Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 September	1 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7) by NawlinWiki . –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Kuo

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

I put this as a prod at first then I noticed that this is basically a page for a student film director, so too soon for sure. Wgolf (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:23, 30 September 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 Moomins on the Riviera. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Browne

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

Too soon case it seems, redirect to the film for now, now for the creator of the page-thanks for doing this and I can see you are new, so keep this in mind that this is friendly advice to see. Wgolf (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect will be appropriate for the actor. He seems to be newbie without any renowned goals at this point of time. Ridrect seems to be the right decision at this point of time.Ireneshih (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I agree a redirect be the best. Wgolf (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IQ Beats

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

I'm unable to find sources that show IQ Beats is the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" as per WP:ORG. The article lacks references and searches are only turning up first-party or trivial coverage. Stesmo (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Though this is a company that produces jingles, etc., it seems to me that they would need to meet WP:ORG and not WP:NMUSIC. I recognize that I may be wrong in this understanding... Stesmo (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google search fails to uncover the kind of independent sources which would indicate that the entity in question qualifies as notable under WP:MUSIC and/or WP:MEDIA. Quis separabit? 12:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Leycester Haymes

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

Delete: absolutely no reason that I can see why this guy should be included: relatively minor commissioned rank, and no notable achievement. Totally unnotable. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet WP:SOLDIER, I admit that the article needs expansion. --Bejnar (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing the notability with this one. His rank (lieutenant-colonel) and his DSO are not sufficient. He held no especially notable position. ~~He doesn't even have a Who Was Who entry.~~ -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to the contrary, I don't see how he meets SOLDIER or the GNG. 2IC of some obscure unit, LTCOL and DSO don't add up to notability on the face of it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability generally speaking, doesn't seem notable as low-ranking officer with single DSO, and second-in-command in a short-lived, unimportant unit. —innotata 04:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to comment above, he does have an entry in Who's Who (1935 edition) and Who Was Who (online edition) MJT21 (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. My mistake. My opinion that he's not notable stands however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GNG - there appear to be good sources, although how significant, I'm not sure. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An entry in A & C Black's Who's Who is conclusive proof of notability, like an obituary in the NYT. The professional biographers who produce that publication are not likely to make a mistake about who is and isn't notable. The entry satisfies GNG in of itself. There are also other sources, such as biographies in Whitaker's Peerage and Debrett's Peerage. James500 (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ If even the British Empire-loving "Senior Ediotrs" who made most of these junk articles get kept think this should be deleted, that is a sign. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your fancy school and all the "famous" Imperialists who went there. MayVenn (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional information added. Commander of the 6th Siege Battery at the First Battle of Ypres and at the Battle of Neuve Chapelle. One of the first to achieve O.P. at Neuve Chapelle. See also Imperial War Museum archives MJT21 (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked at this one. I can see it both ways. The creator, MJT21 is still working on it, I suggest userfication to that editor if this ends as a Delete. Advice to the creator: this is missing some indication of significance. Was the subject important in some way in a battle? As a combat photographer? In some other non-military aspect of life? If so, that needs to be in there twice, once in the lead and once (with sources) in the body... As it stands this smacks of a family tribute, which, while sourced pretty well as these things go is nevertheless deletable under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The guy made Who's Who in the days when that actually meant something. Done deal. Period. Nha Trang 18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was probably easier to get into WW in those days. Nobody would get in today on the strength of being a lieutenant-colonel with a DSO! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Battle of Neuve Chapelle. Subject appears to meet criteria 6 of WP:SOLDIER, "Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat". Failing that the subject falls under WP:BIO1E and the article can be redirected to the battle where the subject's actions were notable at.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A battery hardly counts as a "substantial body of troops"! Surely we're not saying that every company commander is notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator appears to have set up an account to delete about thirty articles in one hour! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.145.39.139 (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamino

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

Does not appear to be a notable fictional topic. Written mostly in-universe with few sources and none that appear to be analyzing the topic from a real world perspective. The "keep" arguments in previous discussions are surprisingly weak, centering on its importance in the fictional Star Wars universe. Topics like this are much better handled by something like Wookiepedia. --Daniel (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in detail by works such as Inside the Worlds of Star Wars, Attack of the Clones and so passes WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Inside the Worlds of Star Wars is a work of fiction made under licensee from Lucas Films. It does not discuss Kamino from a real world perspective and is not a reliable source from which to write an encyclopedia article. --Daniel (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a secondary source with contributions from a theoretical astrophysicist. It naturally concerns this imaginary world, not the real one because that is our topic. My !vote stands. Andrew (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher's summary for the work makes it very clear that it is not independent, stating "Building on the close relationship between DK and Lucasfilm, our creative team has produced a stunning accompaniment to the most recent installment of the Star Wars saga." But even if it was somehow independent, I know that you frequently claim that discussion of fictional topics in books on fictional universes is enough to grant notability, but consensus has consistently disagreed with you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucasfilm created the original concept and so it is natural and appropriate that they should be consulted. As for consensus, notice that the page has been at AFD before and was kept. And that all the other major worlds of Star Wars are blue links, not red links: Tatooine, Coruscant, Alderaan, Naboo, Hoth, &c. I'm not the one pissing into the wind here. Andrew (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and you'll note that there's been actual independent coverage of Tatooine or Alderaan. You're just pulling your usual arguments here, and they aren't sticking.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of blogs are of little account. The authorative accounts of the creation of the background in proper books like Inside the Worlds of Star Wars and Star Wars, Mythmaking: Behind the Scenes of Attack of the Clones are much better as sources. Andrew (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's changed since the second time this was nominated for deletion, which was closed as keep? Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - The arguments given above in favor of keeping give no mention of sources that are independent of the subject and provide any indication of anything outside in-universe notability. For very obvious reasons, when a subject's only sources are the licensed works on the franchise there is an issue with notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For a fictional element, this one is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.[1] [2] And while I would expect a notable element might be written of in other places... it can be included here as well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable within the fiction. Article needs some better sourcing and improvement, but it shouldn't be deleted.kuwabaratheman (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect for lack of substantive coverage in reliable sources. The proper place for keeping this is Wookieepedia: a Star Wars wiki. --Bejnar (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you feel an easily sourcable [3][4] fictional element does not WP:BELONG? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable in secondary sources yes, but no great coverage in secondary sources. Much of the article appears to be from the fictional books, primary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Star Wars planets. In-universe fan media and a brief name-drop in a book do not establish sufficient notability for this. Tarc (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on deletion but oppose redirect to List of Star Wars planets should it be deleted. Disambiguate with Emperor Saga (birth name Kamino) and multiple Japanese with the surname 神野, which could be read/reasonably misread as Kamino. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 05:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There were substantial reasons, where decision was keep in first nomination. Really nothing has changed much.Ireneshih (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how I read the previous Afds. --Bejnar (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I said above delete and redirect, but I agree with editor 野狼院ひさし that the redirect should be to Emperor Saga, with a dab hatnote about the Star Wars' planet. --Bejnar (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone redirected Kamino (Star Wars) to Kamino per WP:DISAMBIG.[5] If a redirect is decided, as a fictional element the former should redirect to List of Star Wars planets and, as a personal name, the latter should to Emperor Saga. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Schmidt. It was on 11 June 2007‎ that EVula moved "Kamino (Star Wars)" to "Kamino" stating that there was no reason to disambiguate the page, as there were no other Kamino articles at the time. --Bejnar (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Given the pointy nom, no prejudice to quick relisting. Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rowland Thomas Lovell Lee

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

Delete:Absolutely no claim to notability. Being a Recorder is not sufficiently senior in the judiciary to be notable. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keepRather WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No valid reason for deletion. The nominator seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BASIC requires significant coverage in more than one source. There's only one reference at present; I tried a web search but found no additional significant coverage. Qwfp (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a meaningless search. The customary abbreviation of "Mr Justice Lee" used in law books is "Lee J". You can't find something like that with Google, unless you know exactly what you are looking for. James500 (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought such law books were most unlikely to contain significant coverage of him as a person, as opposed to significant coverage of cases over which he presided. Qwfp (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We would accept citations of his judgements as proof of notability if there were enough citations. We do this with WP:PROF. [Cases from the Crown Court are reported by the Criminal Law Review and they do get cited by treatises]. Likewise, newspaper articles about his cases are not particularly likely to use his full name. What searches did you actually run? His full name proves nothing, because he could just as easily be referred to as "Rowland Lee" or by a stack of cognate expressions. James500 (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, GNG doesn't require multiple sources in absolute terms. James500 (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-2 says "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." Who's Who (UK)#Contents says "The entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects. Some checks are made by the editors but subjects may say or omit anything they wish." Though an entry may be a reasonably reliable source for the basic facts of a person's life, I don't think an article should be based solely on such an entry as the subject may omit anything they wish so it does not reflect a neutral point of view; nor many entries, including this person's, provide sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. Qwfp (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Who Was Who is a sufficiently comprehensive biography. I don't see how a list of straightforward facts, such as names of parents, where educated, list of jobs, and so forth ("names and dates") can be POV. James500 (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, there are multiple sources, including the New Law Journal and the London Gazette. James500 (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The snippet of New Law Journal that comes up in a GBooks search on his name clearly shows that his name is one in a list of names; that's certainly not significant coverage. Same for the London Gazette, which includes his name in a list of persons appointed to be Recorders. Qwfp (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "significant" in GNG refers to the totality of the coverage. Even if the other sources are entries in lists, it is still multiple sources. James500 (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's coverage about this deceased person in other sources including The New Law Journal. — Cirt (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind at least providing citations? —innotata 04:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It comes up immediately in GBooks. James500 (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclusion in A & C Black's Who's Who is conclusive proof of notability, similar to an obituary in the NYT. That publication has a reputation for only including notable individuals. If you haven't found additional sources, it can only mean that you have not looked hard enough. The experts who produce that publication are not likely to have made a mistake. James500 (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He probably satisfies WP:POLITICIAN because the Crown Court is a national court ("national office"). He probably satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO on grounds that inclusion in A & C Black's Who's Who (hereinafter "WWW") is a significant and well known honour, because it is considered prestigious. WP:NRVE says that an article should not be deleted on notability grounds alone if it is likely that significant coverage exists. The biography in WWW is a strong indicator that it does, perhaps only in print or expressed in language that makes it difficult to find with a search engine. "I can't find it on the internet" is a very weak argument when you consider (as of the last time I checked) that the vast majority of books and newspapers have never been digitised. Finally, if it comes down to this, if the experts from WWW say he is notable, and we say he isn't: they are right and we are wrong (WP:IAR). James500 (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he does satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that in the past we have held full-time Crown Court judges to be inherently notable, let alone recorders. High Court judges, yes, but not ordinary Crown Court judges. It's not really a national office, since these judges sit locally, and in any case WP:POLITICIAN doesn't apply since that was clearly written for American judges; British judges are not politicians or even political appointees. WW certainly does not meet WP:ANYBIO #1. It provides evidence the individual might be notable, but that's all. It wouldn't be considered an honour in that sense. It is usual for all judges and recorders to be given entries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the selection board of Who's Who think that all recorders are notable (and I'm not sure how to verify that they do), then we should accept that all recorders are notable. We are not qualified to reject the opinions of experts. We would need a very compelling reason to do that.

I can't recall a single instance of a recorder with an entry in Who's Who being deleted, and I have been watching the relevant delsort lists for several years.

Under section 23 of the Courts Act 1971, a recorder can sit as a judge of the High Court, so I would question whether there is a sufficiently significant distinction. James500 (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any case of a recorder with no honours, not even a QC, coming up for deletion. I really don't think the fact that a circuit judge or recorder can sit as a judge of the High Court is particularly relevant; it doesn't make them High Court judges. Note that articles on lower-level federal judges in the United States are generally deleted. So you think we should have articles on all judges in the United Kingdom? Okay, but I think you'll find a lot of opposition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I am saying is that we should have an artcle on every person included in A & C Black's Who's Who unless you can produce a sufficient number of reliable sources that say that a significant proportion of the persons included in Who's Who are non-notable, which I don't imagine you will be able to do. (That publication obviously doesn't include magistrates.) I also think the distinction you are trying to draw between High Court judges and the others is a rather fine one. I wasn't aware that a person qualified as a solicitor can be appointed Queen's Counsel. I think the fact the post is part time is irrelevant because it doesn't change the nature of the powers being exercised (a recorder sitting as such can inflict a sentence of imprisonment for life, and the death penalties for treason, piracy and so forth were a dead letter during the period in question). If articles on lower-level federal judges in the United States are generally deleted, that may nevertheless be irrelevant due to cultural differences between Britain and America. And if there is so much opposition, why has a nomination like this never been done before? James500 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has. Articles on judges at a lower rank than High Court judges have certainly been deleted in the past, but most of them don't have articles to delete in the first place. Solicitors can now be appointed QC, but only since 1997, so after Lee's time. Since the vast majority of judges have always been barristers, this isn't really relevant. However, your point about inclusion in WW meaning people are automatically notable enough for Wikipedia has been defeated on many occasions at AfD. Inclusion on WW is a good start, certainly, but it does not mean automatic notability. An obituary in a major national newspaper (which are more selective than WW), however, is usually taken to indicate sufficient notability. I realise that your opinion is that WW is sufficient, and you are of course perfectly entitled to it. I'm just saying that previous AfDs have generally not agreed with you (the point has been raised many times), and therefore the consensus is against you. In addition, WW was once far less selective than it is now; reaching the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the Army, for instance, was once often sufficient, whereas it isn't now. How would you address that imbalance?

You will notice, incidentally, that I haven't expressed an opinion as to whether this article should be deleted. I'm neutral. I'm merely pointing out, as a participant in many, many AfDs on biographies of British worthies, that consensus is most definitely against inclusion in WW conferring automatic notability. An obit in The Times or similar does, an honour of the level of CBE or above does (that qualifies quite a few judges, and all High Court judges as recipients of automatic knighthoods), a WW entry does not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has the total number of biographies in the annual volume decreased? (I'm afraid I can't find the numbers for the old editions). A change in focus isn't an increase in selectivity. I might not care anyway, since I also hold the opinion that the longer someone has been dead, the more likely they are to be notable. And I might ask whether the increase in selectivity reflects a real change in society, such as a decline in the importance of "class", or a change in the size or structure of whatever elite exists. James500 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jackson's Machinery of Justice, 8th Ed, CUP, 1989, p 180, in 1979 (the relevant date) there were 307 circuit judges and 412 recorders. That is a small number in absolute terms. It argues for inclusion ("unusual enough to receive or deserve attention"). It is less than half the number of MPs, all of whom satisfy BIO. James500 (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was half the number of MPs, I'm assuming you don't actually mean a total of 719 individuals! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 1975 (probably close enough in time), there were 1,095 MPs in the Lords (Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 2nd Ed, p 593). The number in the commons will have been on the order of six hundred. So the total is presumably going to be on the order of seventeen or eighteen hundred, which does seem to be more than twice 719 (admittedly this figure omits judges more senior than circuit judges). I appreciate that the Lords satisfy ANYBIO in addition to POLITICIAN, but even if the honours system was abolished, there would still be an upper chamber, and it doesn't detract from the fact that those people were members of the legislature. James500 (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no MPs in the Lords! All the MPs are in the Commons. Members of the Lords are called peers. But I see what you mean now. Still not really relevant though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: SPA is a suspected sock of an indef blocked account, apparently doing a number of these retaliatory AfDs: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MayVenn Nha Trang 18:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. Too difficult to discern notability with socks and/or SPA on the scene. Re-visit at a later date. Szzuk (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorio Smith

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources showing this filmmaker reaches WP:BASIC. Sourced only to IMDB, which is not a reliable source. None of his works except an upcoming documentary have Wikipedia articles, the upcoming one is Truth Be Told, but I'm not convinced the two sources there would rise to WP:BASIC either. (If they are, a redirect might be appropriate.) j⚛e decker ^talk 19:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, the subject obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. I can't find significant WP:RS that establish the subject notability. IMDB is not a reliable source per WP:IMDB.Wikicology (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN subject, created by a SPA whose only Wikipedia activity over six years has been to maintain this article and that of the subject's films -- Truth Be Told (2012 film) and Staten Island Catapult -- which I recommend be added to the AfD. Nha Trang 18:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Kalimullin

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro leauge. PROD was contested on the grounds that he played in the play-off rounds of the UEFA Cup. Since the club he played for does not play in a fully pro league, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:16, 30 September 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) 11:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salome Nyamuiru

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

Unotable politician that can be either redirected or deleted. Wgolf (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced biography and no claim of notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's especially ugly about these is that Kenya National Assembly elections in Nairobi, 2013 has never actually been updated with the actual election results even though the election was a year and a half ago, so I have no way to even determine who in that list passes WP:NPOL and who doesn't. (Yet nearly all of the candidates in the list have been presumptively redlinked anyway, which is not how we do things in election articles.) The lack of WP:RS coverage strongly implies to me that she didn't win, and thus doesn't qualify to keep an article on here — so delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can properly source that she passes NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While this source is almost certainly not reliable in Wikipedia terms, it is still the kind of source I would tend to trust in practice for election data - and searching for her name suggests that she got less than 1% of the vote in her area. PWilkinson (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dianah Njeri Macharia

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

Another politician that seems to be unotable for here, refs either go back to here or are unreliable or not about her Wgolf (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show she's a notable politician and lacks the significant independent coverage required by GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did a sweep of Kenyan newspapers here but did not find anything to indicate she passes the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's especially ugly about these is that Kenya National Assembly elections in Nairobi, 2013 has never actually been updated with the actual election results, so I have no way to even determine who in that list passes WP:NPOL and who doesn't. (Yet nearly all of the candidates in the list have been presumptively redlinked anyway, which is not how we do things in election articles.) The lack of WP:RS coverage strongly implies to me that she didn't win, and thus doesn't qualify to keep an article on here — so delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can properly source that she passes NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She appears to have stood as a National Assembly candidate in 2013 and lost. This guy seemingly won the seat she contested. She is not listed as a member of the Senate of Kenya or National Assembly (Kenya) Kiwiguy12 (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and unsuccessful candidate for office. Tiller54 (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasheem Simba Gedow Hasan

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

A politician who may not be notable. Also notice the refs either go here, to unreliable sources or to just plain pages. Wgolf (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show he's a notable politician and lacks the independent coverage required by GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's especially ugly about these is that Kenya National Assembly elections in Nairobi, 2013 has never actually been updated with the actual election results, so I have no way to even determine who in that list passes WP:NPOL and who doesn't (yet nearly all of the candidates in the list have been presumptively redlinked anyway, which is not how we do things in election articles.) The lack of WP:RS coverage strongly implies to me that he didn't win, and thus doesn't qualify to keep an article on here — so delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can properly source that he passes NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jefitha Motaroki Ogeto

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

A politician that as far as I can tell does not fall under the political wiki pages Wgolf (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's especially ugly about these is that Kenya National Assembly elections in Nairobi, 2013 has never actually been updated with the actual election results, so I have no way to even determine who in that list passes WP:NPOL and who doesn't (yet nearly all of the candidates in the list have been presumptively redlinked anyway, which is not how we do things in election articles.) The lack of WP:RS coverage strongly implies to me that he didn't win, and thus doesn't qualify to keep an article on here — so delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can properly source that he passes NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat-yeah I put some prods up earlier for some of the other ones. And if you check the number of articles the creator made that turned into redirects-it is INSANE! Wgolf (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. First, I do recognize the expansion and sources that have been added to the article since its initial nomination more than a month ago, however since that addition there hasn't been much in the way of discussion debating if that is enough to bring the article up to the standard as required per the general notability guidelines, just a weak keep and a suggestion to check the Wayback Machine. So the question remains, does a handful (or two handsful) of articles about a Catholic music week in The Catholic Herald constitute significant coverage. There is no argument here that it unequivocally does, however there is a lot of arguments that the article should be retained by virtue of it being a charity, it existing, its age, or that an encyclopedia should be all inclusive. These arguments are blatantly incorrect as per what Wikipedia is not. Furthermore there is the conflict of interest issue, while COI does not preclude people from editing, it does mean that their arguments must be taken with a grain of salt, especially when the arguments are in favour of retaining an article by virtue of the subject being a charity, it existing, etc. So in summary of the discussion, we have two people saying delete, this doesn't meet the standard, a few COI and SPAs saying keep based on no existing Wikipedia criteria and one person saying maybe the article could be improved and expanded and another saying have a look here. So, for today we delete, however given the potential sources, I offer to restore (personally, and upon request) the article and move it to the draft space, where it can be developed, sourced, and notability established prior to moving back into article space. kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spode Music Week

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:ORG or WP:GNG. WP:COI creator removed WP:PROD, wanting to know what is needed for improvement. To me, the complete lack of sources and evidence of notability, especially after having been tagged for notability, show that this should be deleted. I always hope, especially with worthy organisations, to be proved wrong. Boleyn (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with all you editors at wikipedia is that you assume we are all computer savvy enough to understand how these things work. I've spent ages (years) trying to understand your objections and how to respond to them. No-one can simply send me an email and ask can you? - no, you have to use a load of technical terms and bury things on pages I don't know how to access. No-one has responded in previous years when I have asked after a tag has been added. A friend in America had to help me get here. Spode Music Week has been going for 61 years. We have sung live from the week on Radio 3 (albeit back in the 1960's). There is a book "Hawkesyard to Hengrave" published about the week on the 50th anniversary and just this year it was the subject of an article in "The Catholic Herald" Newspaper. Why are these not considered sources that illustrate the week is real? Spode Music Week is a registered charity and listed on the Charity Commission webpage. We wouldn't be there if we weren't a proper organisation. If the objection is the fact that I have a connection to the week, please explain the problem with that. Many wikipedia pages are written by someone with a close knowledge of the subject they are writing about. Why would it make sense for the article to be written by someone who didn't have? Finally, please explain what harm the page is doing here? It's not an advert. It doesn't proselytise. It tells people about an event with a 60 year history. You have articles on other events that don't have such a history. It tells people about a registered charity. You have other articles on registered charities. FatClone (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the above comment by @FatClone: from Talk:Spode Music Week to here. FatClone, you may want to add either the word keep or comment at the start of it. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response FatClone, I'll answer some of your questions as best I can. The links I've given in my nomination show the most relevant parts of WP:NOTABILITY for an article on a charity - WP:ORG and WP:GNG. These show you the criteria for an article on an organisation such as this. This is an encyclopaedia, and we do not include every charity or organisation, and decisions are made on whether they meet the notability criteria, not on whether they are worthy and simply being a registered charity and listed on the Charity Commission website does not establish that it is an organisation which would be included in an encyclopaedia. Whether 'Hawkesyard to Hengrave' is considered a reliable source or not, I can't tell, but if you look at WP:SOURCE, it will help you. If it is self-published or published by the charity, it would be a WP:PRIMARY source.

