very bad form indeed for us to retain an insufficiently cited and sourced BLP, and especially so if the subject happens to be an administrator on English Wikipedia. High standards for sourcing on BLPs are necessary for the most excellent reasons. BTW, I have nothing but admiration for the subject's body of work and publisher plus his fine record of behavior on Wikipedia. With adequate found sources, I'd be leaning the other way in this process, but given what we have found, delete. BusterD (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD, please understand WP has policies and guidelines that supersede any individual's opinion, and please put your personal bias in that perspective. Please refer to WP:WWA for information on Wikipedians with articles about them. (Johnson was not on the list on that page, nor is he required to be, but I just added him anyway.) Johnson is one of many Wikipedians with articles about them, and he has not tried to influence the article about him or this discussion. (If he had, the article would probably be in much better shape, I'm afraid.) See also WP:AUTO. There are guidelines in place, and Hunter Johnson has not violated any of them. The fact that someone is notable should not and does not block them from participating in the Free Encyclopedia. It does, however, limit the effective participation that person can have in the articles about themselves, as well as discussions like this one. I have asked him for sourcing suggestions in this discussion, which is in keeping with WP:AUTO#IFEXIST and WP:AUTOPROB. He has not responded yet.

I don't know if you read my comments above that address your other concerns on point. WP:N is satisfied for articles about persons when they meet WP:PEOPLE (and this article is very close right now to that mark), and when there are no BLP violations (I see none here). Not sure if you missed that part of this discussion, but those points have been covered. The subject does not need to be referred to in the article if his body of work is referred to, according to WP:PEOPLE. (See WP:CREATIVE, standard 3, on that page.) You may not agree with my comments here, but please consider them, and consider reading up (meaning posts above these down here). Dcs002 (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, User:Dcs002, and don't attempt to personalize this discussion. I come to this process with no bias, and have clearly identified my personal opinion, separating such from my delete assertion intentionally. I have zero objection to the subject's behavior related to this pagespace, and have made no assertion of wrongdoing. Already I have read the entire discussion to this point, but based on my reading, I contend that my delete assertion is more firmly grounded in policy than any keep assertion listed above. BLP policy supersedes any presumption of notability based on more subjective guidelines like WP:CREATIVE. The need to protect living persons from potentially incorrect or damaging information requires much greater weight than the need to include unsourced relatively minor authors in an online encyclopedia. I suspect that if the subject of this page were asked directly about this priority, he would agree 100%. As it is, I suspect that editor is wisely avoiding the clash of this discussion, not only distancing himself from any potential COI in thus process, but also avoiding any appearance of COI. BusterD (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding! BusterD, I understand your comment now, and I'm sorry I misunderstood it in the first place. (No wonder I came off like I was attacking you!) You meant that you hoped we didn't factor in a bias to keep an article because the subject is a Wikipedian, right? I misread that as you hoped that, given that he is a Wikipedian (i.e., factoring that into your opinion), you hoped we would not keep the article. I'll go around and strike my comments based on that misunderstanding. I hope you can believe it was an honest mistake. Dcs002 (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apology. People have been telling me a lot lately that my comments are coming across as personal. I don't mean it that way, and I am definitely trying as a person to write more carefully. What I meant by bias was what you said in your comment, after your !vote. Specifically, "I'd like to state that I hope we wouldn't consider keeping articles..." Even though that was not part of your consideration, you put that into this discussion, a discussion concerning the deletion of an article. Why? What bearing does that opinion have on this discussion? That is my concern. I did not mean to impugn the integrity of your !vote with my comment regarding bias, only to counter it as an assertion within the scope of this discussion.

As far as BLP is concerned, can you say where the violation is? I see no NPOV, V, or NOR issues. WP:BLP says, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (Emphases in the original.) I see none of these issues in the article - no quotations, no material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and no contentious material (as defined above or otherwise). There is no criticism or praise (though I would like to find a review of one or two of his books or games to include). I see no overstatement nor understatement. This is neither an attack page nor a hoax. It contains no gossip, no misuse of primary sources, and no self-published sources other than those written by the subject as sources for non-contentious material. There are no issues of privacy in the article. There is no material that may adversely affect the subject's reputation. (This next one is important so I am bolding it.) The article was not created after March 18, 2010, meaning the standard (under WP:BLPDEL) "must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion" does not apply.