As for your conflict of interests, please see the links I gave in my nomination, WP:COI and WP:SPA. People involved with an organisation are not banned as such from creating an example on them, but this is an encyclopaedia. WP:COI says that: COI editing is strongly discouraged. It defines conflict of interests as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. The conflict of interests is not a reason for deleting the article, but it is a concern.

No one has tagged this article as an advert. I find it hard to understand how you would feel it is completely unclear why this article's notability has been questioned - the article has had an 'unreferenced' tag on it for over six years - it actually has a reference at the bottom, so that tag is no longer strictly too, but it still is lacking in sources to prove notability. WP:SOURCE can help you get an idea of what sources are accepted on Wikipedia. You discuss proof that the week is 'real'. This isn't our focus is an encyclopaedia - it is whether it is WP:NOTABLE. The Catholic Herald article sounds like a

As for other editors not sending you an e-mail about an article, people often wouldn't do that. That is because the creator does not WP:OWN the article - it is a contribution to an encyclopaedia, and any editors would judge it and edit it based on it being an encyclopaedia article. They would be judging it objectively - they would not be emotionally involved as you are, one of the reasons why editing on organisations you are involved in is strongly discouraged. Of course, if you have, historically, left messages on people's talk pages (I don't know if you have), then it would be polite of them to respond. However, not every editor edits all the time, and they are all volunteers. I also see from your own talk page, that there are clear instructions right at the top for accessing the 'help me' section.

You also talk about the fact that there are other articles on charities and other articles which you see as of similar worth. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument on whether this article is notable. As you have been having difficulty understanding what the notability criteria of Wikipedia is, it is also likely that many of these articles do meet the criteria. However, the 'Spode Music Week' article has been tagged for notability for over six years - there has been plenty of opportunity and time given for the article to develop or its notability to be established, not just by you, but by anyone. I hope I've answered your questions in detail and that this has been of some help to you. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the one reference that might constitute significant coverage is the book by Sherlaw-Johnson who's family successively held the position of secretary since the event's inception until 2012 (according to the article). We require independent sources and someone writing about their own family's event obviously isn't independent enough by our standards. The largest ever group was 126 people and that was almost 40 years ago. That's the size of a (very) small business conference or school camp. Those sorts of things just don't get significant coverage in mainstream press and the available sources confirm that here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for help ( a few times) when the article was first tagged six years ago as I did not know what (or how) to do anything about that then). I probably didn't ask in the right place, as despite your assertion that these things are easy to understand, they weren't to me. No response was forthcoming to any of my queries and so I left the page as it was. I didn't understand what was wanted, no-one was answering my points and the page remained (albeit with the annoying tag). Thats why it remained as it did for 6 years. You mention in your response the Catholic Herald article, but that ends in an unfinished sentence. Could you please explain? FatClone (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just butt in here? The point of an encyclopaedia is that it tells you everything. This means that any topic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. There shouldn't be a rule about 'it's not important enough'. Also, the way I see it, if it's a registered charity, it should be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be a place that people go to when they want to find out about stuff, and that includes details of registered charities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.73.244 (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's decidedly not the way Wikipedia works. There are clearly defined policies relating to notability, verifiability and sourcing. You're allowed to disagree but an opinion in a deletion discussion that amounts to "I don't think Wikipedia should be what it is" won't go very far. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing encyclopaedias with search engines. Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC

No I am not. An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge. Fro Wikipedia to succeed, it needs to contain the knowledge. Therefore, 'being a registered charity' is sufficient for an article in Wikipedia. Also, since Wikipedia is crowdsourced, 'being interesting enough that somebody wrote an article and put it on Wikipedia' is also good enough.

No, no and no. Again, you need to read some of the long-established policies around here before arbitrarily (and incorrectly) declaring what Wikipedia is and isn't. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made significant changes to Spode Music Week between 4-6 September 2014, with the aim of addressing the concerns raised regarding notability and sources. Have those concerns been fully addressed now? If so, can the entry no longer be earmarked for deletion? Carlolingian (talk) 08:08, 13

September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to work on the article, but nothing has been found that establishes notability. Which WP:NOTABILITY criteria do you feel it might meet? Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has a Wikipedia entry and associated with several organisations which have entries I find it extraordinary that Spode Music Week should be questioned on grounds of notability. This was a leading organisation in the Catholic world where George Malcolm (qv) Robert Sherlaw Johnson, Noelle Barker and other leading artists were regular teachers. It should be reinstated. Nicholas Kenyon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenyon01 (talk • contribs)

@Kenyon01:, (the WP:SPA commenting above), which aspect of WP:NOTABILITY do you feel it meets, and is this WP:V verifiable? Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, I am very surprised that you still have not found anything in the revised article which establishes notability. With reference to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I would consider the reference sources "The Tablet", "The Catholic Herald" and "English Heritage" in particular to be external sources which: 1) provide "significant coverage"; 2) are "reliable"; 3) are "secondary sources", and 4) sufficiently "independent of the subject". I have only cited a selection of extracts from these sources. Many other existing Wikipedia articles do not provide as many relevant and reliable references or external links as this article does. You have so far not been very specific about what you object to. Carlolingian (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I suspect the sources from The Catholic Herald may be significant enough to qualify here, unfortunately their archive is currently inaccessible and won't be back until "November". The article has been up for years already, I don't see the harm in waiting another couple of months so we can take a look at those sources and see if they're significant enough to keep this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment At least some of the Catholic Herald Archive is itself archived at the Internet Archive, e.g., [6]. I recommend people give the Wayback Machine a shot. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle’s Wings Foundation

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

non notable organization,unimportant local charitable arm of a vacation club; not even important enough for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any reliable independent sources. A couple of press release-type blog posts, that's it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more in HighBeam. Gov Jeb Bush gave the leader of the organization an award for what Eagle’s Wings Foundation accomplished in Mississippi. There are several local sources on the organization and I added a couple to the article about their relief work in Haiti. The Washington Post mentions the organization among several here. Since they have been recognized for there national and international work through independent sources, the organization meets both criteria in WP:NONPROFIT. I am One of Many (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks to DrFleischman for pointing out the my confusing this organization with another. This one should be deleted and it would be fine to create an article on the notable organization. I am One of Many (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vessel (film)

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

Article is a stub, provides very little information to establish Notability. Sources are just the official website and the IMDB entry. RegistryKey (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable film. Did you try researching the topic? WP:N states, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Per WP:BEFORE, basic due diligence must be exercised to determine if there is a lack of reliable sources about this film. I searched for vessel documentary review and found the following reviews right away: Indiewire, Variety, and Austin Chronicle, which is more than enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Strongest keep per 8 more reviews linked here and WP:NRVE even for an unimproved article. Sorry nominator, but you really dropped the ball on this one per deletion policy. A withdrawal would be both courteous and appreciated. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anything reviewed by Variety is almost certainly notable, as that is indicative of higher profile and mainstream films. It's a good place to start any research on films. Also, try checking the IMDb for external reviews. It's not a total loss, however, as the article has been improved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLEANUP... but yup. So many many sources missed by the nominator, it was ridiculously easy to do. He's been actively editing, so does anyone care to suppose why he has not returned to this discussion to address a possible speedy keep per his failure to properly follow WP:Deletion policy for an obviously notable topic? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Must have been the way I was researching, apologies all, didn't mean to stir up the hornet's nest. I've been busy elsewhere plus with work, so haven't had time to get back to this. So, having read the replies here, I hereby request speedy keep under reason #1. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 00:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 9 (disambiguation)

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

A violation of WP:TWODAB. Also, I can't understand how one might mistake Windows 9 with Windows 10. In addition, it is created in an attempt to circumvent to consensus on not having a Windows 9 redirect in the first place. There has recently been several attempts, the latest of which was the creation Windows nine. It appears some people just cannot leave rumors well alone. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is sticking to the letter of WP:G4 while violating its spirit ï¿½ (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you please supply an solution that will not cause confusion? It's very clear (due to the page recreations and redirects) that people do confuse Windows 9, Windows 9x, and Windows 10 together. For example, the past two Windows have been Windows 7 and Windows 8, so naturally people will believe Windows 9 would be next, not the unexpected Windows 10 number jump. If you don't want to keep the disambiguation, that's fine, but there must be some solution to this so that all users will avoid confusion. That is why I created this page in the first place; to avoid confusion.

Also, this is not an attempt to recreate Windows 9's page, but an attempt to avoid confusion for all. Mine is not based on "rumors" as this user is claiming, but on actual confusion. (Example: http://www.cnet.com/au/news/microsoft-jumps-to-windows-10/). I also can't take you seriously in saying that you can't see "how one might mistake Windows 9 with Windows 10". I explained that above, but really, that should speak for itself. I say that in this case, under WP:TWODAB, this may not strictly necessary, but it IS harmless, and avoids any confusion. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 19:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that I created this after there was a speedy deletion nomination for Windows 9 in an attempt to appease all and avoid confusion. Just worth noting. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 20:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Author). I now think it's best to delete my page and have a hatnote on the Windows 10 page about the redirect of Windows 9 with Windows 9x as the other option. If any admin would do that, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 15:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for this information. However, at this point, the discussion will probably need to go through the full 7-day cycle since there are the equivalent of "keep" votes below (the "move to Windows 9" votes). Steel1943 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Windows 9 per WP:TWODABS. Both Windows 9x and Windows 10 are relevant targets for a search on “Windows 9” (and the conjunction suggests the reason for skipping Windows 9). —teb728 t c 22:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there's a primary topic (currently) TWODABS does not say that. I support the primary topic, as Windows 9x is a WP:PTM and strictly shouldn't be listed, but it's OK as a hatnote (or in the see also if there was more entries), to help readers. Widefox; talk 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Windows 9, seeing that Windows 9 is a likely search term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 9 looks like a correct redirect to me (we actually have a tag for a "redirect from incorrect name" on it). As such, it looks like a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, hence TWODABS says the dab is OK, but not needed. I believe the hatnote now is much better. Widefox; talk 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Windows 9 without leaving a redirect. (Nominator) It seems the RFD for Windows 9 is affecting the outcomes of this discussion. As TEB728 said above, per WP:TWODABS we can use {{Redirect}} instead of this page. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion doesn't make sense to me. If we keep the disambiguation page and move it to Windows 9, then there won't be a redirect anymore, so how would {{Redirect}} be useful in that case? It seems like you are suggesting we get rid of the disambiguation page, but in that case there would be no reason to move it. Calathan (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Move" here doesn't mean "rename". It means "transition". The actual result would be deletion and reinstatement of Windows 9 redirect, which is different from deletion and not caring about Windows 9 redirect. Just out of politeness, I didn't want to nitpick on terminology. So long as I understand them and they understand me... Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Windows 9: the two usages both seem useful, and a 2-entry dab page seems more appropriate than choosing either as primary topic and requiring a confusing hatnote. I'm not sure how the outcomes of this discussion and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_30#Windows_9 are supposed to relate, but clearly they are interdependent. PamD 19:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider Windows 9 the primarytopic, with Windows 9x a WP:PTM only worthy of being put in the see also? The only other article I can think of is Plan 9 (it has a "windowing user interface") but that's too much of a stretch to be included to bulk out this dab. Widefox; talk 22:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think Windows 10 is the most likely think people are looking for when they enter Windows 9. "Windows 9" was what people thought the next version of Windows would be called. In actuality, it will be called "Windows 10", but someone typing "Windows 9" is still probably looking for the next version of Windows. Since I think Windows 10 is the topic people will most often want, I think Windows 9 should redirect there. A hatnote on Windows 10 could direct people to Windows 9x for anyone who was actually looking for that page. The disambiguation page would then not be needed. I want to note that my opinion would be entirely different if Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 30#Windows 9 closes as delete, and also that I don't think the above suggestions to move this page can be carried out if that discussion closes as keep. Calathan (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TWODABS says this dab isn't needed (but may be kept). I've put a hatnote on Windows 10, which covers it better than a dab, as it's clearly the primary topic, and Windows 9x is a WP:PTM so a dab is completely not needed and the hatnote is better. Widefox; talk 19:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly anyone looking at Windows 9 is looking for the version that comes after Windows 10. The 9x series was never called 9 by anybody as far as I know. Best to just redirect Windows 9 to Windows 10. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move to Windows 9, neutral on "keep" or "delete". Windows 10 is the obvious primary topic for the term "Windows 9". I am neutral on keeping or deleting since consensus is not clear on deleting disambiguation pages that have a primary topic and only one other example. Steel1943 (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not believe that a redirect will work at the moment. As initiated by ï¿½, there is a discussion on the Windows 9 redirect at Redirects for discussion. A conclusion here to redirect Windows 9 to Windows 10 could conflict with a conclusion there. I would agree that something needs to be done with regards to Windows 9, but with both of these being open at the same time, I do not feel that a solution can be made without both discussions being debated under one discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there's no need for this disambiguation when Windows 9 can be redirected to Windows 10 and a hatnote placed at target article. But as per above comment, this decision should not conflict with the conclusion of RFD of Windows 9 redirect. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No wikipedia user is likely to use the string "Windows 9" to refer to Windows 95 and 98, which leaves only a single item; that scenario calls for a simple redirect. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The question of whether or not a user wants "windows 10" when they enter "windows 9" in the search box can be handled at Windows 9 (my guess is that should just be a redirect, but that's not really important). Protonk (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deletion unopposed after relist. Sandstein 16:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Germany Must Be Destroyed

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

I cannot find any WP:RSes to support notability either WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim or evidence of notability. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 19:36, 30 September 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 Indranil Sen. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aalaapan

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

Another album that can be redirected to the singer. Wgolf (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't need an AfD to redirect the page. If you've done your homework and you don't believe the page meets WP:NMUSIC then you can redirect it yourself. J04n(talk page) 19:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ThereminPi

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

This is a recreation without improvement of an article previously deleted via PROD. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Sources fail WP:RS. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell. The article seems highly promotional. Recommend Delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no third-party sources for this. — Gwalla | Talk 20:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both references in the article are third-party. And I don't see any promotional purpose. So I don't think it should be deleted. --95.235.238.254 (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)— 95.235.238.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One reference is a design document by the Andrea Lomuscio, who designed the instrument, so that's not third party. The other is a review of a concert where Lomuscio played, which only mentions the instrument in passing (and not by name). — Gwalla | Talk 16:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect a non-notable version of the Theremin. No significant third-party discussion of this instrument. --Bejnar (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam ghali

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

Not notable, does not meet WP:BASIC Karlhard (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-just looks like a resume to be honest. Wgolf (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The accomplishments listed in this article all look too minor for WP:ARTIST to me. But if the "press" section can be turned into a list of sources that cover her work in nontrivial detail (not just announcements of shows) there is a chance for passing WP:GNG. In any case this requires major rewriting if it is to be kept.—David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My news sweeps (US, Britain, Middle East, art-related) did not turn up anything, even an unfiltered search ie "Myriam Ghali" (in quotes) did not turn up anything substantive for about six SERP pages. So my view is she doesn't meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She taught and influenced an entire generation of Lebanese artists. Her status as a female Vatican painter is unique. If her page is deleted, then the pages of many lesser Lebanese artists like Chucrallah Fattouh, Georges Akl, Zena Assi, Joseph Matar, and many more would have to be deleted. Yes, David Eppstein, the "press" section can be turned into a list of sources that cover her work in nontrivial detail and I am willing to do a rewrite with your help. Deleting the page would be too drastic and unwarranted. 02:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellingford (talk • contribs)
Tentative delete does not really pass NARTIST based on the present information. I see no proof she is the only woman artist represented in the Vatican, and even if she were, I don't see why that would be notable. The bio part of the article is a copyvio from [7]. No art in public collections-- her bio is in the Smithsonian's collection of artist biographies, not her art. Let's see a good third party substantial source. The press section would appear to be mostly mere notices of her shows: if there is something more, which is it, and include page numbers and a quotation. It's true the other articles mentioned are even more more poorly supported, so there may be a point about cultural bias. But most of the publications about artists' shows for all artists are so dubiously independent that the criterion of art in a major museum is the most reliable. DGG ( talk ) 13:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is nice as a concept, but I suggest to reinforce it with reliable reference from independent sources and as this page is about art to include gallery and images of her work... Also, the structure of the pages should be edited by organising the headers. 86.98.87.236 (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 03:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monosexuality

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

Fringe term (it doesn't appear in Kinsey, someone's trying to backdate the concept) without currency in RS that, as the article points out, is used in derogatory fashion towards gays and lesbians. In fact, a number of the sources that mention it even point out that no one really uses it and that it's a spurious concept. (Careful when searching; "monosex" has scientific applications and that's most of the GBooks hits, and there's also an application by French theorists to mean sex segregation which takes care of some of the rest.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently underdeveloped but it does not claim that Kinsey used the term, it only references his behavioral statistics. The term is also, in fact, used in the refereed literature as can be seen here and here, and has been used in books and discussions for at least a couple decades. The other usage of the term pertaining to polyamory also has reliable citations. Evolauxia (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in derogatory fashion towards gays and lesbians, but no one really uses it? Those claims cannot both be true. If the first claim is verifiably true, then the fact needs to be discussed somewhere (cf. Nigger), and if not here, then this page should at least redirect to where it is discussed. The point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedia - a compendium of human knowledge - so whether not something is on the fringes is irrelevant. Wiki is not paper, so the traditional requirement to drop fringe topics from old-fashioned, paper-based encyclopaedias no longer holds. The only relevant concerns are whether or not the concept is sufficiently coherent as a topic in its own right (and even if not, redirection is often preferable to deletion), and whether or not there already exist sources of verifiable information about the topic. On those grounds, the article as it stands is not showing much promise, but there are books that take the concept seriously - such as this apparently award-winning volume - so I suspect that it could be improved. -- Oliver P. (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most educational and encyclopedic. Good potential for expansion as quality improvement project and collaboration. — Cirt (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While this seems somewhat fringe-like, it appear to be mentioned enough in literature that an article discussing it is not a bad idea. It is fine to indicate with sourcing (because the article does need improvement) that it is not widely-used term, and here is where it is used most often, etc. I certainly never knew i was monosexual until five minutes ago.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat confusing term, with perhaps most people thinking that it was being sexually attracted to a person with mono, like I would have guessed, but there are enough references found. I doubt the term is clearly etched in the popular consciousness with one meaning, that is, I bet there is still some confusion about the term, with less confusion in the psychological/scientific community. Added references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I always heard you got mono from french kissing, but catching it purposefully would be a fetish the internet hadn't invented yet.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Gandia

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

Article was created WP:TOOSOON. Success at junior martial arts events is not considered enough to show notability. Previous AfD discussions (for martial arts and other sports) and WP:MANOTE make this very clear.Mdtemp (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My CSD#A7 was yanked by a fellow editor (I respectfully disagree), but I maintain that competing in jr. sports isn't enough to even withstand A7, and certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. Dennis 2¢ 19:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy). Meets WP:GNG easily. Sources are available in Spanish for the subject. He has even been shown on local statewide news. The following four reliable sources cover him independently:
- NotiCel: [8]
- Univisión: [9]
- El Nuevo Día: [10] (March 23)
- Primera Hora: [11]

WP:BLP1E does not apply as local press is still covering him even after the events mentioned in the sources above; see [12] (August 15; five months later).

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Junior events participation is not notable. Not enough to meet WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior events do not show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree, junior events are typically not considered to push an individual above the notability standard. QuiteUnusual (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage for sporting events not at the top professional level and with no major title wins seems like a stretch for GNG, especially when we have other guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 17:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devika Khadka

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

Merely appearing at the Asian games is not enough to meet WP:MANOTE, especially when she lost both of her matches.Mdtemp (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Iofe

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

None of the sources provided indicate that this individual might pass WP:BIO or similar relevant policies. Let's walk through them:

I think the level of coverage speaks for itself. Delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator. My independent searches found nothing to indicate she passes WP:GNG, including sweeps of US news, international news, New York City area, music news sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ula. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ula (name)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. People are more likely to search for each of the BLP's direct rather than search for an article using each BLP's forename. Wes Mouse 17:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Withdrawn' - Found a better way to improve the disambiguation page. Although if people still think it should be deleted, then fair enough. Wes Mouse 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has updated the page, and now only one name appears so I think a disambiguation is unnecessary. Wes Mouse 18:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ula. I found two other name entries (a nickname and a fictional character), but there's no compelling reason to keep them separate from the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hadn't realised there was another dab page for Ula. If that's the case, I would happily go for a speedy redirect. Wes Mouse 15:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ula- and someone might like to have a look at the mess of a dab page which is Ulla, where some of the content should probably be split out into Ulla (name)! PamD 19:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made Ulla a given name page and split off the other entries to Ulla (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ula. Only one person in the Ula (name) page, and she is listed in the Ula page too. --Love Krittaya (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods

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

This is a hoax. Essentially, except for making it now about his family and his attempts to start a club, it is a recreation of this deleted autobio: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hereditary Prince Richard Kincaid-Lake, and the user has been warned about creating hoaxes: User page of hoaxer.

This is not a real tribe, and even as a social club it is non-notable. This article was created by Charleswilloughby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a sock account of Royalty90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (the same user who created the AfDed autobio). It's not sourceable because the sources all go back to the author's personal websites. The same user has tried to have themselves listed as African, Irish and LGBT royalty.[13] The sources, such as this TV spot actually source the fact they are not a tribe. The kid who set up the page has claimed 300 members, but there is no source for this beyond his claims. All indications are the only members are this boy and one or two of his friends or family. - CorbieV^☊ 18:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing to speak of, and those sources included all seem to have been given the same press release materials. Pigman☿/talk 18:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using an additional sock: Rjfc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) The hoaxer previously tried creating an African (I think) tribe, of which his father would be the King, and An Island Kingdom of some sort of which his father would be... Emperor. And yet another autobio. The two failed "tribes" were the same people as his new scam "tribe." You can't make this stuff up. Oh wait, he did. - CorbieV^☊ 23:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may or may not be a hoax. They may be perfectly sincere. Misguided perhaps, but sincere. And the editor's other drafts and behavior don't necessarily mean this article is also problematic. However, this topic fails the most basic Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, that is, it lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Valfontis (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not buying the hoax angle, since the KEZI news piece is there & authentic. However, the group fails WP:GNG, for reasons Valfontis has outlined. I've tagged up as ^{[citation needed]} and toned down rhetoric on some of the more boastful claims about Jeff Merkely support, etc. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should clarify. By "hoax" I don't mean it's just a hoax on WP. The family that is perpetuating this hoax does exist. I mean they pranked the local news station by giving them false figures and lying about who they are. But as we all agree, whether or not this small group is sincere in their beliefs is irrelevant; they are simply not notable. I find it bizarre that this wasn't speedily deleted as soon as any experienced editors spotted it. - CorbieV^☊ 22:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross Church, Lewiston

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

Prod Removed. Non notable church, only sources are self-published (pages in the local journal written by the church officials, not independent journalism) and a passing mention in a stenciled genealogy magazine of dubious reliability.