In short, there are no BLP violations. There are no grounds under the BLP policy for deletion at all. If there were BLP violations, we shouldn't be talking about them here. WP:BLP says unequivocally that they should be deleted immediately, without discussion. I just went down the entire WP:BLP page, one item at a time, in that previous paragraph. Nothing in this article violates WP:BLP, nor does it satisfy deletion under WP:BLP. This discussion is about notability, not BLP. Can you demonstrate anything to the contrary? Dcs002 (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the problem. WP:N is not satisfied. I appreciate that you're arguing vociferously for keeping this article, but as Buster has said, I can't really see any refutation of my nomination that is based in policy. Forgive me for saying so and please don't take it personally, but your argument for keeping seems to be taking a very novel approach. I don't see any accusations from him regarding Mr. Johnson, what I do see is a reasonable request that we treat this article as we would all articles and avoid playing favorites. It's not unreasonable for any of us to lean towards keeping an article about a fellow Wikipedian, but we have to be objective and we have to follow WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. I think it was a good idea to ask Johnson if he knows of any offline references, it's likely nobody would know if they exist better than he would. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at my WP contributions will show I am relatively new at AfD discussions. As a noob to this process (though not to WP), I have been adhering as strictly as possible to WP policies and guidelines. Everything I am offering as reasons to keep and as arguments against deletion is rooted in these policies and guidelines. I am very careful about citing these policies and guidelines as well. Since I have started to participate in these AfD discussions, I have been very, very surprised at how routine it seems for Wikipedians to follow the inertia of what is normally done rather than consulting policies and guidelines. I don't think I have ever seen WP:DELETE followed in the few discussions I've been involved with, and that deeply troubles me. Is my approach really so novel if I strictly adhere to policies and guidelines? Yes, we should treat this article as we would any other article, by following the guidelines. (The ~~comment I referred to as "bias" concerned me, as does the~~ "disgraceful" comment in the article's edit history, suggesting to me that this article is not getting special treatment, but unduly harsh treatment.) WP guidelines tell us what we should do when WP:N is not established, and it is not to delete the article at this stage. For example, WP:BIO says:

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:

* Look for sources yourself

* Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources.

* Put the {{notability|biographies}} tag on the article to notify other editors.

* If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

The last two steps have not yet been taken. I see no sign of the second step having been taken either, and certainly no one has looked into the print articles and reviews, which no one here in this discussion seemed to know until yesterday whether they contained independent material.

Furthermore, under WP:DELETE, there are more guidelines that seem to be routinely ignored. Under WP:DEL-REASON on that page, reasons for deletion include "7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed," and "8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)." I hear people arguing under #8, but I don't see how we can consider #8 if #7 hasn't been met. I see no evidence for, and no one has claimed to have conducted, a thorough search, including the print materials listed in the bibliography. Again on that page, WP:ATD says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." The only editing I have seen on this page in the past year and a half has been this AfD, a COI tag added with a "disgraceful" comment, a minor edit regarding an internal link, and edits I have recently made. (The COI tag is inappropriate because Johnson has not been a major contributor. I have therefore removed it, though of course I have left the notable Wikipedian tag on the talk page.) The article has no stub tag, and I see no requests for help or expansion from anyone, let alone WikiProject Role-playing games.

These variances from WP policies and guidelines, and I have listed a lot of them, seem to be moving this (and other) articles toward deletion by short-cutting the process. Why is my approach of adhering to these policies and guidelines so novel? Am I really that unusual in trying so hard to follow them? Dcs002 (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below (and look at the article again) for additional sources I've found. Improving articles like this is very doable (and it follows WP:DELETE policy if it is done before the nomination to delete), especially if we share the workload. If this passes the notability test now (and I see no reason why it shouldn't), it will be the second time in the past two weeks that I have taken the initiative with an article like this when no one else was willing, though many were !voting to delete. (A third wound up with no consensus, but several of us are now working on ways to make the article satisfactory to all.) Wouldn't you have strong feelings about deletion policies and guidelines too if this was your experience in your first three weeks of participating in AfD discussions? Dcs002 (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found references to two independent reviews for one of Johnson's books (GURPS Monsters), and I have posted a notice asking for participation on the WikiProject Role-playing games talk page. One review is in a print magazine (Games Unplugged issue 17) that is supposed to be available online but the link is timing out, but the score from the review and the necessary information to identify the print issue is posted on rpg.net. The second review is posted in full on rpg.net, written by a guy named Craig Oxbrow, a writer, blogger, minor filmmaker, and artist, depending on which part of the net you're looking at. Dcs002 (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD, please see my apology above. I completely misunderstood one of your comments, which explains a lot of what appeared to be hostility. I have stricken my responses based on that mistake. Dcs002 (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now sourced four independent reviews for two of Johnson's books and a context piece in USA Today, describing the impact of Cartoon Network's online games in the context of the total online kids' market (#2 behind Nick, but ahead of Disney at the time), with a mention of the upcoming gToons in that context. The USA Today piece isn't enough on its own, but with these reviews I'm finding it's really filling out the picture of notability nicely per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Please have a look at the additions I've made in the past several hours if you believe the subject lacks notability, and please reconsider. These are just the sources I have found online (and I'm not an RPG fan). I want to reiterate that print resources most likely will contain more - certainly the complete Games Unplugged review at the very least. Dcs002 (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I appreciate User:Dcs002's acceptance of my good faith, and that user's industry (while a little wall-of-texty) has borne fruit. I'll confess the page looks much better this morning than it did last night. I do consider GamesUnplugged a reliable source upon which to anchor pagespace on game product and the USA Today link would be quite a nice addition to the Cartoon Orbit page. However, I still feel the page lacks direct coverage of the subject. At this point, I'm leaning towards draftifying. I've explained my rationale on my talk page here. I'd be interested in hearing more from editors who have not yet contributed to this discussion. BusterD (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I just added content from a review & interview article from Examiner.com, a website blacklisted by WP. I don't know exactly how to cite the source in that case. ~~I followed the web template, but I had to remove the url. I put it in a note next to the inline cit with a blacklist warning.~~ I used the news template and left the URL out. The title will bring it right up in that domain. What is the appropriate way to cite a blacklisted website here? Dcs002 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request to have the source website itself whitelisted for purposes of this article. Dcs002 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book review could be used to establish the notability of the book, but not the author unless it covers the author directly in enough detail. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In brief, I have explained how every bit of what I argue here is policy- and guideline-based, and again, your statement is at odds with what I keep reading in WP:BIO. But Johnson is not only notable for his creative works themselves. The sources tell us his gToons game had a significant impact on a major media market.