I don't doubt that routine coverage can be found in the local paper, but that is normally deemed insufficient to keep an article. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The church is discussed in Historically Speaking on Lewiston-Auburn, Maine, Churches by Ralph Burgess Skinner (1965), the naming controversy is in Rumilly's Histoire des Franco-Américains (1958), other works include The Peoples of Lewiston-Auburn Maine, 1875-1975.. and so on. Bear in mind that most the works covering this period are in copyright in the US, therefore the Internet is not as useful to deny the existence of sources as it might be of an older church. The church was one of the last places to support the French speaking community, and is hence important socio-linguistically. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC).
Keep per Rich Farmbrough. As I noted when I deprodded this, a GBooks search shows snippets from multiple scholarly works that appear to cover church's early history and the naming controversy. Also as I noted, even if not separately notable, the material here about the church and its significance for Maine's French-American Catholics would be relevant to the article about the diocese, at least. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOFEAT and sources.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GEOFEAT? How does that come into play? Fram (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Seems like a notable page to have and don't see anything wrong with it to be honest! Wgolf (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the sources are independent, reliable and significant? Not the sources in the article, that's clear. The sources Rich Farmbrough mention don't seem very independent or reliable either, the first one seems to be self published locally, the second is self-published ([14]), the third one[15] seems to be an extremely passing mention, and the "and so on" don't look much better. So at best we have one source, the Burgess Skinner book, not the normally required multiple WP:RS. Fram (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons described above -- particularly the historical reasons. I think I'm becoming more of an inclusionist in my old age, but it seems like to me that if this church adds something to the historical record on a topic, there's no good reason to delete it.TheOtherBob 04:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which historical record, which topic, and what does the church add? I don't see anything in the article that matches yuor keep reasons. The article on the church gives some information about the church (in a rather incorrect fashion, e.g. still claiming that this is a baroque chruch from 1924, when it is a completely un-baroque church from 1948 or thereabouts), but I can't see how it gives information on any other historical topic. Fram (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article from 1964 gives a good history of the church. There are multiple, independent non-trivial sources, which is why I believe this article passes WP:GNG.--TM 19:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not yet complete, but the church represents a rich history which can be read in many articles written about this church. It is the focal point of a vibrant community which grew around the church and its school throughout the years. User:Iberville 0:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep per above historical and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article is completely unsourced even after being listed for deletion for weeks. WP:V mandates deletion. The two "keep" opinions do not address the policy-based deletion rationale and are discounted. This does not prevent a sourced recreation. Sandstein 16:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lenovo s650

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

WP is WP:NOT a product brief site with every product with its features. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - technology hardware of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up brief coverage listing the specifications, but no significant in-depth reviews / RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article created this month. Tag it for notability, use WP:PROD or just give it time to develop. ~KvnG 14:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 16:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Kvng. I think cleanup is required, as well as a list of references. I'll fix the obvious spelling mistakes for now. Dmatteng (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Otto Brünjes

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

Delete: absolutely no claims to notability whatsoever. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly redirect to Premier Medical Group. I don't think that the use of the word absolutely in the nomination is appropriate, as he was the founder, first CEO and later chairman of the Premier Medical Group. He is also a member of the British Astronomical Society, not that that provides notability. --Bejnar (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete and redirect to Premier Medical Group. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article in A & C Black's Who's Who is conclusive proof of notability, like an obituary in the NYT. It satisfies GNG by itself and indicates that other sources are likely to exist, perhaps in print (NRVE). It is very unlikely that the professional biographers of that publication would make a mistake about who is and isn't notable. James500 (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please point to the notability guideline which says "An article in A & C Black's Who's Who is conclusive proof of notability," LibStar (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be written down in express words. You won't find an express reference to NYT obituaries in the guidelines, but we all appear to accept they are conclusive proof. James500 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Not notable. Some User chose to write a ton of articles about people who went to his fancy school for rich people in England. None of them are notable, but because some "Administrators" and "Senior Editors" love the British Empire they think we have to "open the floodgates" to everybody who got some medal or are in some "Who's Who", but the Wikipedia rules don't say anything about that and according to GNG this article should be deleted. My father is in a Who's Who book, but nobody thinks HE deserves a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayVenn (talk • contribs) 02:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(selective) merge and redirect to Premier Medical Group. Not enough stuff (nor notability) to justify a separate article, but it is reasonable to have a mention of him in the article about the company he founded (interisting how Dr Harry Brunjes already redirects to the company's article). There is not too much to merge anyway, except his birth date/place and his studies. Cavarrone 06:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional information added so that the article doesn't focus on Premier Medical Group MJT21 (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to show why he's notable, and youtube, and who's who of whatever fail RS. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Who's Who most certainly does not fail RS. The exploitative knock-offs do, but not the original. That's a standard reference work. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The British Who's Who is a particularly reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Varg Vikernes. Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ForeBears

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

Non-notable film, deproded without explanation BOVINEBOY2008 15:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Media:(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)

Redirect to Varg Vikernes as his film exists and can be seen, but lacks the coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scumis-Wade

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

Something obviously made up by the article author or someone they know. Qualifies under WP:CSD#A11, but since the CSD tag was removed by an IP editor whom I cannot confirm to be the same person as the article author, let's do this the hard way. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A11. The disruptive actions of a "convenient" IP editor should not bind our hands; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. And there's really no reason to keep this around for 7 days pro forma. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A11 and G3. —teb728 t c 20:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, web content that doesn't indicate notability. No need to fault the nominator for being cautious—better to look before you leap. Altamel (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The article doesn't have a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of surviving this discussion, so there's no need to wait around a week to delete it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D IP removed CSD twice, this needs an expedited deletion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I still don't see enough context to even know what this page is trying to say.—John Cline (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imeh Usuah

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

WP:BLP1E Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Comment: I observed that the creator of this article has not been notified about this discussion. I see this as a breach of procedural nomination policy. Also the page was hastily tag, about 5 minutes after its creation (even with the presence of a construction tag). To me, the procedure for this nomination is wrong. procedure for nomination is as important as the discussion as well as the result of the concensus. Even if a page will still be deleted, all protocol should be observed. Sorry, I never login with my computer. 93.186.23.96 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@93.186.23.96: The article creator was notified within seconds of this discussion being started: [16]. How was this a breach of policy? And as to the hastiness of the tag, WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E/WP:BLP1E. All reliable sources cover this otherwise low-profile person only in the context of a single event: finding and returning a large sum of money. Neither the event nor the person is significant or notable enough to merit an article. Ca2james (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator comment: @93.186.23.96:, Ahecht has not in anyway violated our policy. Delete per above comments.Wikicology (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E. Not really arguable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia cloud

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

This appears to be a publication of a student paper, falling under the category of original research. The authors are proposing a new design for a thing never before developed. Good idea, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. I don't think this is a student paper, but rather based on an article in IEEE Signal Processing Magazine (full reference below). That article is fairly widely cited, and it might be possible to write something on the topic here (although I don't think it should look much like this one). However, I do not have immediate access to IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, and I suspect the first concern is ensuring that none of this content represents a copyright violation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu, Wenwu; Luo, Chong; Wang, Jianfeng; Li, Shipeng (2011). "Multimedia cloud computing". IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. 28 (3): 59–69. doi:10.1109/MSP.2011.940269.59-69&rft.date=2011&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/MSP.2011.940269&rft.aulast=Zhu&rft.aufirst=Wenwu&rft.au=Luo, Chong&rft.au=Wang, Jianfeng&rft.au=Li, Shipeng&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 30" class="Z3988">

I have access to this paper and there doesn't appear to be any obvious copyvio concerns. I'm happy to send along a pdf if anyone else would like to take a look. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared, strict copying and close phrasing from the sole apparent source essentially mandates that we delete this, potentially as a G12 speedy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. this is not a student paper and none of this content represents a copyright violation then what is the need to delete this artical ?? This artical is fine to publish in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravinda93 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pardon my misperception. Phrases included in the article include "we propose an architecture called media-edge cloud" seem to indicate a research paper of some nature, and the fact that I could not find a published source to match (thanks Squeamish for that!) made me assume that it was a student paper. As it is, it appears to be largely a rephrasing of the single paper found by Squeamish, or (since I don't actually have access to that paper to determine the extent of copying) at the very least a large pile of original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to Drafts namespace - It's a new article undergoing steady improvements, so could likely turn into something good fairly soon, but for now I have to agree that, in addition to the problematic apparent OR and WP:TONE issues, there do appear to be WP:COPYVIO problems (not a direct copy/paste, but extensive WP:Close paraphrasing). See also this slideshow presentation at slideshare which appears to make the same argument using a lot of the same language. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this article looks to me to be filled with WP:COPYVIOs. The original journal article appears to be on slideshare, and comparing the two, the majority of the WP article is composed of sentences and parts of sentences from the journal that have been copied and pasted in the order they originally appeared. Only the last two sections, Multimedia cloud storage and Applications of cloud-aware multimedia, are somewhat originally worded although the original text appears to come from the Storage and Sharing and Cloud-aware multimedia applications sections on page 65, respectively. The rest of the sections and their original locations are:

The lead comes from from pages 59 and 60.

The fundamental challenges for multimedia computing comes from page 60 (second column, first paragraph).

Fundamental concept of multimedia cloud computing comes from page 60 (second column, second paragraph) and Multimedia-aware cloud on page 62.

Media cloud computing architecture comes from Media-cloud-computing-architecture on page 62.

Distributed parallel multimedia processing comes from Distributed parallel multimedia processing on page 62.

Quality of service in media cloud comes from Media Cloud QoS section on pages 64.

Ca2james (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Changes are made in this article so don't delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.97.204 (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benecaid

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

I decided I mighte have a crack at cleaning up this rather non-neutral article - however, on seraching for sources, I came to the conclusion that Benecaid probably doesn't meet WP:CORP. Sources available are either listings or press releases; as yet I've found no significant coverage in reliable sources. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stands Given the recent editing by an obviously COI SPA, I would think there is a promotional aspect to the article. To me, this looks like one of those out of the public eye businesses (and areas) that don't attract notice until something goes pear-shaped. Peridon (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for reasons pointed out; also does not meet WP:CORP. Quis separabit? 15:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability and none found. It's just a company that exists. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CORP/WP:GNG failure. Companies are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, if reliable source coverage isn't there to confer actual notability — we're an encyclopedia, not a business marketing directory. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tustin Unified School District. Sandstein 16:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peters Canyon Elementary School

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

Somehow was kept (by no consensus) in 2010. We don't normally keep elementary schools, and I see no reason why we should keep this one p b p 13:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per longstanding tradition as outlined in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Jacona (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tustin Unified School District, which is our usual practice as outlined at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just a note to everyone — the closing admin has requested a review of his closure at WP:AN#AfD/IAR review. If you have comments, please express them there. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive265#AfD.2FIAR_review. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm closing this immediately as a keep. The assertion that it is not used is conradicted by the evidence. The assertion that it is primarily used by people of a particular political orientation may be true, but that only some people in the world use it is not a reason for deletion. The assertion that the phrase itself is an expression of intolerance is not a reason for deletion--WP is not censored. The reason for the early close is a combination of SNOW and IAR, in order to avoid disruptive expressions of racism. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note: My close was reverted by a participant in the discussion; I have restored it. Further discussion belongs elsewhere. I remind everyone, however, that Discretionary sanctions apply to this subject. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After Saturday Comes Sunday

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

No or little notability, Biased sourced, Previous AfD closed by same user who created article, see Talk page for more reasons Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are multiple reasons for deleting this article. First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary but there is hardly any more to be said except to report its alleged meaning. Second, even though there are many mentions of the phrase to be found out there, they are inevitably claims by political writers who just repeat the story. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has found a single web page, or a single book, where the phrase is used with its alleged purpose. Nor has anyone produced a single photo of this phrase that is allegedly on walls all over the place. Can you find an article in a respected newspaper where the journalist reports personally hearing it or seeing it? The only actual evidence of this phrase's existence produced so far is the article in Folklore found by me, where the author documents it as a Christian saying, not the Islamist saying as the blogosphere claims, whose most recent citation is 44 years old. Third, there are hundreds of political slogans whose use is much more prevalent but where are the articles on them? Search for "death to Arabs". Consider Yes We Can which is only a redirect despite being vastly better attested and having interesting known history. Zero^talk 14:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at the first time this was nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Saturday Comes Sunday in 2011, have to agree with this argument by @Raul654: that resulted in a quick keep result: "The stated deletion reasons are flatly false. The term gets 38,000 hits [now 78,000 ] on the internet and 74 hits on Google books [now 108], hence it is notable. Every single statement in the article is referenced to a reliable source - there's nothing there that is original research. This whole nomination is basically drive-by AFD tagging because the nominatior doesn't like the subject matter.... Raul654 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2011" -- Agree 100%! Hence there are sufficient WP:V & WP:RS, in a WP:NPOV context, that make this WP:N. In fact this article at this time is only basically a WP:STUB that could use much more elaboration. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these google hits are just mirrors for the Wikipedia article. Another one is referring to the rejoicing of Jesus on Sunday after his torture on Saturday, a completely different context than the one used here!!! Again, the interpretation alleged here is from Israeli (or pro-Israeli) political writers, and so is the voting here. We need some more neutral opinions and evidence of this interpretation as Zero0000 pointed out above. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amr ibn Kulthoum: Thank you for your feedback. Of course, the Google hits are rough and include mirroring, but they nevertheless do convey the myriad other sources that refer to this term. Not sure why you think that Zero0000 is "neutral" while others who merely disagree with his reasoning are not so. Your slurs against "Israeli (or pro-Israeli) political writers" are not appreciated and smack of violating WP:NPA and crossing the border of WP:BATTLEGROUND and you would be wise to retract those accusations ASAP because WP policies and guidelines are being followed here. Feel free to refute points by citing relevant WP policies that would be a lot more constructive than resorting to "blame the victim" red herring diatribes. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD to reduce the notability of this topic. The same editor has nominated it a second time, so it seems to be a disruptive maneuver. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet. Do you remember the first nomination? It was closed as malformed after just one comment (the article creator, as I understand). Iselilja (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are saying that Raul654 used his authority to make a supervote of "keep", which is certainly one interpretation of his action. Without trying to determine whether this was the case, I will re-argue my "keep" vote as being based on discussion of the term in many reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. See the diff of the sources I added. There are yet more sources that could be brought to this article, but this batch suited the purpose of showing the topic notable enough. 18:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep The reliable and verifiable sources describing and defining the expression meet the Wikipedia notability standard. The reference provided in the article from Mother Jones, which uses and defines the phrase in an article about Hanan Ashrawi, is surely not coming "from Israeli (or pro-Israeli) political writers". Alansohn (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although published in Mother Jones, the story is written by Israel Amrani, and Amrani (NOT Ashrawi) inserts this comment in a story about peace talks between PLO and Israel out of nowhere to make his point that Christians feel threatened by Muslims, when Ashrawi's sister is married to a Muslim man (in the same story). Hamas never said such a thing, and if you disagree please show me the evidence. Again, this sentence with this interpretation exists only in the imagination of pro-Israeli political writers. PLEASE READ the COMMENT at the bottom of ISRAEL AMRANI's STORY about this "famous" saying.

I quote: ""I seriously question the ability of someone with a name like Israel Amrani to write a neutral unbiased article on a subject such as Hanan Ashrawi!?!

"After Saturday comes Sunday" is a not famous Muslim saying at all! If anything it seems to have been made up for the purposes of this article. Unlike the West, which is just learning about so-called multiculturalism now, most Arab mainly-Muslim communities in the Middle East have managed to retain and coexist with their Ara- Christian and Jewish members fairly easily for the past 1400 years! This is especially so in pre-1948 Palestine which before the establishment of the racist state of Israel had a population was approximately 35% percent Palestinian-Christian!"" Quote ended. Please do your homework before commenting. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My research shows that the phrase was observed in the mid-1940s, as reported in the 1950s. So the phrase was not "made up for the purposes of this article." Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are your research sources? Again writers of the same political affiliations and agenda. How about an interpretation referring to the crucifixion of Jesus? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closing admin: Anyone, as User Amr ibn Kulthoum in this case, who uses highly-charged pejorative words and phrases like "racist state of Israel"; "the imagination of pro-Israeli political writers"; "writers of the same political affiliations and agenda"; "Unlike the West, which is just learning about so-called multiculturalism now" should actually be banned or blocked for inciting WP:BATTLEGROUND and violating WP:NPOV, period, and should certainly NOT be nominating articles for deletion based on an unashamedly biased, openly hostile and alarmingly narrow POV. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you didn't read my post, you rather picked what you wanted to read. Those words you are putting in my mouth are just a QUOTE from a comment on the story by Israel Amrani. I think you should be banned for the exact same reason you are using to attack me. Typical pathetic fear speech and typical personal attacks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right-O, Amr ibn Kulthoum, the usual, "kill the messenger" 'cause you hate the message. I read what you wrote and the way you wrote it and how you wrote it and how you are communicating with everyone here, especially with those you deem to be below contempt as you act as the self-appointed "neutral" (ha!) "witness, judge, jury & executioner" not a pretty sight to behold, and it ain't "only" a "quote" -- unless I am getting senile or something! Do you even realize that words have meanings?? Not sure what makes you tick! Cool it WP:SPIDERMAN! IZAK (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It's a term that appears to have some history to it and there do appear to be several reliable secondary sources to justify a notability claim. It's evidently not a WP:DICDEF. No point in rehashing the previous AfD, which was procedurally problematic (and the ghits argument is not in itself a good one). The religion of the people writing the sources is not of much consequence so long as it's published in a reliable source (and/or that person is a reliable source). If you feel the article is imbalanced because of it, then fix it, but that's not a reason to delete. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhododendrites, Again this is not a dictionary. The religion definitely does not matter in this respect. However, this is a very sensitive issue and the political affiliation/belief of your source does matter, especially when there is no single material evidence of the alleged interpretation of this "famous saying", and almost all these third-party sources used in the article are opinion articles/stories and of the same political affiliation/origin. If you go through the Talk page for this article, almost everyone there is questioning its existence and origin, as it didn't really sound familiar to them. At best, it might have some "weak" notability, and definitely not as an Arabic slogan, and will take more than meaning (see above), hence no need for it to stay. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Rhododendrites. I am not convinced that editors on the talk page questioning "its existence and origin" is a reason to delete.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The phrase does seem to have some traction, unfortunately not always as in the form of the title of this article. It seems to be used more as a handy way of presenting some sort of domino theory of Islamic fundamentalism than as a standalone concept on its own (cf. [17]). Presenting it as an article is a sort of [[WP:COATRACK] - that this 'first jews then christians' domino theory is a goal of Hamas, Islamic fundamentalists, etc. This shouldn't be a separate article. In its current state, I'd say delete. The only meaningful reference is the Khayyat one and he is barely contextualizing it (and attaches it to Coptic Christians rather than Muslims). If more references like the one I link to above exist, then a mention somewhere may be warranted (like "Islamic fundamentalists/Hamas sometimes use the slogan "After .....". Do we really need to say more than that anywhere?). --regentspark (comment) 21:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Occasional attacks on Christian property, the distribution of placards, and the writing of Muslim slogans on Christian churches leave no doubt about the nature of the future Christian life under a Muslim fundamentalist rule. From time to time the slogan 'After Saturday comes Sunday' is heard, meaning that having dealt with the Jews the Christians' turn will come too." Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? A Pro-Israeli writer claims Christians are threatened by Muslims. Very credible, Any conflict of interest by any chance??!! Bravo for the example. BTW, this is also the case with some votes on this page) Brilliant!! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please rein yourself in. You don't understand COI and in particular you seem to think that others have one but you don't. You come across as anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and I'm afraid anti-Jewish as well (given that User:عمرو بن كلثوم has "Control over the US and the World "We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (Banker James Warburg, February 17, 1950, testifying before the U.S. Senate)" at the top - whatever your reason for having that on your user page, it's provocative and probably should be removed, but that's a subject for discussion elsewhere, just mentioning it to show that you yourself have a very strong POV yhere. Having a strong POV on an issue doesn't produce a conflict of interest. If it did, we wouldn't allow Jews to write about the Torah or Muslism about the Qu'aran. In any case, it's a sad fact that Muslims have been threatened and killed by Christians and vice versa. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: "At the same time, some Christian Arabs evidently fear the envy of their neighbours. Some Christians arc said to have been told by Muslims that if the Arabs won the Six Day War, the Christian houses would be given to Muslims. An Arabic-speaking Jew claimed that Christian Arabs had told him that Muslims, in June 1967, were saying: ‘After Saturday, comes Sunday* (after £he Jews are taken care of, then the Christians). The expression of such feelings of distrust are only one part of the Christian-Muslim relationship, but while it may not be a majority sentiment, its existence should not be completely ignored."Middle Eastern Studies Volume 8, Issue 3, 1972 "Some aspects of ethnic stereotype content in the Galilee: a trial formulation". Note that this is another source stating that Christians say this. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that example just illustrates the problem. Some unnamed Jew said that some unnamed Christians told him that some unnamed Muslims used to say something. The amazing thing is that you think this is a source at all. Zero^talk 09:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No good faith from you either, eh? And you must have a different definition of source than I do. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are arguing in good faith; I just happen to believe you are wrong. As for your second sentence, one thing I require of sources is that they assert the truth of the claim under discussion. This article mentions a belief as an example of a "feeling of distrust" but the author only calls it a "claim" and never says it is true. The whole article is about urban myths and stereotypes that different cultural groups hold about each other. Zero^talk 14:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can say what you want, put the words in the mouths of others, and when they disagree, they become anti-this and anti-that. Everyone here has interests and beliefs, and almost no one is neutral, at least I am not hiding mine. For yourself and others voting/commenting here, you could tell from the type of contributions you have. My user page has sourced quotes, and Wikipedia is full of such user pages, and this discussion is about an alleged sentence with an alleged interpretation put forward by a group of political writers of the same political orientation, with NO FIRST-HAND SOURCE or BACKING. This discussion is NOT about me or my user page. PERIOD. I don't know how you became an Admin here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, You spared me lots of words and explanation in your last comment. Simply, ALL your sources are coming from Jews claiming they heard it from Christians. Why don't you just put it this bluntly in the article, plain and simple. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)::You're shooting your own case down by intemperate insinuations, and make editors like myself think more of defending the bona fides of people you attack (Doug for instance), than judging the merits of the article.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishidani, I am not sure whether your above comment was addressed to me. I don't think I attacked anyone here and I don't think this discussion should be about me. Anyway, I think you should see Dougweller's comment here justifying/defending this racist comment posted on my user page. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I was reacting to your comment " It is interesting to see the two authors who claim the saying and interpret it are ... Guess what? ZIONISTS. Hhhhmmm. Interesting." "Zionists" looks racist to me in the context of your other posts and your user page. Obviously we disagree on this. I have never defended a racist comment, and have blocked racists and ethnic warriors of all persuasions. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'ALL your sources are coming from Jews claiming they heard it from Christians.' Can't you see how that reads? I don't care what the ethnicity of the persons writing sources is. Ethnicity is bullshit to me, I disown whatever ones I was born to, but many find it absolutely fundamental and read others that way. You must look at other things: competence in the matter, quality of the source, scholarly background, and peer reputation. I'm disgusted at what I read here, like yourself. It is offensive, like much else one sees here and in the world. But a lot of things I am required by the rules to respect in edits (the due representation of all opinions of note) disgust me. I can't let my personal feelings get in the way. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nishidani for your comment/clarification. I fully agree that ethnicity/religion does not really matter in this (Ilan Pappe for example). The I borrowed the word Jew in my comment from Dougweller's comment/story above: 'An Arabic-speaking Jew claimed that Christian Arabs had told him that Muslims ...'. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked all my sources, but that doesn't affect notability in any case. My RfA, by the way, was unanimous. And yes,there are other user pages with material that breaks our userpage guidelines at WP:UPNOT. Notability doesn't require "first-hand" sources. User:Zero0000, thanks for accepting I'm arguing in good faith. But I think that you are wrong about sources asserting the truth of a claim - that's not in WP:RS. A lot of sources we use speculate, etc. And of course we have RSN if you want to raise a query about a source. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, publishers of "Democratic Palestine"[18][19], aren't Jewish. They're the ones cited at The PFLP's Changing Role in the Middle East. Routledge. "29. Democratic Palestine warned that: Hamas could serve to distort the image of the intifada and the Palestinian national movement in the eyes of the world. To further illustrate the real face of Hamas, it is sufficient to point to some of Hamas' seemingly silly but actually dangerous mottos, like: ‘the Quran is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people’. Another slogan, 'After Saturday comes Sunday*, could be understood as an indication that after finishing with the Jews, Hamas will turn to the Christians. How can such mottos serve the Palestinian struggle?". Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is a piece of shit, which does not mean it might not have prospects of improvement. I say 'piece of shit' because, as a philologist, usage fascinates me, and I would be interested in articles that track usage. It is a variant on First they came ..., and a comparison between the work done on that phrase by Pastor Niemoller, and this, shows that editors have no other focus that using it as a document to attack and insinuate. This one is focused on highlighting its usage exclusively in otherwise undefining, generic sources that say it's used here and there in the Arab world. Hamas gets it in the neck, though Christians in Gaza under Hamas make the same complaints Christians in Bethlehem do against Israel. How this developed badly can be imagined by analogy, thinking of antisemites writing up the Birkat ha-Minim to note down every time on pious Jewish lips the relevant benediction in the Amidah cursing Christians and calling for their extinction is uttered. Well, it's uttered three times every day by observant Jews, and you can no doubt ruin that article by scouring the net to get everything that might highlight this,(far more current in usage than this phrase appears to be) much in the way this article tries to pile up a case for the idea that in this occasional phrase, the meaning is: 'Only Jews stand between us and extinction by the Arab world'. In short the page is not interested in tracking down the history of the idiom, objectively, but to issue a warning. Well done, whoever worked this up.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mess I agree. Which is one reason I suggested taking it to AfD. I still haven't !voted as I'm hoping some sources can be found that say more than "it's been heard". The PFLP quote does a bit more being at least commentary about the saying rather than just repeating it. I meant to mention that it was an obvious variant on "First they came" although that was aimed at bigots, etc, not at any specific religious group. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone access to the precise paragraph in Shimon L. Khayyat's article? The only evidence we have for its traditional usage is this paper. If this is a proverb or idiomatic, it surely must be listed in Arabic language sources. On a topic like this one would expect, this being an encyclopedia, at least three scholarly sources on provenance, usage, and contemporary recycling. All I can see are polemical newspaper sourcees trying to suggest that this reflects an 'Arab mentality' of trying to rid the world of Jews and Christians. I'm tending to think that it's fine to illustrate usage on a phrase like this, as long as the unpolemical, philological historical groundwork on origins has been done. On the face of it, to Christian ears unfamiliar with this usage, the phrase does not sound offensive, for example. Saturday memorializes grief at Christ's crucification, putatively the day before, and Sunday connotes both the Resurrection, and, with news of it, celebration, together with the Biblical injunction of rest from the labour of creation. Cf.After Saturday comes Sunday,'Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani:Its on Jstor I just don't have a time to delete my IP before sending to you but I have found a source that specifically talks about it usage in Arabic language Newspaper[20] footnote 3--Shrike (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas 1991, one episode. Newspapers love that, I guess. The essential point is not its occasional use in newspapers, but when it became a meme esp. in outlets like Fox news etc and where it came from, and its frequency. There is zero evidence of Palestinian Muslims plotting genocide of Christian communities. You can no more spin that than you can spin the 12 Benediction's recital by Jews as evidence they wish Christian heretics to be exterminated, Use that evidential logic, and you'd get horrific expectations from the silly scrawlings all over Jerusalem's Christian sites re 'Jewish' intentions. Muslims send many of their children to Christian hospitals and schools, and there is no programmatic persecution under Hamas rule, as opposed to the kind of harassment, also given Christian communities by Israeli groups, at times met with by some Christians in Gaza.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that there is such a plot.--Shrike (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article topic is noteable, the article needs respectively needed improvement. It seems to be more of a grape wine slogan in the sense of "first they came" than a often used mural. Furthermore it expresses a recent developement, as Shrike's source confirms that Palestinian Christians like Habash were formerly important for the PLO, but have all reasons now to distrust Hamas or, beware, IS. Serten (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christians are well-represented in major PNA cities and Fatah, and Christians in Gaza work in Hamas institutions. I know Palestinian Christians who support Hamas. That's just private knowledge, but most of what one reads in generic tabloids has almost zero correspondence with anything one knows of specific communities.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I havent provided any tabloid so far. please just be so kind to name a dozen leading palestianian christian figures of Hamas, including women. Maybe there are even jewish ones, candidates providing the necessary sacrificium intellectus may include Neturei Karta and Amira Hass but I doubt it. Independent from individual knowledge, the figures are matching the sources I provided: About 10% of 'Palestinians in exile' or 'arab Israelis' are and were christians, but they are nearly extinct in Gaza and lower (about 8%) in the westbank. Serten (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic, and in its disinterest in the real story of the slogan, mounted to push a POV meme.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a)'I havent provided any tabloid so far.' I was referring to the article.

(b) 'a dozen leading palestianian christian figures of Hamas.' What has that to do with the price of fish?

(c) there is no demonstrated nexus between the loss of Christian Palestinians from that territory and 'Muslim fanaticism.' It is impelled by the economic strangulation imposed on all Palestinians, in most sources I am familiar with. They emigrate for a better economic future for their families.

(d) Reflex associations that Hamas = Christian panic are nonsense (within Palestine. What evangelical Americans may think is incomprehensible to most non-American Christians). The small Christian community in Gaza distinguished itself by sheltering thousands of their Muslim neighbours. Of course there are problems: obscure salafi groups probably have been behind several incidents, but when a Fatah-linked militia in Gaza threatened to attack Christian churches to retaliate against that farcial Danish cartoonist's depiction of Muhammad, Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of Hamas stood with Fr Manuel Masallam in front of the Catholic Church and promised Hamas militants would defend it.(Alain Epp Weaver, 'The crescent and the cross are the marks on my hands,' in Paul S Rowe, John H.A. Dyck, Jens Zimmermann (eds.) Christians and the MIddle East Conflict, Routledge 2014 pp.137ff. pp.145-6) The more one studies details, the more disgraceful is the general reportage of conflict, and the uses of caricature to dumbdown very complex questions in order to set public opinion into a cast-iron mould of pro/contra. This article is a good example of engineering to reinforce prejudice by a stereotypical buttress. The function of wiki must be to give encyclopedic coverage without allowing editors to abuse its officers in order to spin history to some unilateral polemical end. You can only do this by adding as many details as possible to show how complex the issues are, far more complex than soundbite reportage allows.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As said, you provided proof that PLO was able to integrate christians, including clergy, Hamas is far from that. Something like "there is no demonstrated nexus between the loss of Christian Palestinians from that territory and 'Muslim fanaticism'" is sort of, hmmm, contentious. If you can provide the real story, do so, but its not found in the source you provided. But anyway you should refrain from deleting the article. Serten (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IZAK et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per a request above, I have posted the text of proverb 58 on page 199 from Khayyat on the articles talk page. I have the entire article (thanks to Wikipedia JSTOR accounts) if there are any other requests which pertain to it. -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I assume that the notion sources are coming from Jews claiming they heard it from Christians could be applied as well to most Nobel Prizes, as they have been achieved like that. WP should treat good sources as sources, and the article is on a solid base now. With regard to the topic en detail, it is less about a mural slogan pushed by militant Muslims but more how current fears of arab christians are being expressed. Those christian background arabs had a significant role in the more secular, left leaning PLO, and have had their share of antizionism / antisemitism as well (in the good old Austrian way of "disliking jews more than actually necessary", not in the nazi sense) but always failed to feel at home with nowadays and past jihadies. The article covers that now. Serten (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Bradley

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

No evidence of notability. The only sources provided are primary information from the Log Cabin Republicans, a deadlink letter written by the subject to a newspaper, a local award of no encyclopedic importance, and a deadlink to what appears to be a primary source written by the subject regarding a court case. I find nothing else in reliable sources, and thus this appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. This might be an attempt at notability by association, in that much of the content vaguely says he "was a part" of several activities associated with the Log Cabin Republicans as a member, without any clear or sourced indication of a role of importance. Kinu ^t/_c 15:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. With four out of five sources being primary ones, and the only reliable source covering a purely local distinction that has no bearing on notability, there's not even the slightest hint here that he would actually pass WP:GNG at all. Subjective assessments about whether board members of the Log Cabin Republicans should be considered notable enough or not don't even have to enter into it — at the end of the day, an article like this lives or dies on its quality of sourcing, and the sourcing here doesn't cut it in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Kinu and Bearcat, poorly sourced article about someone who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The One Above All (Marvel Comics)

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

As it was already discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-Above-All, this is mere original research: there is no such a character, but several metafictional references to God (the "real" God) included in comics by Marvel, which can only be considered as references to a same "character" with a great deal of imagination and fan wishful thinking. This is not the same article (and so, speedy deletion is not an option), but it is the same original research, using even less references and more all-plot than the previous one. Cambalachero (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A 'character' that isn't even particularly notable within Marvel Comics, and the article is very poorly sourced and makes no real claims at any notability. Not a likely search term, so no redirect is needed. kuwabaratheman (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This 'character' has never actually appeared in a comic. This doesn't even deserve an entry on the List of Marvel Comics Characters. At best, it might warrant a mention on the Living Tribunal's page. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Calling this a 'character' is an insult to actual characters, because the writers involved have never intended them to be considered the same. I would even disagree with Surfer and say this doesn't warrant a mention on the Living Tribunal's page. This is a list of unsourced fancruft. I don't even understand why it hasn't been deleted already. Spidey104 14:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This doesn't even seem to be a single coherent subject, much less one that meets notability standards.--NukeofEarl (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmina Ene

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

She may or may not be notable - there are claims that may make her notable, but alas, no inline citations or ability to ascertain the veracity or any of those statements. As a recent WP:BLP, we need to have sources or the claims of notability or any other content ought be deleted and there we'll have a bio without claim of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom yesterday, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek), demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart.
Many of them are as deeply flawed as this one. The nom is badly mistaken in his implication that inline citations are a requirement to sustain an article, and completely mistaken in his statement that the article lacks sources. Did he not look at the freaking article? There are several sources listed in the "References" section. WP:V explicitly permits non-English sources, and if the nom cannot read French, he should seek a translation from another editor as per WP:NONENG. Ravenswing 04:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, on the basis I can't see a "blizzard of high quality, substantive sources" using Google.com or Google.fr for Cosmina Ene. The article is sourced to some gallery catalogues and an auctions listing magazine (La Gazette de l'Hôtel Drouot). I'd hazard a guess that this PUFF article was written by someone linked to her gallery/agent. If there's a "Blizzard" of newspaper and magazine sources (well, two or three would do) then let's hear about them. Sionk (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried searching the websites of Washington Post, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, and Boston Globe but no results. I have no idea how Ravenswing found any mention of Cosmina Ene there. How did you do it? - Takeaway (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Neither you nor Sionk really read my comment, is the answer. The first paragraph not only fairly plainly refers to a different AfD, I even linked to that AfD. I stated, definitely plainly, that I had found this incredibly flawed AfD, researched the nom's recent AfDs, and found quite a few others just as flawed, among which I numbered this one. Ravenswing 04:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment, thanks. You have to admit that !voting "Keep" on the basis of notability of an unrelated article is a bit leftfield. It suggests (probably unintentionally) to the casual reader that this AfD suffers similar problems. Comments here should be about Cosmina Ene, shouldn't they? Sionk (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! "This AfD" actually meant "another AfD". - Takeaway (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also tried searching in French language websites but no notable (hardly any) results beyond the few refs in the article. Although she does have seem to have exhibitions, apparently no reliable sources write about this artist. - Takeaway (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting the comment by Shrikanthv, difficulty in rebuilding the article from scratch is not grounds for keeping, we have other avenues to take care of such concerns, such as undeleting and userfication. kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Mandow Rind

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

As far as sources are readily available, they are not adding anything to the article. The last one Badalkhan.pdf does not really back up the information in this article. Just two passing mentions of Mir Mandow Rind (written as Mir Mandaw). And a referral to a 30 year war among the tribes, causing not the Rind Tribe to loose power, but the complete Baloch people. With most of the info unsourced or unreliable sourced, this is not a worthy article for inclusion. (But I am aware that I can only read the latin alphabet, so it is well possible that there are sources out there that cover all info.) The Banner talk 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As Banner notes, other sources may well exist that establish the subject to be notable, but as far as I have seen Mir Mandow Rind is mainly known as the father-in-law of Mir Chakar Rind (in fact, the only cited source that clearly mentions Mir Mandaw, notes that even his name is uncertain). Secondly, much of the article content is not really about Mir Mandow Rind himself, but rather about Mir Chakar Rind, the region, and the time-period, and it is not exactly clear what role exactly the subject played in described events. Lastly, the lack of in-line citations makes it impossible to verify the information that is in the current version of the article (and also duplicated in Mandwani!). So unless someone knowledgeable in the field comes along, makes the article compatible with our content policies, and clearly establishes notability, the article needs to be deleted. Abecedare (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep eventhough I had nominated it for deletion earlier, I think it has chance to be a better article. It may be very difficult to find realiable source for such a charecter. and may be the content depicts the style of mouth to mouth passed on grandma story , Deletion would be totally bring the the article to ground zero and would be difficult to interconnect to rebuild it again. so eventhough with very poor sources would suggest to keep it Shrikanthv (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that this list is original research is compelling, especially considering that the article is completely unsourced. The "keep" opinions do not cite any sources that might make this content verifiable. Sandstein 16:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition (Sweden)

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

There is no such thing as the "Leader of the Opposition" in Sweden. There is no formal position and its not a title traditionally held by the leader of the largest party. Sweden has a multiparty system with a number of independent parties, and not a united opposition under the leadership of a single person. The article is not accurate or verifiable. "Leader of the Opposition is only a title invented by this article to describe the leader of the largest political party not in government. ArildV (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.

For people who are not familiar with Swedish language:

In Swedish new words can be formed by compounding (here opposition: opposition and ledare: leader). You can found Oppositionsledare in Svenska Akademiens ordlista along with many other commonly used compounds.

Instead of a definite article - "the" in the case of English - Swedish uses suffixes. Oppositionsledaren is the definite singular of Oppositionsledare. It does not indicate in any way that there is only one leader.

You will of course find Swedish newspapers and books that use the word "oppositionsledare" as a description when talking about a politicians (in a municipality, foreign country, county etc.). But to claim that it is a title traditionally held by the leader of the largest party not in government in the Riksdag is something completely different--ArildV (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nomination. Sweden has no Shadow Cabinet or similar, and as noted at Leader of the Opposition, that term is associated with the Westminster system of government, where the Leader of the Opposition is a formal title. It is relevant that there is no corresponding article in Swedish Wikipedia; Oppositionsledare redirects to the article about opposition in politics, which mentions the parties that have been in opposition in the Swedish parliament, but there is no mention of a leader of the opposition. --bonadea contributions talk 15:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With all due respect, I can't support deletion of this article. De jure, Sweden isn't associated with the Westminster system of government (like the United Kingdom) and don't have a formal title of the Leader of the Opposition, but that position surely de facto exist in the political reality (as is the case in many other non-Westminster countries). It surely is helpful to have an article about names, etc of people who led the largest opposition parties in Sweden since 1930, with data at one place (instead of searching for it around Wikipedia). As it already exist, why should we delete it? I'm sure the nominator had the best intentions, but I just can't agree with him. --Sundostund (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you had the best intentions but I don't agree. You make a statement here:

that position surely de facto exist in the political reality

Is that observation based on your knowledge and expertise in Swedish politics or is it just an assumption? I disagree and I will explain why below. But first, on Wikipedia we can not have articles about self-invented concepts based on what we think is the reality. We must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept.

You seem to assume that it is obvious who is the leader of the opposition. But the size differences between the opposition parties have often been small, and fluctuated between elections. Compare, for example 1964 and 1968. After the last election (september 2014) try the Social Democrats and the Green Party to form a minority government and we have 6 opposition parties (including both the Left Party, four center-right parties and the Sweden Democrats). There is of course no single leader.

You can of course create a new article The leader of the largest party in Sweden not in government in the Riksdag. But we can not lie to our readers by pretending that there is something called Leader of the Opposition and we can not lie to our readers by pretending that people "serve as opposition leader" in Sweden.

Please also note:

not a single source

the Swedish article was deleted quickly sv:Sveriges oppositionsledare (translation of the reason: nonexistent position, own research, please see discussion page).

--ArildV (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't agree with you. My statement: that position surely de facto exist in the political reality isn't based on assumptions, nor self-invented concepts, but on facts. After every election in Sweden (and in any other country), you have party (or parties) which will form the government, as well as those which will be in the opposition. Among the opposition parties, the one which have the most MPs is the "main opposition party" and its leader is the "opposition leader" (no matter whether the position is the official one like in the UK or not). If the "main opposition party" suffers some split, loss of MPs between elections, then the second-largest opposition party becomes the "main opposition party". All of this is very simple... No matter how the size differences between the opposition parties have often been small, and fluctuated between elections, we can always know which opposition party have the largest number of MPs at a moment.

Maybe you'd be "extremely surprised" by what I'll say now, but here it goes: I have no problem to agree to rename Leader of the Opposition (Sweden) to The leader of the largest party in Sweden not in government in the Riksdag! If you agree to that, we can do it (although I think that we can find some easier, shorter name). I don't care how this article will be named or renamed, I just want to save it from deletion, and to spare other users from searching around Wikipedia for data when it can be found at one place (like now). Again, if you have such a problem with the name Leader of the Opposition (Sweden), I'm absolutely positive that we can find some compromise and rename the article.

--Sundostund (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not fact, it is assumption. You assume that the largest opposition party is the main opposition party, and you assume its leader is the "opposition leader". There are many scenarios where this is not true. We can have four opposition parties, three parties work together while one party (the biggest) working alone. The three parties together is larger than the largest party.

We can not know whether the party is regarded as the main party (we need additional sources for it), we can not know whether the party leader is regarded as the main opposition leader (we need additional sources for it). The only thing we can know is which opposition party that have the largest number of MPs at a moment. An if we are talking about the leader of the largest opposition party, we should call him leader of the largest opposition party and not invent a Swedish title "oppositionsledare" and not lie to our readers by pretending that there is something called Leader of the Opposition and lie to our readers by pretending that people "serve as opposition leader" in Sweden.

I also welcome a compromise, but it is not enough to change the name. All own research must be removed, all the wrong claim that it is a Swedish title and all references to "oppositionsledaren" has to be removed. All the nonsense about people who serve as oppositionsledaren in various articles. In other words, a simple list of the leaders of the largest opposition party. These are facts, the rest is own research and assumptions without sources.