Here are the "wall-of-texty" details (an apt description):

This article can be used to establish the subject's notability if it is one of multiple, independent reviews of his work. There are four independent book reviews already. The article I was referring to is one of the two independent game reviews, intended to balance the article. WP:CREATIVE, criterion 3, says a creative professional is likely to be notable if he has a body of work that has been the subject of multiple, independent periodical articles or reviews. So far I count six of them that are now sourced in the article: Longworth, Coots, Snyder, Oxbrow, Hite, and Games Unplugged. If it were half that many it would still be multiple, independent reviews. Meeting this criterion does not guarantee that a subject should be included, but if the guideline uses the phrase "likely to be notable" if they meet the standard, can you tell me what differentiates Hunter Johnson from other creative professionals who are "likely" to meet notability requirements via this criterion?
But that's not Johnson's only claim to notability. A weak case can be made (but added to the above) that he also meets WP:CREATIVE criterion 2 as a creative professional who is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The USA Today piece shows the state of the kids' networks websites and children's collectible digital trading cards before Hunter Johnson's gToons turned them into a head-to-head game, and Kidscreen shows the state of the market a month after gToons was introduced. Johnson's gToons came out and proved to be an effective way to promote Cartoon Network (per Kidscreen). Then the leader of that major media market sector, Nickelodeon, announced its plans to use digital children's trading cards for online children's gaming (instead of just collecting and trading) to promote its TV network. It would be untenable to argue this case on its own, but add this impact on the kids' networks online market to the impact of his growing body of creative works and I think Johnson more than "likely" satisfies [WP:BIO]].

I am sorry for coming across so frustrated and pushy and, well, probably crabby. I do hope you understand that it's frustrating for me to spend so much time learning WP policies and guidelines before participating in these AfD discussions, and then to see how they apparently are not being applied in many of these discussions. WP:CREATIVE, criterion 3, "likely" satisfies WP:N, but you and BusterD both still insist that a focus on the person's works is not enough, that the creative professional himself must also be covered in the sources, regardless of what the WP:BIO page has to say. I just don't get it. Remember, this article was created before March 18, 2010, so some criteria are different from newer articles (no BLP requirement to say something about the person and then source it with an RS). My frustration is sincere, and it is not anger, nor is it directed at you guys, who have both been very patient in your assuming my good faith. I just want to know why what WP:BIO says isn't sufficient in this case where the subject of the article and the sourcing IMO clearly exceed the standards spelled out on that page. Dcs002 (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as satisfying WP:CREATIVE. Appropriate sources for a standalone article have been found. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @JHunterJ and others: The author of the most recent review and interview article that appears on examiner.com (a WP blacklisted site) has sent me a copy of the original print article as it appeared in the Centerville-Washington Times, so that content can now be sourced properly. It is an interview with Hunter and a review of Quizgle.com. Dcs002 (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion seems to have stagnated - 9 days since someone besides me posted anything. The !votes, by my count, are 4 Keep, 1 Keep or Draftify, and 3 Delete. The article has been expanded with several more 3rd party sources (four independent reviews and a mention with context in USA Today) since this discussion began, and the only !vote that was cast after that expansion was Keep. Let's close this, either as keep or no consensus. Let it be listed again some time in the future if it still seems to merit deletion, and let's have a new discussion based on the article that's actually there now instead of the one that existed when this AfD discussion began. Dcs002 (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Frmorrison's Weak Keep pushed this the delete way... Wifione ^Message 06:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4talk

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Article's author (Laura4talk (talk · contribs)) did a good job of finding every source available on the web, but still the coverage severely lacks depth. The only piece that actually covers the subject – review on 3DNews – reads like an advertisment. The rest of sources either barely mention it or are not independent: links to app in stores, press release, links to product's website and interview with developer on pretentious blog. That leaves the article with only one questionable source that can be used to establish notability, and I failed to find anything convincing off-wiki. FWIW the level of coverage is well below average product of the class, specifically given that the product was developed by authors of two well-known pieces of software (Quiet Internet Pager and Miranda IM). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with the nominator's rationale. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It has a review on 3dnews and an overview on Marketwatch, so it is barely notable. Frmorrison (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with 331dot and nominator. George8211 / T 10:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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