I don't want to come across as irritable or aggressive. But this is a serious issue, English Wikipedia has for over two years spread inaccurate and misleading information. And as Wikipedian I care.--ArildV (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't want to look as irritable or aggressive, because I'm not such a person. There's no point in continuing this discussion - you said your opinion, I said mine and I stand by it. Neither you'll change my mind, nor I'll change yours, so let us stop trying to do that. Let other users say what hey think and decide (Wikipedia is ruled by a consensus)... Instead arguing, lets turn towards compromise - I always welcome compromises, and this case isn't an exception. I'm not really sure what you want to change in the article beside its name, but generally speaking I can support to make it a simple list of the leaders of the largest opposition party. Of course, in my opinion, that list should be identical (or almost identical) as the present one, I don't see anything problematic in it. --Sundostund (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per user Sundostund, there are no real reason for deleting this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it's not a official position, but the term oppositionsledare is often used, just as Sundostund explains. The existence of several other "leader of the opposition" articles on various countries makes it valuable to have an article explaining how the system works in Sweden. Tomas e (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I appreciate Sundostund's comments, but they seem to me to constitute WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. We should follow reliable sources: if some source somewhere thinks this is an appropriate list, then that would carry some weight, but the article gives no sources, so then it cannot be up to us as editors to decide this is a meaningful thing to list. If the position of the head of the largest opposition party in Sweden has no formal status (as it does in the UK &c.), then I am concerned about Wikipedia effectively inventing the position. I take note of Tomas e's comments too, that the term "oppositionsledare" is often used, but that only implies the need for a Wiktionary entry. An article implies the concept has become reified, and that must come from its discussion by reliable source. That other countries do have a leader of the opposition is irrelevant: again, it is not up to us to apply the concept to Swedish politics -- that has to be done first by reliable sources. I also think it is telling that the Swedish-language Wikipedia rapidly deleted the article! Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evina Schmidova

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

On 15 September 2014, I proposed this article for deletion with the following rationale: No independent and reliable sources confirming that she is a notable photographer. Close paraphrasing of http://www.evinafoto.com/bio-evina-schmidova/. My prod has been removed on 16 September 2014 by an IP, with the explanation: I don't understand. Why??!!! Look at http://www.evinafoto.com/portfolio-category/musicans-bands/. I don't think that the link constitutes what we consider reliable and independent source, my concerns about the notability remain and therefore I continue here at AfD. Thanks for any opinions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – notability not established. Merely existing is not sufficient in order to have an article. C 679 10:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – notability not established. Quis separabit? 15:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although a prolific and, apparently, successful photographer, no further notability can be established other than that she has sold a lot of images to notable publications. Tried searching her name in Google together with "exhibition", "gallery" (also in Czech) and nothing comes up. - Takeaway (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Martin IV

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

Actor whose roles are all really obscure and no notability. Wgolf (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I concur with the nomination. PK T(alk) 14:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR by a wide margin. Also, he isn't IV; (IV) is just IMDb's way of saying he's the fourth Philippe Martin they know of. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the roles here flunk WP:NACTOR. For Souvenirs intimes, he's credited as the young flashback version of a character who's primarily played by a different actor; for The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne he's credited as a minor character in two episodes; for CQ2 he's credited as "Gars Party", which isn't a name but just means "guy at party"; and for The Dating Guy IMDb lists him at the absolute bottom of a massive list of one-shot guest actors and credits him as "unknown episodes" — which means he had a minor role in one or two episodes at most, because if he'd had a major role in the series IMDb would know which episodes to list him in. And even more importantly, reliable source coverage is completely lacking, so in addition to not passing NACTOR he doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 13:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Jhangiani

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

Only one role to date. Now it is a film that is popular with the audience but given that this guy seem to have a small part and no awards or recognition of him, he should be redirected to the film. Wgolf (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - I concur with Wgolf. The articles have not developed since I made them quite a few years ago and thus should be deleted.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Romanelli

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

Article I'm surprised has been around so long. The ref does not go anywhere. Tried finding him online but got just quite a few people with the same name. Can't quite find notability. Wgolf (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Of note is that a merge discussion can continue on a talk page, if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Hames

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

Well the link that was here earlier was long dead. Looked him up on the IMDB and seems to be only part of some obscure hosting jobs. Can't quite find notability to be honest Wgolf (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This looks like a delete but tv celebs sometimes have hard to find refs, I'll reconsider if someone comes up with a decent ref. 19:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Change vote, based upon sources found. I was still a bit unconvinced until I googled to see what he looks like, and I thought OH OK I know him now. He appears here or there as minor tv celebs are liable and passes GNG in my opinion. Szzuk (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or partial Merge to Man's Work. Looking through Highbeam, [21], "Sending a Boy to Do a Man's Job; Screen Detective" from the Sunday Mail has signficant coverage of him in the series " Man's Work", also [22]. I'd also note [23] and [24] as interview pieces. But given that all the coverage I've seen really relates to Man's Work, a redirect/merge there might be warranted. Couldn't find any reliable reviews for his book. --j⚛e decker ^talk 13:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I now think either a redirect or a merge be the best. Wgolf (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Indonesia#S. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMP Negeri 34 Jakarta

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

Not notable, and nothing I can find to merge or redirect it to in any iseful way DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Indonesia#S. It is normal practice to redirect nn Middle/Junior High schools and I have added this school to the target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have found the redirect myself, and I agree that it is an good solution . DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the French Royal Families

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

Redundant to (i) the articles on the individual kings, (ii) the articles on the different royal families and (iii) French monarchs family tree and French monarchs family tree (simple). Wikipedia is not a directory. Srnec (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a genealogy. This is a rather indiscriminate list of limited, if any, utility outside of genealogy. --Bejnar (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it is redundant with those other pages, and as it is very poorly linked to, it is quite likely that as research continues on other pages that it will not make it here. A structured list is a good idea, but the family tree pages seem to cover that much better and are more comprehensively linked to. 1bandsaw (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I understand it's generally accepted that WP:NOTGENEALOGY specifically does not apply to members of royal families, who are the only type of people that inherit notability from their relatives. I don't think that anyone can seriously dispute that French royals are notable as a group, so this article passes the criteria of WP:LISTN. It's also a collection of information that is likely to have educational value and there's no compelling reason to delete it. It's not entirely redundant with French monarchs family tree, and is more complete. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it is genealogy, because it is not just royals but it hares off away from royalty. --Bejnar (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It actually doesn't even matter. WP:LISTN only requires that the class be notable; the things listed do not have to be notable individually. Members of French royal families obviously constitute a notable class. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royals may be notable, but this list is indiscriminate. --Bejnar (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 13:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bianco

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

Non-notable TV critic. Supplied references are not independent, they are from USA Today, where he works. In a search i could find no independent coverage about him at all - just his own columns. MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 13:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simulacrum (band)

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

An extremely obscure band-have released an amazing 1 album in the past 14 years, can't find notability. Wgolf (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. So I'm not an expert at digging up sources on Finnish music, but I'm only finding user-submitted reviews on this one, and no chart information. Again, this isn't my bag, but I gave it a shot and found no useful hits in my databases. czar ♔ 00:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Bee Gees. Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Throw a Penny

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

Non-notable song. Article had been changed to redirect but an editor has reverted this twice for some reason.TheLongTone (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect if necessary. Was unable to find indications of notability. This shouldn't be SOFTDELETED/etc. because it's clearly being actively contested. --j⚛e decker ^talk 13:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonín Koláček

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

NN businessperson with a bio focused on suspicions of something or another - not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom yesterday, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek), demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart.
Many of them are as deeply flawed as this one. As is apparently the case with this nom, any sources not in English are ignored as if they are not in the articles at all, but even with machine translation (my conversational Czech is limited) it's obvious that some of these news sources -- already listed at the time of the AfD -- discuss the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. I'm also disturbed by IDONTLIKEIT charges such as "not enclyclopedic" or flip statements such as "suspicions of something or another" which suggest that as with some other of these hasty AfDs, the nom didn't read the article. Ravenswing 04:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well known and widely discussed in the Czech Republic for his activities in the MUS. It would be better to create an article about the controversial privatization of the company, similarly as on cs:wiki (see cs:Kauza Mostecká uhelná), but the article doesn't exist, so I !vote keep, at least for the moment. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 19:59, 30 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garage Beat 66 series

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

Not eligible for speedy (was declined by another). But no indication of notability and barely any context. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure of the format of these debates, but I strongly support deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmacmillan (talk • contribs) 10:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Generally I've been bashing the nom's recent spate of ill-considered and policy-violating AfD nominations. This, however, is spot on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz screwed up in declining the speedy on grounds of "creative works not eligible," because musical recordings specifically are eligible under WP:A9. This should be speedied on an A9 for failure to assert any grounds for notability. Ravenswing 04:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, Ravenswing is dead wrong about the speedy deletion issues here. The article was nominated as an A7, and creative works are not eligible under A7. These are compilation albums, and A9 is a bad fit for compilation albums when several of the artists represented are notable (e.g., The Country Gentlemen, John Hammond Jr., the Guess Who, The Remains, The Music Machine) -- and A9 is also intended to apply to individual releases (albums, EPs, singles), while this is a multivolume series. The album was issued by Sundazed, which is a notable label, mostly for its archival releases, and this is an archival project. According to CMJ. releases in the series have hit its top 200 charts [25] [26] There's a fair amount of coverage out there for this series; I don't know if it's collectively sufficient to meet RS or not, but that's why we ought to have a discussion rather than summary deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Huh? Since when do we disallow a nomination because the nom gets the rule number wrong, when there's a patently obvious rule number which applies? That being said, what's your evidence as to the "intent" of A9? And that being said, the purported notability of an artist doesn't matter (Notability not being inherited), nor does the label of the issuer, nor whether the subject is the result of an archival project or not, nor whether you can find a company or a publication that claims the releases are on its "Top 200 Chart." Ravenswing 06:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:39, 30 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Beasley

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

Not notable. 2602:306:CE9A:860:3188:950A:58FA:5B45 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 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 September 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Searches of news sources in US, particularly around St. Louis where one of her businesses is located, did not reveal much, including a mostly unfiltered search (using Agage3 and CustomizeWordPress to filter out different Kim Beasleys) here. I found one source (Entrepreneur magazine) which I added but the rest of the 'sources' do not meet the reliable criteria, so we're not meeting the GNG here, so the page seems basically like an advertisement for her business.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:38, 30 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Perrine

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

Can't find any reliable sources that indicate significance. TheGGoose (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 06:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 06:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 06:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. Nothing but passing mentions in LexisNexis, ProQuest, news and WP:VG/RS sources, certainly not sigcov. No worthwhile redirect targets (mentioned at Nancy Drew: Secret of the Scarlet Hand, but that cast list will be deleted as video game trivia soon enough). czar ♔ 01:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carita Feliz

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

Small local charitable organization: no clear notability DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. Has that one Nicaraguan source in the article, and the only other source I found in a few database searches was a passing mention: "Eco-tourism in Nicaragua ." Guardian.com . (September 13, 2006 ): 1833 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2014/10/06. No worthwhile redirect targets. czar ♔ 01:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 13:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imtech (band)

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

Tagged for notability since 2012, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG Gbawden (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. Searched for the band name and "Joaquim Sabaté". I'm not as well versed with music sources, but the closest I came to finding something on the artist was with ProQuest: 'BRIDGE TO PEACE' CONCERT BRINGS THEODORE BIKEL, RENOWNED MUSICAL FRIENDS TOGETHER FOR EVENING OF GLOBAL MUSIC. (2007, Apr 03). US Fed News Service, Including US State News Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/docview/472118030 (a press release). Otherwise, I couldn't confirm that other mentions were of the musician. Not nearly enough significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources to constitute an article. No useful redirect targets. czar ♔ 01:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was convert to disambiguation page. kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thukral

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

PROD was contested without any reason provided. Infact the anon removed all the tags. No reference is provided and a google search does not show any significant sources to show if this family name is notable. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. --Drm310 (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Best to have this changed to a disambiguation page for the two articles already mentioned Karan Singh Thakral Thakral Corporation and possible other future notable people and/or companies which, in a quick Google search, might be coming this way some time later. Only allow in some text if references can be found. - Takeaway (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into Disambiguation page as User:Takeaway suggested, with no prejudice against recreation if proper sources are found and cited. Abecedare (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Junior Chamber International. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JCI London

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

Don't believe that this organisation merits an article of its own, as per other outcomes ito individual clubs of organisations such as this. Most of this article talks about the history of JCI, not JCI London. And a list of past presidents doesn't add to the notability Gbawden (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons stated above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Send them to the parent article. Pointless fork, nothing notable about JCI London or Norway. Szzuk (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 13:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CapExBio

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

Candidate for Speedy delete. Subject fails notability. It seems the software was being developed at the time the article was being written (8 years ago) and it is not at all clear that it exists as a finished product. Searching on google basically just throws up references to this page. U2fanboi (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:34, 30 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Gentlemen of the Hall

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

Non-notable campus club. In the absence of any substantial coverage in independent media, this two-year old club at Seton Hall University does not meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Sources" cited are either non-independent, self-published or do not provide substantial coverage. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:34, 30 September 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 13:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Manabí

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

Local version of beauty pageant. Fails WP:GNG with just 98 unique Google hits, including Wikipedia and social media. The Banner talk 16:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OK, this one may go too far, Banner. I see there is an incredibly zealous editor in Miss Ecuador related articles. Ecuador apparently has 24 provinces and each may send a contestant to their national contest. But these appear to be less like prominent U.S. state pageants like Miss California (and the U.S. has a population 20 times that of Ecuador), and more like the local pageants which feed to a U.S. state pageant (e.g., Miss Los Angeles). And the lack of coverage on the Miss Manabi coverage helps confirm that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to agree with the previous votes. Mabalu (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wishes to create a redirect per WP:SCHOOLOUCOMES, please do. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Jeelani Public School

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

Advertising. Fails notability guidelines, as I fail to find reliable third party sources. Unsourced, with even the school website not working. Not clear if this is a primary school or a secondary school/high school. The Banner talk 17:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may meet WP:INDAFD, the website is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20110203000548/http://jeelanicollege.com/ but the problem is the name of school and website is not matching. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of that disadvantage. The Banner talk 17:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sambhal per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as WP:NSCHOOL and per nominating editor. Quis separabit? 01:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School exists and apparently educates students through high school. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles on such schools are usually kept. Deor (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this school is not known to be a secondary or high school. Aside from the school being utterly non-notable in and of itself, under @Deor's rationale, the criteria under which schools can be included would be further eroded, which is not how an encyclopaedia can function. Respectfully, Quis separabit? 15:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ASport.info

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

No indication that this website in notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Unotable website. Wgolf (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No qualms about asking for a WP:REFUND if addditional sources are found in the future, although it may be prudent to do that in draft space to begin with. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American International Motorcycle Expo

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

NN trade show. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. Not sure about Motorcycle USA, but the Orange County Register article is legit. I found a bunch of hits in LexisNexis amidst a bunch of press releases, but they were rehashes of the OCR article. ProQuest had these two very short blurbs:

Hoyer, M. (2012, 09). A really big show. Cycle World, 51, 21. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/docview/1241201220

Bornhop, A. (2013, 10). AMERICA'S EICMA? Cycle World, 52, 28. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/docview/1434103533

I'm not seeing enough for a full bodied article as of now. This said, might be a tad premature since the next expo is next week. We'll see if they break the soft delete barrier after that. czar ♔ 01:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Canary

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

Article created March 2013. Fails WP:V and WP:OR. Unable to find even a fleeting mention of such a game in any other resources. Article is completely unreferenced and aside from a minor edit 11 months later, the original article author's entire work has been the creation of this article. Appears to be a made-up variant of an existing game. Neil916 (Talk) 19:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:V and WP:OR I diligently searched through google and google books without finding anything about this game or the other variant/synonyms claimed (Green-Canarie or Breck-fish). Could consider merging it into the article on gofish or authors, however, there is nothing to verify that this game was not made up very recently. --—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has been at AFD far too long; searches for any of its proposed names in conjunction with the distinctive term "vein" return only this article and the userspace version of its original editor. The article itself notes it "was invented by a group of british students" and I think that's quite determinative here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above rationales. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil

This is very late, but I finally was able to complete a fairly thorough search of my books on board and card games to try to find any reference to BLUE CANARY. I was not able to find one. I note that the article has long since been deleted. In case of a future search through the literature, I will provide below a list of all the books that I checked. Those marked with a † do include the alleged progenitor of Blue Canary, which is the undisputedly genuine game of Go Fish (occasionally Go Fishing or just Fish), which is itself a 'watered down' version of the game Authors. All of the books listed below include numerous card games: not all make claims of completeness, but some are indeed encyclopædic). I think the correct decision was made to delete the game article, as I suspect it to be a "private invention", which would better have found a home on a website other than Wikipedia.

Incidentally, did anything else come of the debate on another table game, Pah Tum?

Kind regards

- Steve

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BOOKS CONSULTED:

†AINSLIE, Tom: Ainslie’s Complete Hoyle. New English Library, London. 1977 (first published in 1975).

ARNOLD, Peter (General Editor): The Illustrated Book Of Table Games. Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited, London. 1975.

BOHN, Henry George (Editor): Bohn’s New Handbook Of Games. Kessinger Legacy Reprints, Whitefish, Montana. 2008 (first published 1856).

CHAMPLIN, John Denison and BOSTWICK, Arthur Elmore: The Young Folk’s Cyclopædia Of Games And Sports. Lightning Source UK / Scholar Select, Milton Keynes. 2015 (first published by Henry Holt & Co. New York. 1890).

CORBETT, Doris, CHEFFERS, John and SULLIVAN, Eileen Crowley [Editors]: Unique Games And Sports Around The World: A Reference Guide. Greenwood Press, Westport CT. 2001.

CULIN, Stewart [1858-1929]: too many to mention individually, but I have checked virtually all of his relevant books and articles.

†DIAGRAM GROUP, (The): The Way To Play: The Illustrated Encyclopedia Of The Games Of The World. Bantam Books, London. 1977 (first published 1975).

DIAGRAM GROUP, (The): Collins Card Games. HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow. 1994.

DOYLE, Deborah [Editor]: Hoyle’s Official Rules Of Card Games. Hinkler Books, Heatherton, Victoria, Australia. 2000.

DUMMETT, Michael and MCLEOD, John: A History Of Games Played With The Tarot Pack: The Game Of Triumphs: Volumes 1 & 2. The Edwin Mellen Press, New York. 2004 [also the Supplement, published by Maproom Publications, Oxford, 2009].

GIBSON, Walter B.: Hoyle’s Modern Encyclopedia Of Card Games: Rules Of All The Basic Games And Popular Variations. The Promotional Reprint Co Ltd, Selecta Book Ltd, Devizes. 1993 (first published 1974).

†GOREN, Charles H. [aka Chas H. Goren and ‘Mr. Bridge’]: Goren’s Hoyle: Encyclopedia Of Games. Greystone Press, New York. 1961.

HEAD, Honor [Editor]: The Guinness Encyclopaedia Of Games, Puzzles & Pastimes. Guinness Publishing, Enfield. 1988.

HERVEY, George F.; ARNOLD, Peter and MACFADYEN, Matthew: The Complete Book Of Card Games. Hamlyn; Octopus Publishing Group Ltd, London. 2001.

HOFFMAN, Professor [LEWIS, Angelo John]: The Cyclopædia Of Card And Table Games. Kessinger Legacy Reprints, Whitefish, Montana. 2007 (first published 1891).

†MOREHEAD, Albert; FREY, Richard L. and MOTT-SMITH, Geoffrey: The New Complete Hoyle Revised: The Authoritative Guide To The Official Rules Of All Popular Games Of Skill And Chance. Revised by: Richard L. Frey, Tom Smith, Phillip Alder, Matt Klam. Doubleday, New York. 1991 [revision of Hoyle’s Rules Of Games, 1983].

†PARLETT, David: The Penguin Encyclopedia Of Card Games. Penguin Books, London. 2000 (first published 1979 as The Penguin Book Of Card Games).

PENNYCOOK, Andrew: The Indoor Games Book. Faber And Faber, London. 1973.

†PERHAM, Molly [Editor]: The Encyclopedia Of Games. Project editor: Brian Burns. Aurum Press Ltd; Amber Books Ltd, London. 2001 (first published 1998).

SACKSON, Sid: Card Games Around The World. Dover Publications, New York. 1994 (reprint of Playing Cards Around The World, first published by Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1981).

SACKSON, Sid: A Gamut Of Games. Dover Publications, New York. 1992 (first published 1969).

SCARNE, John: Scarne On Cards. Crown Publishers Inc, New York. 1949 [seventh printing 1959].

†SCARNE, John: Scarne’s Encyclopedia Of Games. Constable & Company, London. 1975 (first published 1973).

TIBBALLS, Geoff [Compiler]: The Best Party Games Book Ever!. Carlton Books Limited, (London). 1997.

WILLUGHBY, Francis: Francis Willughby's Book of Games. Editors: David Cram, Jeffrey L. Forgeng and Dorothy Johnston. Ashgate, Aldershot. 2003.

WOOD, Clement and GODDARD, Gloria: The Complete Book Of Games. Garden City Books, New York. 1940.

ANONYMOUS: Encyclopedia Of Sports Games And Pastimes. Fleetway Press, London. 1935.

- Northern winter (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2023 (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. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S. A. Vigneshvar

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:CREATIVE. ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only claim to notability seems to be "he wrote 3 songs for the film" (Burma) which was released this year. Nb. I speedied the 'original' S A Vigneshvar (S.A.) as CSD A7. --220 of ^Borg 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE by quite a margin. Abecedare (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Muhl

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

NN businessman, a studio exec who is not even mentioned in the article on the studio. No indication of notability other than misplaced reliance on some inherited notability from the business. Carlossuarez46

He was the head of one of the biggest Hollywood studios in the 1950s and 60s - his name was even on the logo.Dutchy85 (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC) (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Another sloppy nomination in a spate of sloppy nominations by the nom over the past couple days. This is one of the poorer ones: did you not check the references in the article? What the hell? I just ran "Edward Muhl" Universal on newspapers.com, which specializes in the pre-modern newspaper cites which particularly apply to the 1950s and 1960s period when Muhl was production chief of Universal, and there are two-hundred and nine cites, quite aside from Muhl's famous public statement that Elizabeth Taylor would never make it. Ravenswing 04:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable studio production executive as Ravenswing says. An chapter about Muhl can be found here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very, very strange nomination that I can't really understand at all. Maybe best just to ignore it. Anyway, thank you to @Arxiloxos: for a fascinating reference. Thincat (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krähenberg, Bremen

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

an officially unrecognized section of a city at best, made up at worst. The German WP has nothing on this area in its featured article on de:Bremen, and I cannot find anything official on this place, which may be an informal usage without any recognition. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wondered about this one. The same editor added it to the German DAB page with this edit. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Krähenberg" in Bremen is apparently a small artificial dwelling hill from the Middle Ages (see http://stadtwerderwald.de/includes/media/beispielseiten-kalender.pdf). The immediate built-up area next to it seems to be called "Am Krähenberg", apparently registered (with name) under nr. 445_280 in the land usage registry of "Ortsteil" Oslebshausen, Bremen (see http://www.fnp-bremen.de/assets/website/fnpdata/pdfs/445_280.pdf). If kept, it should either 1. be renamed to "Am Krähenberg" or 2. rewritten to only mention the ancient hill. - Takeaway (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jarvis (album). kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Weather (song)

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

This could just be redirected to the singer IMO, can't find any notability. Wgolf (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heavy Weather as cheap search term. There are at least two such songs, so it makes sense to link to a disambiguation. That said, this song has no coverage by any stretch of any search, and there's no indication it's better known than the other song by the same name. (So fails WP:NSONG.) Note to @Wgolf, it's worth attempting to engage the page history and/or talk page before coming to AfD. You probably could have redirected this article BOLDly with little fanfare. czar ♔ 01:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas Martyrs

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

A music group that has had no info for years, can't find any notability either. Wgolf (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:53, 30 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 17 -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg Commercial Internet Exchange

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

No indication that this business is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references & not notable.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:48, 30 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Scientist Party Hour

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

No indication that this podcast is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This podcast is highly ranked on iTunes with thousands of subscribers. I feel it is notable enough for a wiki page.jbc13rds (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. Apparently no coverage in independent sources. No hits in the main databases, no secondary sources on Google. czar ♔ 01:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This show is has hundreds of great episodes and is one of the best podcasts on iTunes!! Poominati stand up!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.151.208.51 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mockrunner

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

NN product. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up a few blog entries and how-to's but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless if software notability is added.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps of US news, Britain, computing news, business, did not find any mentions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Northwestern University. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MMM Program

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

Program within a university, with no real assertion of independent notability and entirely reliant on self-published sources. —Swpb^talk 23:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no page is given for this program then the content will need to be repeated twice on both the McCormick School's Wikipedia page and the Kellogg School's Wikipedia page. The Kellogg School and McCormick School are also both programs within a university so by your logic they too should not have pages. The concern over "entirely reliant on self-published sources" has been addressed since this page was flagged for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrh25 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Northwestern University, where it's worth a one-sentence mention, maybe (otherwise redirect to Kellogg school, the only other place it's mentioned). This topic was never really a candidate for deletion because the redirect's usefulness was always apparent. There is no secondary coverage available in databases or news, and the only meaningful, secondary hits I found were in Princeton Review, which isn't so great for our uses. In the absence of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, redirect to parent article. czar ♔ 01:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rudy Blitz. More or less a redirect-flavored WP:SOFTDELETE. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksanyway Vinyl

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

Now maybe the most notable thing about this is that it is someones first release, but thats about it. Apparently it was very limited also. I think either Delete or a Redirect be the best. Wgolf (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 30 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Tillman

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

Non notable player who has not played in a fully-pro league neither has got significant coverage. RRD13 (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 11:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 11:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 30 September 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) 17:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:49, 30 September 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) 11:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability guidelines as well as lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:Drafts Player recently signed for Indian Premier League, which starts play in less than 1 week. There's little point completely deleting article only to restore in a few weeks. Use WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NORUSH instead of Wikipedia:Waste of Time. Deleting this article only to recreate it in a few days or weeks is a waste of everyone's time. We've also seen that often the articles are rewritten from scratch losing information, and often with no restoration of the edit history. There is WP:NOHARM in simply waiting a few weeks to see what happens; the article can easily be deleted in the future. Nfitz (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 12:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Physicians in Clinical Research

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

promotional and non-notable. This is actually a Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's Association trade group DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Promotional crap that belongs elsewhere. –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A lot of the promotional stuff has been cleaned up by Schmausschmaus. (Thanks!) However this reveals a lack of reliable independent sources. (Remember that the subject was known as the Academy of Pharmaceutical Physicians and Investigators until recently.) The only possibilities I could find were this Bloomberg story and this book. The BNA article only mentions an APCR study in passing, and I don't see evidence that the coverage in the book is significant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 September 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 12:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiacos (boxing club)

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

Non-notable boxing branch of a sports club - itself of questionable notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG since the only reference is a link to the club's own website. Nothing to indicate this boxing club is notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is he does not meet the general notability guidelines or the boxing specific guidelines kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young Hank Griffin

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

Non-notable boxer. When I Prod'd this the only reference was an obituary but a couple more were found. Still does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not exactly a surprise that online references are hard to find for a boxer of the early 1900s. But what we have already meets the requirements of WP:GNG: his death was noted in the mainstream press (see The Afro-American who labels him "one of the country's outstanding boxers in the early part of the century") and his fights received coverage in local but also national press (see the LA Herald reference). Another example of coverage of his fights is [27] and there are at least a few more if one trusts his boxrec.com entry. Pichpich (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Only sources are an obituary and routine reporting of fight results. Fought for no major titles and notability isn't obtained by fighting fighters who became notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). Hard to see how he was one of the country's outstanding boxers with a career record of 8 wins in 19 fights.Mdtemp (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet NBOX or GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You wouldn't expect much internet coverage, but we do have his boxing record and that definitely doesn't support the claim he was a notable boxer (based on WP:NBOX). Papaursa (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage for sports athletes is commonplace even if it was in the print media. Since this athlete does not meet WP:NBOX, I don't see a valid rationale for notability inside our guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 17:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of technology companies in Canadian cities

(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)

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

Per closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of technology companies in Quebec City. Lists of companies in a particular industry might be valid at the country or province level, but it's not particularly helpful or useful in an encyclopedia to winnow that down to separate lists for individual cities — and indeed, lists of "technology companies in particular city" don't appear to exist for any other city on the entire planet, and so far I've found little evidence of comparable "companies in particular city" lists existing for any other particular industry either. The Ottawa list, it's worth noting, has been turned into something approaching a comprehensive directory of companies without regard to whether they have a Wikipedia article to link to or not (and, of course, some were offlinking to the company's own website in violation of WP:ELNO) — and none of the lists cite any proper referencing, either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons I raised at the Quebec City AFD. I had hoped these would all be deleted at the same time, but I suppose since they weren't actually bundled, we have to go through the extra step of bureaucracy here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at the previous AFD, which apply equally to these lists. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Society of Military Comptrollers

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

no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the sources in the article are primary. the only other sources I've found are one line mentions. LibStar (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ASMC is a nation-wide organization with 18,000 members…that should qualify the organization as notable. In addition, the article got 246 on-line hits in past 30 days…clearly a topic of interest to many Wikipedia readers. Finally, there are at least 4 others Wikipedia articles that link the ASMC article. Although some of the article's source links have now been broken or cited text deleted from on-line sources, the original article had a variety of sources including a government agency web-page (United States Department of Defense), a hard copy publication (Armed Forces Comptroller), and an outside organization (American Council on Education). Multiple issues banner seems appropriate; however, deletion is inappropriate response to those issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orygun (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 September 2014‎
Delete: There may be independent secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject, but I couldn't find them. Orygun's arguments have little to do with the relevant standard. As LibStar points out, none of the cited sources are independent. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 3 new sources that aren't associated with ASMC.--Orygun (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can say those aren't associated with the ASMC. NCS is a lobbying group of which the ASMC is a member. The Grant Thonton survey was co-sponsored by the ASMC. And the ASMC is a designated "provider" of Learning Market / NASBA. (Presumably they have a contract.) None of these are independent sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added couple more sources, Program Manager which is published by Defense Acquisition University and Kaplan Scholarships 2014 book. Also, Grant Thornton survey focused on Federal Government workforce; the documents only connection with ASMC was sponsorship cited in one paragraph on Table of Contents page. Don’t see how identifying survey sponsor in footnote disqualifies that document from use as valid source of information about that sponsor. Same is true for NCS and NASBA. While they have a relationship with ASMC (and many other organizations), there’s no reason to believe that the information they provide about those organizations is false or inaccurate. I’ll keep looking for more sources. In meantime, this article is still getting ~250 reader hits per month which indicate a reasonably high level of interested in the organization by Wikipedia users. Still think deleting it is inappropriate.--Orygun (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Program Manager article is unreliable and its coverage of the ASMC may be insignificant. It's an article summarizing a conference put on by the DAU (the publisher of the article) and contains a small portion not about the ASMC but about a description of the ASMC by an ASMC employee (Frank Arcari). The Kaplan book's reference to ASMC is just a few items on a list of "Sponsoring Organizations", hence neither independent nor significant coverage. Thank you for your efforts, but please do some due diligence to avoid the appearance of bombardment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I’m just trying to figure out what you’re looking for in terms of sources. This article has a wide variety of what appears to me to be reasonably reliable sources, each covering specific areas of text info. Here’s another try. It's public record memo from DOD Under Secretary that discusses ASMC and the training it provides through its profession development institute. Source says ASMC is not officially sponsored by DOD, but organization provides excellent training and certification programs. Attach are several back-up letters from U.S. Senators and a member of Congress that discuss the merits of a specific ASMC event. This seems to be independent confirmation that the organization is substantial and the training and certification it provides is important to independent third-party, the DOD. I’ve also repaired the original link to the American Council on Education source (Ref #2). ACE represents presidents of accredited degree-granting universities and other education institution. That seems like a pretty independent source. In any case I fixed the link.--Orygun (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you haven't participated in AfDs in the past, welcome. I'm merely following our normal notability standards, which require significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. If you need assistance consider following those links. The DOD letter is a primary source. The ACE page isn't independent as it was probably written by the ASMC. ASMC paid ACE thousands of dollars to be designated as an ACE CREDIT organization. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to the process and have now done reading you suggested. Based on that, I see two issues here. Is there third-party confirmation that the organization is notable; and the adequacy of source material supporting the article, secondary sources being most desirable. However, third-party confirmation of notability and secondary sources are not the same thing. Let’s look at notability first. In this case, there are a number of sources that attest to the notability of the organization…e.g. Under Secretary of the DOD says ASMC provides excellent training and certification programs for the DOD workforce and many outstanding DOD employees are members of the ASMC. American Council of Education is an independent education and training accreditation organization, the same as those organizations that provide independent accreditation to colleges and hospitals. In your note above, you suggested that accreditation was automatic. While it may cost money to have training courses/programs reviewed, accreditation is not automatic…i.e. their opinion is based on an independent accreditation review. ACE says ASMC is professional organization with 18K members and administers a national certification program for government financial manages from the DOD and U.S. Coast Guard. The international survey firm Grant Thornton says ASMC is a nonprofit educational and professional organization established in 1948 that administers a professional certification program and sponsors an annual professional development institute for government financial managers. Pearson VUE, a firm that conducts independent testing for professional certification and academic admissions for government and private sector institutions, says the ASMC certification program comply with provisions of the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization Act regarding professional certification for DOD financial managers; and the Kaplan Scholarships 2014 book published by Kaplan Publishing, a firm that specializes in publishing college prep material, confirms that ASMC provides a number of college scholarship. These third-party sources highlight ASMC as a respected and well-established professional organization with a large nation-wide membership and significant impact on government financial management community through its training and certification programs while contributing to broader public interests via its college scholarships. This is clearly a notable organization. Now, regarding the issue of primary and secondary source. An article without adequate secondary-sources may require a banner to remind readers and editors of that deficiency…however, that is not grounds for deleting an article written about a notable subject. Secondary sourced material is based on primary sourced material, published in a second forum. Four of the five sources listed above are secondary-sources. In addition, Program Manager, a hard-copy professional magazine published by Defense Acquisition University, is another secondary source. Taken together these secondary sources cover material in four of the five sections in the article. Finally, according to Wikipedia (WP:SELFSOURCE), self-published sources (like the ASMC web-site) may be used for information about the source itself…especially in an article specifically about the source as long as the information isn’t libelous, commercial, or false. That means information provided by ASMC, about ASMC is appropriate unless there is some specific reason to believe the organization isn’t telling the truth about when it was form, how many members it has, and what if does. I do not believe there is any indication that the material ASMC published about its history, membership, and/or programs is suspect. This means the remaining sources are valid for use in this article, even though they are primary source material. Bottom line…this is a notable subject, appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and should not be deleted.--Orygun (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why, but you seem to be misunderstanding our notability guidelines (WP:ORG and WP:GNG). What you call "third-party confirmation that the organization is notable" is generally based solely on significant coverage by multiple independent secondary sources. If there is no such coverage, then a lack of notability can be inferred. The theory here is quite practical: you simply can't write a verifiable, neutral, encyclopedic article without such coverage and without violating our "No original research" policy. Note a key line in that policy: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article previously had 5 secondary sources (ACE, Grant Thornton, Pearson, Kaplan, and Program Manager) with no evidence that info provided by these sources is false or inaccurate. However, it appears that’s not enough…so I’ve now added 13 more secondary sources, including a book, 5 newspaper articles, 5 published DOD sources, and an additional private and .org source (1 each). The sources cover specific info in various parts of the articles. Is this enough outside material to demonstrate significant coverage?--Orygun (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but not in my view. I believe I reviewed all of the new sources you added and all are either primary sources, or sources affiliated with ASMC, or sources with only trivial coverage of ASMC. You can throw as many of these sources into the article as you wish and it won't make any difference from a notability perspective. If there are specific sources we haven't already discussed that you think make the cut, then by all means, link to them here and we can talk about them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I previewed a pay-for-view newspaper archive and got 58 hits using "American Society of Military Comptrollers" as search criterion. I could only read the text immediately around the search words, but almost all of the articles appeared to be about local ASMC chapters or region ASMC training events. Any chance those could be useful? I don’t want to pay to access sources if they aren’t going to be any help.--Orygun (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More Money

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

A song from what I can tell never was released Wgolf (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:Crystal - "was believed to be the first leaked single" doesn't fill me with much confidence. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Check the date of it, that makes it stranger. Wgolf (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 30 September 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 30 Foot Fall. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ever Revolving, Never Evolving

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

No independent, reliable references for the album except for this. I'm not even sure if the band is notable. Article was already deleted via a Prod. Bgwhite (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 30 Foot Fall as a plausible search term (release on a notable label by a notable band). The Punknews article is not a staff review and the most in-depth I could find besides that is this Allmusic mini-review. Houston Press described the album as 30 Foot Fall's "seminal punk masterpiece", but given these findings I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to support a standalone article. Gongshow talk 05:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 02:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian soap operas

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

WP:OR. There is no such a genre as Armenian soap operas, there is only soap operas that produced in Armenia, USA and so on. Maybe list or category, but this article summarizes the different soap operas under one title and critiqued.

Comment - I completed the nomination for IP 46.241.142.49. Ansh666 18:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 September 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 September 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:06, 14 September 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 September 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Soap opera. The Armenian media apparently uses the term "soap opera" to describe these shows (e.g. here:[28]) and there are plenty of sources indicating this is not original research. Although the article could be merged into Soap opera I worry that the resulting article might be too clunky, and there are articles about TV serials in a few other countries including India, although there is no article on American soap operas, for example. I would rather see other articles expanded to similar depth as this one rather than squeezed into one article with limited country-specific information (except of course for information specific to the USA, which is always abundant.) This probably necessitates leaving this and similar articles alone. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber jazz

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

8 years with no references to survive to this date. redirect to jazz, until someone bothers to find a reference for this term. not needed until then Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The term has long been in use, sometimes stretched towards any small group jazz (e.g. the use of the term in Gunther Schuller's book on the Swing Era), more commonly in the 1950s (such as Chico Hamilton's groups), then ECM Records in the 1970s, and through to the present day, as evidenced in frequent use in The Wire and organisations like a Chamber Jazz Society of Baltimore. That said, I am uncomfortable with the vague inclusiveness in the current article (Zappa?), but maybe better in (and subject to improvement) than out. AllyD (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed several names, I fear some valid, from the list portion. The valid ones can be returned on sourcing if this survives.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per AllyD -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I did some searching through Google books and Google scholar, and a couple of entries came up. Most of them were trivial, but the book AllyD found did have some decent coverage of chamber jazz throughout. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. i dont afd just for having no refs, but 8 years seemed a lot. Should i have searched? probably. I could have also redirected w/o comment, so at least people had a chance to comment. we have enough refs now to put this beyond being only a dictionary definition. the quality can be discussed on the talk page.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness I guess I actually created this article and I grant I should have done a better job improving it. Referencing standards I think were weaker eight-years ago, but I'd had time since then. I'm at times disappointed articles I've made sometimes just languish like that, embarrassingly even from my attention, until maybe they get an AfD. But that's the breaks of having obscure interests I suppose.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Spart (art movement). where he is mentioned (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin McKeown

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

Can't find notability. his site is dead (the other site that was linked here was not about him but rather just people that do that art it seems) Not sure just how notable he is but does not seem enough for a article on here. Wgolf (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Spart (art movement) --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 30 September 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 12:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Timmins (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR No secondary sources I can find. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 01:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn actor. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Possibly a auto bio. Wgolf (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources provided. Karlhard (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 12:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Mulder

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

Unable to find significant sources independent of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet GNG nor do I believe it meets the criteria for MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 00:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A sweep of Dutch news sources here only got one hit, a brief mention of a name. Nothing in fairly broad sweep of US news, or international news, or music news, so agreeing with nominator, doesn't meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 30 September 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 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Glenn

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

Fails WP:GNG the only single reference is from the Glenn's own website. No third party references to establish notability. Martin451 00:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Martin451 00:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 00:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant coverage required for WP:GNG and WP:NHSPHSATH. Where she'll be competing in college in 2 years is certainly irrelevant.Mdtemp (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon. Bondegezou (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cheong (classical guitarist)

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

I'm not this passes WP:MUSICBIO. It may pass under criteria 1 but I don't know the extent of the prior coverage. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the "references" are not sources, but explanatory footnotes. Such sources as are listed are inaccessible, and probably don't do enough to establish notability anyway. I couldn't find any more. --Stfg (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 30 September 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 (NPASR). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Boleche Hobe

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

Does not seem to meet the notable album criteria. Wgolf (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG, [29], [30], [31], [32]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Proportional_representation#Measuring_proportionality. No one appears to be arguing keep but most people seem to agree that the topic is notable but lacks significant converage. v/r - T P 22:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deviation from proportionality

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AfD was closed as no consensus, as there were 2 editors suggesting deletion, and 2 suggesting a merge, but to different targets. There were no keep comments. I still believe this should be a straigt delete, but am hoping that after six and a half years with a notability tag, we can finally establish what should be done here. Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That last nomination ended two days ago--what has changed since then? If you disagreed with the outcome of the previous nomination, you could ask for a review. But AfD is not for re-nominating until you get an outcome you like. --Mark viking (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark viking:, it's not about getting an outcome I like, it's about getting an outcome. There was no outcome from the last discussion, and the main issue was lack of participation, which may be addressed by re-discussing. I don't care what the outcome is, as long as there's the chance to develop a consensus. Boleyn (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Proportional_representation#Measuring_proportionality. Incdices of disproprortionality are well-known in the context of assessing the quality of proportional-representation voting systems; the Gallagher Index is another example. Deviation from proportionality is discussed in published papers like [33], [34], [35], and the ref [36] from the article. These papers (and others found with a simple Gscholar search) show the topic to be verifiable. There may be enough secondary discussion to pass notability, so a Keep would be OK with me, too. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, verifiable information should be preserved rather than deleted. Deviation from proportionality is a measure of proportionality, so Proportional_representation#Measuring_proportionality is a natural target. The topic is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted, too. --Mark viking (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is real, as I have seen this phrase many times in search results. However, none of these sources contain WP:SIGCOV. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COoment I just wanted to add that as this has already been closed once as no consensus, mainly because there was poor participation, I think it should be relisted as many times as possible to get an answer, so this is not sitting with a notability tag for the next six years as well. 06:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Boleyn: If Template:Notability encourages editors to think that, then that template should be taken to TfD and deleted. As far as I can see, notability issues are not normally time sensitive and we should not therefore normally behave as though they are. (Non-notable BLPs seem to be an exception to this). James500 (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Mark viking has demonstrated the concept to be verifiable, but given its low profile a merge seems preferable to a simple keep. His proposed merge target seems entirely reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see advantages to merging/redirecting to that target. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources available, and the obvious potential target for merger, it is obvious to me that this page should not be deleted. James500 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There is too little information. Notability hasn't been established and looks closer to a dictionary entry, which Wikipedia is not. Kingjeff (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Latinos in Cinema

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

This is not a neutral encyclopedia article about a defined topic, but rather an essay which is serving to advance a POV thesis about representation of LGBT Latinos in film. For example, this starts off with a definition of the word queer, and then digresses into a section giving background on queer cinema in general, starting with Rocky Horror Picture Show and winding through Brokeback Mountain (I love both films, of course, but their relevance to an article about Latino film is eluding me), and then cites just six examples out of the hundreds of possible queer-Latino films to support its thesis statement. (And we'll never mind that one of those six films, O Fantasma, is from Portugal and thus fails to even be an example of Latin American anything, even though that's what it's being cited as an example of. If that counts, then where's Pedro Almodovar? Contradicting the thesis, that's where.) And for added bonus, three of the seven citations here are to the films themselves, as seen on DVD or Netflix, rather than to any critical analysis which would verify this article's thematic assumptions — and two of the other four are supporting that non-Latino Rocky-Brokeback digression, to boot. It might be possible to write a real encyclopedia article about this topic, but this ain't it — it's a first-year film studies essay. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the topic does exist. The article is in bad shape, though, and should be reduced to a stub. Here are the sources I found:

Foster, David Wallace (2003). Queer Issues in Contemporary Latin American Cinema. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-79869-4.
Pullen, Christopher, ed. (2012). LGBT Transnational Identity and the Media. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-30106-1. (with chapters "Gay pornography as Latin American queer historiography" and "Quo vadis, queer vato? Queer and loathing in Latino cinema")
Subero, Gustavo (2014). Queer Masculinities in Latin American Cinema: Male Bodies and Narrative Representations. I. B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-78076-320-0.

I also suggest renaming the article, perhaps LGBT cinema in Latin America. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If someone's willing to do the necessary overhaul to make it less of an essay, it could stand (the title might need work, though, as Latinos in the US, outside of Latin America, are also present in the film examples). I've removed some of the irrelevant background. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to keep in mind, however, that if everybody's voted keep because a better article about this topic is possible, but nobody actually does take on the necessary overhaul, then we get stuck keeping this in its existing form. I think WP:NUKEANDPAVE pertains here — we have to get rid of this version and let a new one develop from the ground up. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm typically a strong supporter of nuking, but I think an incomplete list of films and a short paragraph on themes (assuming the latter is summarizing the secondary sources, rather than engaging in original research; haven't looked at the sources) is better than a blasted pavement –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most educational and encyclopedic. Good amount of coverage in secondary sources. I've been bold and moved it per the excellent suggestion of Erik, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. w/o prejudice to a redirect to the album title or band based on editorial judgment j⚛e decker ^talk 12:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of War (song)

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

Not really a song if it's a collection of songs, but regardless. I can't find any reliable sources to support WP:NALBUMS or WP:NSONGS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect is what I think it should have. Wgolf (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:NSONGS. Karlhard (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati symbolism

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

This speculative mixture of original research and synthesis with fringe sources, in-universe conspiracy theory babble, and speculation has no place here. Orange Mike | Talk 05:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why this article was created is because I symbolism interpreted as being from some secret society is becoming a trend on the internet and websites like MTV, Hip-Hop artists and other artists are also often referring to the use of symbolism of this. I personally don't believe in these conspiracy theories, but I believe that the influence of the conspiracy theory itself on popular culture is not insignificant, popular games like Tomb Raider are actually using references to the illuminati too. Currently, there is too much nonsense spread about this by christian mentally retarded people (sorry for the insult, but if you believe in reptillians ruling the world you are not completely sane), so I tried to find sources like MTV referring to the phenomena which get's popular among young viewers. I actually want to delete all my own additions now not based on sources.

I have asked for people offering sources debunking the claims that it stems from the illuminati, but nobody could help me and I need some time to find appropriate sources. But if it get's deleted it's a waste of time. Bokareis (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reliable sources can be found discussing the Illuminati, conspiracy theories about the Illuminati (where discussion in Wikipedia is split between the main article and New World Order (conspiracy theory)#Illuminati), and the Illuminati in popular culture. It does appear that reliable sources discussing its symbolism also can be found, but the material presently in this article is likely better suited for the pop culture article. (The sources for this article are generally reliable; most seem to focus on pop culture, but I wouldn't call them fringe.) - Location (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pop culture article currently only contains some references to the illuminati in popular culture in general, but it doesn't focus on the symbolism, it's interpretation by conspiracy theorists and what sceptics etc. say about the use of illuminati symbolism. I made an article for the subject as this symbolism is quite common when you read about the illuminati and references to it. Bokareis (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge usable sections to Illuminati, Illuminati in popular culture and New World Order (conspiracy theory)#Illuminati. The premise of the article seems to be an attempt to document illuminati symbolism in pop culture, but many of the sources are obviously force fitted to suit the premise, e.g. a rehash of David Icke's beliefs, a rehash of conspiracy beliefs, and a collection of rumors that have only the fabled illuminati in common -- stretched to fit the ostensible subject of "symbolism". The few genuine examples of illuminati symbolism's influence on pop culture can easily be absorbed by the existing articles named above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What I expected to see is an article that discusses the actual symbolism of the real, historical Illuminati of eighteenth century Bavaria (supported by high quality academic sources). What we got was a mix of conspiracy theory, pop-culture misinformation, speculation and original research (especially WP:SYNTH)... marginally supported by very unreliable sources, if supported at all. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of the article was to describe what an increasing amount of young people talk about in pop culture, which is what they call illuminati, which indeed doesn't have anything to do with the historical Illuminati. There was a paper from university written about the subject among Danish youth which I couldn't open. I also wanted to add an author of a book in which he describes how antisemitism is the foundation of modern illuminati symbolism conspiracies, but as it will get deleted I won't add it anymore.

This was in fact my first article so I tried to write down what was said in the newspapers, but I had a little trouble how to describe it. As the article in the Daily Mail for example said: "Adorning her head with what appeared to be the sign which is said to represent the group The Illuminati, Kyle Sandliands girlfriend accessorised the emblem, which she wore upside down, with a black hooded cap." I cited what was said here, is said to represent, but I didn't know how to exactly describe this. Is said by who? Conspiracy theorists? The article in the Daily Mail isn't really clear about it neither. I also described the counter-arguments, but it was very hard to find freemasons describing the counterarguments of allegations against them that they are behind some big "secret evil conspiracy". Bokareis (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bokareis... sorry that your first attempt at an article is problematic... I will share bits of advice: first: don't take this nomination personally... even if the consensus is to delete. All of us were new editors at one point... and most of us have written articles that got deleted at some point (I know I did... before I learned what sorts of articles would be accepted, and how to write them to ensure they would be accepted). Second... it is often a good idea to start a new article as a draft in your user space. Then you can make changes, seek sources and get input from other editors without the risk of having it deleted before you are really ready. And then, when the draft is in good shape, you can shift it over to full Article space. I can help you with all that if need be. We welcome your future contributions... even if we end up not keeping this contribution. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any useful content, as per LuckyLouie above (though I doubt that much is salvageable). The article as it stands is basically WP:OR/synthesis, and lacks proper sourcing of discussions of the subject matter as a concept. In conflating modern conspiracy-theory led claims about a supposed modern 'Illuminati' with material concerning the historical Illuminati it violates WP:NPOV, and several of the assertions made are also arguably violations of WP:BLP policy - giving entirely undue prominence to claims made by highly dubious sources about named living individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I start to understand how Wikipedia works. I 'm trying to merge all the material based on facts but I agree with you that my article as I see it now indeed contains a lot of content which is not factual. I 'm merging the factual content with the illuminati in popular culture article. Bokareis (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. References cited do not amount to significant coverage. While a number of them are from reliable sources they are passing mentions, press release reprints or blogs and do not satisfy the requirements of the general notability guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CouponChief.com

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

No significant coverage in the sources. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm a little reluctant to put in this vote, but the article looks well researched and referenced. The references also list some very well-known and respected sites, like the Wall Street Journal. Thus, I feel that deletion would be a bit of an extreme move. --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 18:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cited is not the WSJ news site but the blog of WSJ. Hence can not be considered reliable. Moreover the blog only mentions the name of the site only in a list of coupon site which can not be considered significant coverage- Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list of references looks impressive, but it's all passing mentions or inclusions in a long list of coupon companies. The only thing significantly about the company was an item in a trade magazine about them settling a lawsuit. WP:CORP requires SIGNIFICANT coverage and I'm not seeing it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with WritingEnthusiast14, the page seems to pass notability marginally. I cannot mark it for deletion. My decision will be keep.Ireneshih (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the article itself is well written but I disagree that the company has met notability. Proof of existence is not meeting criteria. EBY (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Echoing User:WritingEnthusiast14's comments, the article CouponChief is cited in respectable media sources, such as The Wall Street Journal, in addition to others such as The Huffington Post, Mashable, The Today Show, and Lifehacker. In addition, at least a few books also mention CouponChef. These are all reliable sources and the plethora of citations discussing the company clearly establishes its notability. However, at the same time, I would support the merging of the content from the section titled CouponChief.com#Consumer_response, into the body of the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 22:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American-led intervention in Iraq

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/American-led intervention in Iraq

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

- That page is now at 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a mirror of the intro of 2014 military intervention against ISIS; created by 3 editors attempting to evade active temporary semi-protection on that site and to inject contentious material. DocumentError (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ article is non-GF mirror DocumentError (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Striking delete vote. Nominating an article for deletion implies a deletion vote, so that delete vote would essentially be a duplicate vote. You essentially "voted" for deletion when you nominated the article. Safiel (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, Safiel. Thanks for catching this error of mine. DocumentError (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article was proposed before temporary semi-protection was instated on 2014 military intervention against ISIS. Article does not meet WP:POVFORK definition, but is rather clearly a WP:SPINOFF. Consensus clearly existed for an article focusing on the Iraqi theater of this notable, significant, and complex conflict, as evidenced on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS in this thread and Talk:American-led intervention in Syria in this thread. Nominator's objections are rooted in a discussion that has little to nothing to do with the manner of the article's creation and is being addressed through more appropriate channels already, via Talk:American-led intervention in Iraq#Systemic_Bias. Nominator has hereto failed to raise objections, whether policy-based or entirely subjective, to the content that exists on American-led intervention in Iraq and made clear his belief that a new article title would be a "good compromise" in his eyes. In conclusion, the evidence does not support nominator's contention that this article was created improperly, and other avenues exist to resolve nominator's objections to the article title and scope. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – This is forum shopping at its finest. First, DocumentError starts an RfC on the talk page at Talk:American-led intervention in Iraq. That hasn't gone his way, so a couple hours later, he starts a frivolous [[WP:ANI#Semi-Protection Evasion [Active Community Sanctions measures - Syrian Civil War]]] thread. That didn't go his way either, so he has now started an AfD. Utterly absurd. I request that an administrator speedily close this discussion and sanction DocumentError for tendentious editing under the Syrian Civil War arbcom sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is not a mirror but reflects a consensus of users expressing a desire that there be an iraq specific page just like there is one for the Syria intervention. There are other ways to resolve the issues that the nominator has brought up which other users have agreed are relevant involving the scope of the article. Deletion is unnecessary and this article was not created to evade protection on a page that was protected due to users disputing where Britain should be in the infobox not due to contentious editing. I also believe Rgloucester is right that the user is forum shopping because the discussions are not going their way. Definitive keep. SantiLak (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can a proposed article merger also be a candidate for deletion? It seems illogical that such a case would be allowed. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think RGloucester is quite right in calling this forum shopping. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to 2014 military intervention against ISIS. Why are we keeping this? What makes America so special as opposed to the other countries involved for example? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my deletion opinion per below, I have no objection to a future merge discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a specific American-led intervention going on, that's why. It is notable in its own right. It is called "American-led" because "America" started the initiative, and has carried out most of stuff. Regardless, the title can be iterated on. You've missed the mark here. RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Knowledgekid87. It's a small group of editors trying to evade protection on the merge-to article. For full disclosure, I've also raised this at ANI here - [37] but have also nominated here as the ANI deals specifically with the article creator's intent. (FYI - I recommend you avoid the ANI unless you want to be called a bunch of names and be the subject of a variety of wild accusations from this tightly canvassed group.) DocumentError (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being honest Im not focused on the editor dispute the only reason you provided for deleting this was that it duplicated an existing article. I do think the AfD should run it's course and would be interested in seeing more opinions on the content matter. Anyways its late so im going to get some rest, I will look into this again tomorrow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- For one, it's a distinct operation; for another, Iraq is a discrete theater in a campaign that also has a Syrian component, as reflected in American-led intervention in Syria. If the article title is an issue, by all means, you or nominator can start a movereq, instead of distorting the record to claim the article wasn't created in good faith. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Im sure the article was created in good faith I just don't see a reason for a spinout here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI there was more than one American led intervention into Iraq. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - By all means, start a movereq and change the title. I'll probably even support it. As far as I'm concerned, all three of the anti-Islamic State intervention articles are problematically named. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I might consider it, and also have an open mind here. Do you think the article can be expanded upon and put into it's own wording to not look like it is a mirror article? Im just not seeing how this article is working out on it's own for some reason. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I do think it can, yes. Basically, remove some of the granular details from 2014 military intervention against ISIS on the Iraqi theater specifically to the spinout page; use the spinout to focus on the details of the operations in Iraq. The parent article should focus more broadly on all efforts in both Iraq and Syria to combat the Islamic State and support groups that oppose them on the ground. It should direct readers to the daughter articles for Iraq and Syria for details. That relieves pressure to keep up with events that could cause bloat of the parent page, which would be a WP:SIZE concern, and allow the parent article to focus on aspects of the coalition-building that involves, for instance, Kurdish groups on both sides of the border, Turkey's efforts to control the flow of Islamic State militants across its borders, and the relationship between the U.S.-led coalition, Iran, Syria, and Iraq. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously needless duplication BlueSalix (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that the split occurred due to consensus regarding article content, not as an attempt to get around editing restrictions. The American intervention is heavily sourced independent of the wider intervention, so notability requirements have been met. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Eagle, note that the consensus - and I was one of those who formed part of that consensus - was to create an Iraq-theater specific article not a "Team America" article, which was the source of the major disruption that created the need for protection originally. When I opined in support of a branch article, it was specifically NOT this; many other editors were in the same boat. This was a clear case of WP:GAMING. The consensus myself and others previously gave was NOT for this. DocumentError (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DocumentError: So propose that the article be renamed. That is not a valid argument for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an almost word-for-word duplicate of an article that already exists and was created with the intention of implementing edits that could bypass protection on the main article and push the POV of a trio of editors whose edits were part of the reason protection was initially imposed. That's the reason for the AfD. In the above note I was only addressing Spirit's more limited question regarding whether consensus was given for the article. DocumentError (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop promoting your own narrative. It is not true that the article was created to bypass protection, since (as I have previously pointed out here [38] the protection was put into place after we discussed creating the article. If it was true that the article was created "with the intention of ... pushing POV" the discussion would have started following the protection of the page. However, it did not and your claim is demonstrably false. In addition, the page protection of the 2014 military intervention against ISIS article is a distinct issue from what we are discussing; as Empire of War has correctly pointed out here [39], the page protection was done in reaction to the actions of various IP editors. There is no need to resort to false accusations. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who requested the page be protected, I think I know why it was put in place. So don't tell me why I requested it. I know why I requested it. And it was because of POV-pushers who were trying to insert a US-centric bend into the article. DocumentError (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A discussion is currently ongoing on the Talk page of this article, which is current and active in the news, about including the British flag icon in advance of the actual engagement of British forces (currently only a parliamentary resolution has been passed). Nonetheless, 13 different IP editors in the last 36 hours have added the flag icon, necessitating almost constant reverting." You wrote that in the RPP page. Nothing about an alleged us-centric bend. SantiLak (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the relevant RPP [40]. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- I was just about to ask if there is a diff. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

two very different stated reasons written by the same editor. I see a pattern here. Legacypac (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with article content should be addressed in the article's talk page, not through AfD. I still do not see any reason for deletion as all of the problems raised can be solved through editing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs a lot of work but it makes sense. This is a separate theater and there has been support for this on the talk page of the overarching article. Concerns about continued edit warring on this page are legitimate and maybe the page should be subject to the same regime that the overarching article is currently subject to. Juno (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I think RGloucester is quite right in calling this forum shopping and suggesting sanctions against DocumentError. I consider his actions WP:BATTLE. He is also trying a Systematic Bias on the same article at the same time. I agree with all the other reasons too keep too and will not repeat them. Legacypac (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for "sanctions" on other editors has a chilling effect on discussion, particularly since this AfD -based on several instances of user support for Delete - obviously is not a WP:SNOWBALL nom. Considering RGloucester's own colorful block history, I hope you quickly reconsider your demand. DocumentError (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This article was proposed to be merged, then CSD'd and now an AFd. DocumentError dragged me to Ani and false accusations of Canvassing. I made this article to help slim down the parent article which covers both conflicts. Not bypass Full protection. --Acetotyce (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor, in GF omission, forgot to provide a link to the ANI where the "false accusations of Canvassing" occurred. As a courtesy to editor, I am providing it here: [41]. DocumentError (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was mentioning my Talk page, but thanks for highlighting that. --Acetotyce (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched the creation of the main article and all comments on talk page support the making of this article. I'm appalled at the personal attack that this has become. This article was written in good faith as was the main article and the name was changed on that article as well. General consensus on the talk pages suggested this article would be written at some point to slim down the main article. Although I believe the name is probably not the best, I'm sure a vote on changing it would be a better topic then deletion or merging. There's a lot that can be added and changed that's what we do here. As far as canvassing I've read all talk pages and nothing supports that allegation. Notification is necessary when there is a dispute to be discussed and that's all that was done. --WikiButterfly (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, WikiButterfly. I know you've only been on WP for 18 days and your only edits have been to arrange to meet with Acetotyce on IRC, etc., so it's not a big deal, but you should sign your posts with four "~" so it creates a wikilink to your userpage. Like I said, no big deal, just wanted to let you know. Welcome to WP! DocumentError (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and yes I'm new to WP for just a couple weeks and am slowly learning my way around. I do sign all posts with the four ~ as u can tell since u have checked our talk pages. I don't know why it didn't show up that way from my phone. I'll be careful to make sure from now on. --WikiButterfly (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it's great that your second set of off-Talk edits was to weigh-in on an AfD and levy WP:PA personal charges against an editor. I don't think I'd even learned where AfD was, or what PA meant, until many months after I'd registered. Congrats and please say hi to Acetotyce on IRC for me. DocumentError (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY CLOSE PLEASE: This is now almost comical. Consider DocumentError has created Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq which is fine except doing that action is EXACTLY the same crime as what he is complaining about here and elsewhere. Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LegacyPAC. It's not necessary to shout. Also, we generally discourage using words like "comical" to describe the opinions of other editors. Thank you! DocumentError (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is about the US lead campaign and thus is going to be intrinsically US centric, but it's allies need a bit more of a mention. The UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Australia and Denmark have also done lot.90.244.94.220 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So has Iran, which is not part of the US-led campaign. They, nonsensically, are left with a separate article about the same conflict, as a result of this insistence of making sure Team America has its own vanity article. Iranian-led intervention in Iraq DocumentError (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is somehow in your opinion a vanity for the US and apparently from what you are accusing us of, you believe we are POV editors trying to make this all about america. I think it's time that we consider that you may be a POV editor too but you seem to be pro-countries like Iran or Syria. Iran should be in an Iraq intervention article but you seem to just want to oppose any neutral articles that mention the US coalition in an important way. They are important to the Iraq intervention, it is not POV to include that in the article or america-centric it is just true. SantiLak (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this line of discussion as constructive; there is nothing to be gained by reading that intent into another editor's actions in this circumstance. The fact that DocumentError did create an article "nonsensically", in his words, promptly suggested another new article for "Syrian-led intervention in Iraq" even while creating the page Talk:Iranian-led intervention in Iraq, and is now pushing for it to be merged with American-led intervention in Iraq at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history certainly brings up some WP:POINT concerns, however. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He brings up valid concerns about the scope of the article but I was just pointing some stuff out that I thought was important when it came to his accusations towards other users. SantiLak (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Lord. Just start lobbying for a block on me. I'm tired of being strung out like this. Let's just get it over with. Canvassing editors, coordinating AfD votes via IRC, etc. I'm done. I didn't sign on for this, Acetotyce, Kudzu, or whatever your name is. Yes, I'm a MISRI secret agent here to push a pro-Iran POV or whatever else you want to think of me. I quit. DocumentError (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now we are all the same editors cause last time I checked we weren't. There has been no canvassing, coordination of AfD votes or use of IRC. You have been accusing us of being all "team america" when you seem less interested in following NPOV rules but in pushing your own. No one is saying you are working for Iran or anyone but when you accuse us all of having a bias and after looking at your edits it seems like you have one yourself. You are acting like this is a huge conspiracy when it really isn't. SantiLak (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I quit.

I should note that you're not the only person to notice that: [42] Guess I'll throw being falsely accused of sockpuppetry with an editor I don't remember having any significant contact with before this past weekend onto the pile of calumnies DocumentError has recklessly hurled my way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WikiButterfly above is a meatpuppet of Acetoyota or whatever his name is - they've been chatting on IRC before she showed up here with her first edits in her WP history - to vote "Keep" unsurprisingly. And it used to be his account (coincidentally, of course); this is all detailed at the relevant SPI investigation. But I don't care. I'm probably talking to another iteration of AceToyota. Do whatever you want with the articles. It's all about you. Delete the Iran-led intervention article and replace it with a giant American flag if you like. This is absolutely crazy, I've never seen anything like this in my time on WP. Like I said, I quit so you don't have to worry about me disrupting your fun anymore. Bye. DocumentError (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by fun you mean reasonable discussion to find a consensus and work productively on articles then ok. SantiLak (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So is the Iranian-led intervention in Iraq a vanity article too? The double standards advocated are comical, as is dragging a content dispute through every process possible - if not comical it is something far worse. There is no way the subject article of this AfD is going to be deleted based on the input from editors already. How do these things get closed? Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. The chances of delete are low right now given the rapid influx of a tightly coordinated group of editors. Nonetheless, we don't close discussions after just a couple hours. That's why I previously reported you for 1RR (you unilaterally shut-down the systemic bias discussion after 6 hours). Why are you in such a hurry, LegacyPAC? [43] DocumentError (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep bringing up Ben Carson's similarly named political action committee, not-so-subtly implying that Legacypac is in some way affiliated with it. I don't know Legacypac, haven't worked with him to my knowledge in the past, but he joined Wikipedia c.2007 (well before American Legacy PAC existed, per OpenSecrets.org: [44]) and describes himself as a resident of Canada on his userpage. I know you insist on dredging up other editors' block histories (including my one-hour block from 2011), describing "colorful block histories", and trying to discredit everyone who disagrees with you as "tightly coordinated" and "canvassed" (none of which is true -- my prior interactions with all of these editors except for RGloucester and VQuakr have been either nonexistent or limited, AFAIK; I barely know what IRC is, much less how to use it, much less do I use it to coordinate with other editors; I categorically reject the idea that the neutral notification placed at User talk:Kudzu1, after you failed to notify me as an involved editor, even comes close to meeting the definition of WP:CANVASS), but why don't you lay off the WP:BATTLE, WP:HOUND, and WP:GAMING behavior and just let all of these various requests for administrative attention you have made play out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now the nominator is using Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Merge_Iraq_Theater_articles to gather support to merge the article he tries to delete here with another he himself just stated. Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy - this is an AfD for "American-led intervention in Iraq." DocumentError (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicates the 2014 military intervention against ISIS article for no gain whatsoever Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original 2014 military intervention against ISIS article was just on Iraq but now that there are two interventions in separate countries with separate coalitions, it seems apt to have an article for both interventions while maintaining the larger one as a summary article. Just my opinion. SantiLak (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I disagree with you - the 2014 military intervention against ISIS article isn't long enough to justify a split at this point, and it's not desirable that we repeat the confusing series of articles which blight our coverage of recent wars involving the US and its allies (for instance we have a 2011 military intervention in Libya article which should cover the whole topic, but also an Operation Odyssey Dawn article which for some reason presents more or less the same bunch of countries as operating under the US code name for the exact same war and for good measure an Operation Unified Protector which presents it as a NATO operation involving non-NATO countries). See also the ridiculous Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa article which wrongly claims that various countries have contributed forces to this US operation. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting a split but considering that there is an article that goes more in depth on the Syria intervention than the larger article, I feel that there should be one for the Iraq article too. Also their is a distinct difference between this intervention and the Libya one, this one is taking place in 2 different countries with different partners in each country. The article needs a lot of expansion in order to cover the iraq intervention more in depth but there is a need for a separate article because of the way that the two interventions are different. SantiLak (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that the 2014 military intervention against ISIS article that should be trimmed into an overview, with info transferred to this article suffered a 1 week block at about the same time as this action started at the request of the same editor who wants this article deleted. So it is impossible to clean up the other article to seperate the US-led vsd ISIL in Iraq vs from the US-led vs ISIL in Syria. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That will be resolved soon enough. There's no rush. That being said, it would be nice to have a less cluttered parent article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Another issue is that ..." Hmmm; this wording would suggest the article's existence is justified, at least in part, to evade the lock Kudpung applied (as was the contention in the OP). DocumentError (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough proof that it was not (as I have pointed out numerous times). David O. Johnson (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have a unique perspective, David O. Johnson! I think we'll have to agree to disagree for now. Kind regards - DocumentError (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment France, Iran and the UK have thier own pages now.90.244.94.220 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also the American-led intervention in Syria page now.90.244.94.220 (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been for a while. SantiLak (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Expand it and make it a more in depth coverage of America's role in the war (all those cruise missiles, etc).90.244.94.220 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now Turkey has a parallel page too. The parallel attempt to sanction the page creator was archived without action. How do we close this action? Legacypac (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There should be an article summarizing all actions against ISIS, articles about the American−led coalitions in Iraq and Syria, and articles about the actions of Iran and Russia in Iraq and Syria. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't buy all the cloak-and-dagger theories about the creation of this page, and I think DocumentError has had his say about them and should leave off for a bit, but I do think that Military intervention against Islamic State is the right article to cover this material. Talk of 'separate theatres' ignores the reality on the ground, that the border between Iraq and Syria is non-existent for the purposes of this conflict, since the territory on either side is controlled by IS, not the theoretically-sovereign states involved. GoldenRing (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is in the different coalitions involved in Iraq and Syria. That's the only way in which the Iraq-Syria border matters, but it causes an extremely important distinction between the 2 theaters. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- also the relationship between coalition forces and local authorities. There is a strong relationship between the U.S./coalition and the governments of Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan; meanwhile, a fairly tenuous relationship between the U.S./coalition and rebel forces like the YPG and FSA in Syria, and a very poor relationship between the U.S./coalition and other forces in Syria, such as the Syrian government and the PKK (to say nothing of al Qaeda, which the U.S. is actively striking in Syria). The two theaters are different even though the border is functionally nonexistent; the sovereign states on either side of that imaginary line have completely different legal and political realities. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep: Deleting this article is senseless, stupid, and ignorant. I was appalled to see that it is even being considered. I think there is perfectly good reason to have an article on America's intervention, and one about international intervention. This article could have more info about the politics behind deciding to intervene, and it can also be specific about America's actions as time moves on. This article must be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.202.51 (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the article 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq proposed for deletion here has continued to grow into a pretty comprehensive article. The 2014 military intervention against ISIL was trimmed down to be a summary of the various interventions. The intervention in Syria vs Iraq is very different with both different ground and international partners, the Americans and ISIL being almost the only common elements. Anyway there is zero chance of article deletion here so hopefully some Admin will close this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it will stay open for the seven days such discussions are usually left open, then closed if the admin who gets to it thinks consensus has been reached. GoldenRing (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sub-article of 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Although very similar to an article, thus the arguments of WP:DUPLICATE, I think this, and similar articles should be kept as detailed sub-articles of each participating nation's activities within the larger conflict, as their activities pass WP:GNG given their wide number of, and persistent, reliable sources created. This is keeping how there is an Operation Iraqi Freedom article as well as an Operation Telic article. Both fall under the larger Iraq War article's scope, but both are each unique to the activities of that particular nation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please the article and information provided in it, including the sources, are well established and informal. It's appropriate and within line of the requirements for a legitimate article. Also, on a side note, I don't see the point of deleting this article if it's going to be re-created in the near future. Thanks. --XCainAndAbelx (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CINB-FM

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

Per WP:BROADCAST "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." I don't see how any of these criteria are met and the subject also fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per Bearcat's explanation below. I appreciate your taking the time to explain this. Please consider my nomination withdrawn. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common outcomes are not guidelines. It still needs to meet WP:BROADCAST or WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, they are...and it does. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding consensus that we keep articles about licensed broadcast radio stations, for which reliable sources always exist. Completeness is an encyclopedic virtue, and no good reason has been shown to vary from that practice here. Sources are already supplied in the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Per WP:NMEDIA and Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as station broadcasts unique programming and is not merely a repeater of a larger network as most of the Air 1 and K-Love stations are. Also, licensed full-power radio stations are generally notable in the same way as other infrastructure such as highways. - Dravecky (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Am I missing something? Can someone explain how this meets WP:BROADCAST or WP:GNG? Tchaliburton (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: First the station is a licensed station by the CRTC. Second, it is not a pirate or Part 15. Third, it carries it's own programming. Fourth, it is sourced. That meets BROADCAST and GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are not the requirements for WP:BROADCAST or WP:GNG. WP:BROADCAST says that "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." This station fails that standard. As for WP:GNG, it requires significant coverage -- which it lacks. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you are obviously misreading both because the established reading of WP:BROADCAST and WP:GNG, along with WP:OUTCOMES, plus the strong, established consensus, say that I am (and my fellow editors) are reading it correctly. Sorry, it's notable and meets both BROADCAST and GNG. This is a SNOW keep, so I'd withdraw. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you explain how it meets the criteria for both? If it does, I'll withdraw this and won't waste anyone's time. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sourcing would certainly help, so by all means the article should be flagged for {{refimprove}} — but to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, all that a radio station has to do is be properly verifiable as having been duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority (CRTC in Canada, FCC in the US, Ofcom in the UK, etc.) as an originating station (as opposed to just a rebroadcaster of another one). If those two criteria are verifiably met, then the station passes BROADCAST — and even if the station were just a rebroadcaster of another service, then it would still just get redirected to its programming source rather than deleted (which is, for example, what we do with the exclusively satellite-fed Air 1 and K-LOVE retransmitters that Dravecky alluded to above.)

Simply put, the station does not fail to meet the criteria you've singled out. "Established broadcast history" is satisfied right on its face by the fact that the station has been on the air since 2001. That criterion was meant to exclude licenses or permits that were issued to stations which for one reason or another never actually launched, and then had their authorizations lapse without ever actually getting on the air at all — the moment a station actually launches an OTA signal, however, by definition its broadcast history has been established. And as for "unique programming", I suspect that you think the criterion is expressing "innovative format that's radically different from what's ever been done before on any other station" — but that's not what it means. All a station has to do to satisfy that criterion is originate at least one program in its own studios — even if the entire rest of its schedule is syndicated or networked programming, by definition that one local program is "unique programming". It doesn't have to be unique in the "innovative" sense of the word — it only has to be unique in the "originating from the station itself" sense.

Further, the CRTC license documents themselves count as legitimate sourcing. (For example, they're exactly how you can even verify that the station has actually been duly licensed, and isn't a non-notable pirate radio station instead. And they're the only possible source for technical parameters like the station's ERP and HAAT stats, too.) They're certainly not all the sourcing you would need to get an article to GA or FA status, which is why an article that's relying exclusively on CRTC decision texts for sourcing should be tagged for refimprove, but they do count as sufficient sourcing to start a keepable article with under GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tchaliburton: Bearcat answered your question better than I ever could.

@Bearcat: Well said. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the reasons I explained above, the station does pass WP:BROADCAST. Sourcing improvements are certainly still needed, so the article should be tagged for {{refimprove}}, but the core criteria — duly licensed station that broadcasts over the air (satisfying "established broadcast history") and actually produces at least some of its own distinct programming (satisfying "unique programming") — have been properly met here. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, author request, see below. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrien Burel

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

Fails WP:GNG. CSD tag was challenged. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how many sources are needed. Also, are all news websites deemed credible as well as e-books? Zackmorris5r (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* reply: Please see WP:GNG to get you started. Also, please sign with four tildes, not just three, to leave your sig. cheers —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it's admirable how hard Mr. Burel has worked to overcome his past, I just can't find where he's been the focus of independent and reliable sources. Most of what I've found has been WP:PRIMARY, meaning that it is a source that was released by either Burel, his school, or other places that are associated with him. I can't really find any evidence of the awards/accolades (going to call it just "award" from here on out) that he's won. This doesn't mean that he may not have been praised for his work or that he hasn't won a contest of some sort, but this almost always means that the award would not be considered to be something that would give notability on Wikipedia. The thing is, most awards aren't considered to be the type that would give notability per Wikipedia's guidelines and I'd say that less than 2% of any award given in any category for any given thing would be the type that would give notability. While there are some rare exceptions, most of the time if an award isn't something that a non-primary source would report on, then it's considered to not be something that would give notability. Now as far as other news sources go, it all depends on the source. Not all news outlets are made equal or considered to be usable for notability and whether or not the source is considered to be usable also depends on what it's reporting. Brief, WP:TRIVIAL mentions of Burel in passing would not really be considered usable and if the article is a reprint of a press release, then it can't be considered to be a reliable source either. There's a lot more to this, so the best thing for User:Zackmorris5r to do would be to post the links here or on the article so we can take a look at them. As far as the article as a whole goes, it's ultimately written like it is a personal or fan page for Burel. We almost never list sections of books that a person enjoys unless that aspect of a person has received so much media attention that it'd merit a mention. The same thing goes for political or personal ideologies- unless that has been covered in a reliable source that is independent of the individual or their representatives, there's no reason to list it. Saying that WP:ITSUSEFUL to the article or helps show a different side of the person isn't a very good argument for inclusion because we're not really meant to be all inclusive of every aspect of an individual and adding all of this feels like it's kind of a WP:SOAPBOX for Burel and his personal opinions. That's why the page comes across as WP:PROMOTIONAL and as kind of the page is being used as Burel's own personal website or Facebook page. I'm sorry, but Burel just isn't notable enough for an entry and to be honest, I'm actually kind of surprised that this hasn't been speedied as promotion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deelte fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not promotional, but this article clearly is. EricSerge (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading TokyoGirl's response and the link that Gaff has included I realize that this page is not appropriate for Wikipedia and I will continue to work to improve it according to WP guidelines. I ask that it be deleted and I will retain a local copy until I can find sources to back up all the info. Thanks 23:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackmorris5r (talk • contribs)

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. Black Kite (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Cervero Otero

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

Contested PROD. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG with a couple of good articles referenced on the Spanish version of this article [45] and [46]. Nfitz (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently he's the third goalscorer in Real Oviedo's history supassing Carlos and Enrique Galán [47] Sergio M. Alonso (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Nfitz and Sergio M. Alonso. Diego Cervero Otero is notable due to significant coverage in the media per WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What significant coverage are you referring to? JMHamo (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 links I referenced. Neither of which are routine. A quick google search finds an incredible amount of coverage - mostly routine, but not all [48] Nfitz (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage (the links above are routine sports journalism), meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are routine. They are feature articles about the player. Nfitz (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I do not consider the coverage, which basically amounts to 'lower league player scores lots of goals!!!', to be significant enough for GNG to be met. Giant Snowman 20:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what either article is. They are feature articles about the player. Nfitz (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the two links provided by Nfitz are reasonably lengthy articles specifically about the player, but that is basically all I can find about him that is not related to routine match reporting / fansites / blogs / official club sites. Really not sure that is sufficient to pass GNG, but could be swayed if more articles of similar length and depth could be found. Fenix down (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Nfitz and Sergio M. Alonso.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Nfitz and Sergio, despite it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Anyway, this article must be improved. Asturkian (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTY, and I don't think he passes WP:GNG either. I improved the page, but I'm still thinking that it should not stay here. MYS 77 ^✉ 16:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scapular anastomosis, since the advocates of keeping have not addressed the problem of the existence of two articles about the same topic. There seems to be no compelling reason to delete the article's history; I'll watchlist the redirect to make sure that it's not undone. Deor (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anastomosis around the shoulder joint

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

This unreferenced one-sentence has remained an orphan for 3 years. I do not expect it will undergo significant editing, because it's about a process (anastamosis) rather than a specific structure. Due to its fruitless utility, and lack of being used in the future, I am proposing deletion Tom (LT) (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have cited a reputable anatomical text which describes this as "an important arterial anastomosis...vital to preserving the upper limb...". Andrew (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason to think it couldn't be developed in the future. Adequate references exist. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally redundant. We already have a well-developed article on this topic, namely Scapular anastomosis (the "scapula" is the shoulder blade). There is nothing here to merge, and a redirect is pointless, since the current article title is not a likely search term. -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That other article is not well-developed. It has no references, for example, whereas the page in question does. It looks grand mainly because it has a huge navigation template and an image but the image doesn't actually seem to show any anastomosis. If we're going to merge, then we should merge that page into this one. Andrew (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That other article cites (in the EL section) Gray's Anatomy as a reference, and the illustration does in fact show the multiple anastomoses around the scapular. I should also point out that the present article is wrong in suggesting that there is only a single anastomosis around the scapular. And, as well as being redundant and wrong, the present article has a poorly chosen title too. A merge would be a really bad idea. -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Gray: "The subscapular artery (a. subscapularis) the largest branch of the axillary artery, arises at the lower border of the Subscapularis, which it follows to the inferior angle of the scapula, where it anastomoses with the lateral thoracic and intercostal arteries and with the descending branch of the transverse cervical, and ends in the neighboring muscles. About 4 cm. from its origin it gives off a branch, the scapular circumflex artery. The Scapular Circumflex Artery (a. circumflexa scapulæ; dorsalis scapulæ artery) is generally larger than the continuation of the subscapular. It curves around the axillary border of the scapula, traversing the space between the Subscapularis above, the Teres major below, and the long head of the Triceps laterally (Fig. 524); it enters the infraspinatous fossa under cover of the Teres minor, and anastomoses with the transverse scapular artery and the descending branch of the transverse cervical. In its course it gives off two branches: one (infrascapular) enters the subscapular fossa beneath the Subscapularis, which it supplies, anastomosing with the transverse scapular artery and the descending branch of the transverse cervical; the other is continued along the axillary border of the scapula, between the Teres major and minor, and at the dorsal surface of the inferior angle anastomoses with the descending branch of the transverse cervical. In addition to these, small branches are distributed to the back part of the Deltoideus and the long head of the Triceps brachii, anastomosing with an ascending branch of the a. profunda brachii. The posterior humeral circumflex artery (a. circumflexa humeri posterior; posterior circumflex artery) arises from the axillary artery at the lower border of the Subscapularis, and runs backward with the axillary nerve through the quadrangular space bounded by the Subscapularis and Teres minor above, the Teres major below, the long head of the Triceps brachii medially, and the surgical neck of the humerus laterally. It winds around the neck of the humerus and is distributed to the Deltoideus and shoulder-joint, anastomosing with the anterior humeral circumflex and profunda brachii. The anterior humeral circumflex artery (a. circumflexa humeri anterior; anterior circumflex artery), considerably smaller than the posterior, arises nearly opposite it, from the lateral side of the axillary artery. It runs horizontally, beneath the Coracobrachialis and short head of the Biceps brachii, in front of the neck of the humerus. On reaching the intertubercular sulcus, it gives off a branch which ascends in the sulcus to supply the head of the humerus and the shoulder-joint. The trunk of the vessel is then continued onward beneath the long head of the Biceps brachii and the Deltoideus, and anastomoses with the posterior humeral circumflex artery." -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you IP 120.23, I wasn't aware of this. I withdraw this deletion request. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since we already have a better article with a better title, I still think deletion is the best thing to do. -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect given the existence of the article discussed above. Given that Scapular anastomosis is more accurate, more thorough, and was written earlier there is little logical reason for this article. A merge of any its information does not seem necessary, and while the title does not seem like a likely search phrase redirects are cheap and harmless so it could certainly still exist.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. As noted above, this is a superfluous content fork of scapular anastomosis. Sandstein 16:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No credible claim of importance §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misha Cross

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

doesnt meet notability criteria for pornographic film performers. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as can't find any evidence of notability so fails GNG.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claims of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I've nominated the article for speedy deletion under criterion A7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:10, 30 September 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. This is an evergreen topic of the city councils delegates. We can never agree on which cities provide notability for their councellors, and Houston is apparently on the borderline, as attested by 2:3 split of votes.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Sanchez (politician)

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

promotional article for current candidate. There is no precent that membership in the houston city council is notable, and everything else is routine political coverage. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete a local city council candidate could never meet Notability except in truly exceptional circumstances which this doesn't rise to BlueSalix (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not "a local city council candidate"; he's an actual city councillor whose current candidacy is a re-election campaign for an office he already holds. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is an elected official, not simply a candidate, and makes a viable claim to notability as "the first Latino immigrant to be elected to a county-wide non-judicial office in Harris County", the third most populous county in the United States. Current position as County Treasurer is equivalent to New York City Comptroller. - 17:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Houston — population 2.6 million, and fully recognized and properly sourced as having global city status — is large enough to extend notability to its city councillors under WP:NPOL. The cities that are specifically named in WP:POLOUTCOMES are just representative examples, not a comprehensive list of all eligible cities — the actual criterion itself does apply to other cities of comparable status which haven't been named in that summary. And the article is adequately sourced, to boot. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Former councillor of a major international city, Treasurer of the third-most populous county in the US and significant coverage in reliable sources about all aspects of his career. Easily passes WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningful Beauty

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

Seems to be yet another beauty products company product push. Non notable org, products, and an advert to boot Fiddle Faddle 22:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against appropriate recreation - Hideously promotional/advertising-y. The company is POSSIBLY notable but a what I am seeing on Highbeam, etc, seems to pretty much be the same press releases repeated over and over again or articles that use the words "meaningful beauty" in context. Not the easiest to find sources on, and what there is on the page needs blowing up and starting over again, in a MUCH less promotional/spammy format. Mabalu (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed a few issues thus far. I added a link from the Cindy Crawford page to the Meaningful Beauty page so it is no longer an orphan. I also fixed the disambiguation error. I have no problem doing a complete re-write to make it more to your liking. I certainly didn't try to write it in a pr-ish way and I'm sorry it reads to you in that fashion. I'll get started on it today. Thank you, alvb (talk) 5 October 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:G11 with no prejudice against recreation, or userfy because article currently is not fit for Wikipedia. Maybe alvb should fix it in their own userspace and submit it as a draft, but if not, speedy del. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silviu Craescu

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person whose only claim of notability is his candidacy for office in a future election. As usual, this doesn't get him over WP:NPOL — a person has to win an election, not just run in one, to qualify for a Wikipedia article if the claim of notability is resting on the election — and the volume of sourcing present here does not adequately demonstrate that he has the preexisting notability necessary to get over WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he wins, but he's not entitled to keep an article in this state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the man was very occasionally quoted in the press in recent years, I could find nothing substantial, and as noted, merely running for president is no indicator of notability. (Which kind of makes me wonder why Jim Carlson or Joe Schriner have articles, but I digress.) I do like the "if he wins" part: the most recent poll shows the top nine candidates pulling in 99% of the vote — and Craescu is not among those top nine. He'd need a pretty big surge over the next month. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a candidate is not enough to meet WP:NPOL. No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Stern

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

Single-sourced biography of a person notable only as a funder of a local theatre company. This is not a claim of notability that passes any of our subject-specific inclusion standards, and the sourcing isn't strong enough to get her over WP:GNG. Which means, unfortunately, that this is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The theater company is not her only claim to fame; there is also a major dormitory named for her at Stanford University; still, I don't think she has had enough coverage to meet GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Chow Tan

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

Single-sourced WP:BLP of an activist and unelected political candidate, reading suspiciously more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article. I'd be happy to withdraw this if enough sourcing could actually be piled onto his activist work to get him over WP:GNG for that — the city council candidacy, on the other hand, can't get him over WP:NPOL — but nothing here is so inherently notable that it would entitle him to keep an article whose sole source is a blurb in The Georgia Straight. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins his council seat (Vancouver is one of the cities where incumbent city councillors do qualify for articles on here), but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 21 September 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 September 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried & failed to find enough to keep his article until the election outcomes are known, so seems to be a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL Roberticus talk 09:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Aharon Vitz

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

I have a lot of trouble with this article. Despite the high praise claiming he is "among the greatest and most influential sculptors", "highly sought after," "universal renown," etc etc., I could find literally NOTHING about him at Google Books or Google Scholar. The article claims he won the Prix de Rome, but I could find no evidence of that either. Nothing is verified, except that there is a link to a webpage describing a short, not-yet-released biographical film about him. Aside from that webpage, IMDb listing, and Facebook page, all of which are about the film, there is nothing at all to support or verify this article. I am tempted to say "hoax". Or at least to suspect that even if the proposed short film is real, the subject is fictional. MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence that this is a hoax: The article falsely claimed that there was related material at WikiQuotes and Wikimedia commons. It even had tags claiming it was semiprotected. This from a supposedly brand-new editor. --MelanieN (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the author has now changed the article to state that Edward Aharon Vitz is a fictional character. So it's no longer a hoax. The remaining problem, and the reason the article should still be deleted, is lack of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. Or, more accurately, stealth marketing. The only thing real in this article is the one-sentence content of the "In Popular Culture" section. The Ninth is real. It is a short film submitted to this year's Louisiana Film Prize. It made the Top 20 list, which means it will be screened at the actual film festival (in October), but it has not (at least not yet) won any awards or received any significant coverage. It—the film—is not currently notable. The rest of the article is essentially the fictional plot summary of the short film, presented as though it were legitimate history. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense! So we can't blame this one on bored high school students, then. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Well, you nailed it! The author has now edited the article so it states that Edward Aharon Vitz is a fictional character. Great analysis on your part, that proved to be spot-on - congratulations! --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that only changes the deletion rationale, not my opinion regarding the article. The fictional character from The Ninth most assuredly has no independent notability. Typically, I recommend redirection of character articles to the article for their work, but The Ninth does not have an article; it lacks significant independent coverage. There's really no place for this to go, other than deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps come up dry (NY, US, international, entertainment). Think The Ninth is a real movie, but I think yes it is stealth marketing, and the fictional character in it, not notable, no sources on it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN - fluff marketing COI piece. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fictional character from a non-notable film. No encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Cadam

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

This article was created back in 2009, and its author, Greengears (talk · contribs), has a fairly obvious conflict of interest. How the article has managed to survive is a mystery to me: I just went through and cleared out some of the worst of the fluff, but it still reads somewhat like a promo piece. He's the founder of two unremarkable companies - Pat’s Garage (G) (a redirect) and Green Gears (G) - and is a member of the American Council on Renewable Energy, but as far as I can tell neither of these are enough to confer notability. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Operates two small local companies; does not appear to have ever received any significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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