Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 June 11 June >

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 no consensus. slakr\ talk / 01:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of current professional wrestling champions

[edit]
List of current professional wrestling champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, original search HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is not notable. Champions in pro wrestling? Well, we should talk about ALL active championships in THE ENTIRE world in ALL promotions, BTW more than 100. With all mexicans, japanese and american titles, we're talking about 1000 titles. Second, original search. The author created a list with the current world champions in major promotions, deleted by other user because it's original search. the user put the promotions he thinks are major. Why not AJPW or WWC? Also, are ROH and NWA major promotions? Original search. Looks like the user tryed to create his own world heavyweight championship list. Also, unsourced. (PWI, a magazine is the only source) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struck your "delete" as duplicative of your nomination, as formatting your subsequent comment in this way gives the false impression that another editor is separately supporting your nomination. postdlf (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps even speedy delete. We've had discussions like this in the past about List of professional wrestling world champions. Pro Wrestling isn't a competitive sport, at least not in the traditional sense, and has no oversight committees. Therefore, any backyard group can label their strap a world championship without being challenged. Other wrestling promotions may or may not recognize the title as being a world championship and wrestling media (such as Pro Wrestling Illustrated) may or may not recognize it, but there is no objective criteria. As an encyclopedia we have no authority on this matter. We cannot decide which championships are major or minor. However, if we were to list every championship from every promotion in existence then we would have a very unmanageable list on our hands. The best thing to do, and what we have agreed in the past, is to delete lists like this.LM2000 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a list of notable champions held by notable people from notable promotions. The inclusion criteria would clearly be notable promotions - IE they have an article here. Looking at the List of professional wrestling promotions, there aren't really that many current promotions. Unsourced? WP:SOFIXIT. It can't be that hard to source. By looking down the list, may of them seem to have sub-lists of champions by belt, which as Featured Lists in their own right. "Original search"? Haha, no. Unmanageable list? Wrong again. And that's not a valid rationale for deletion either. Basically the two deletion nominations smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but restrict to notable championships and wrestlers. This page is useful for navigation, it's a list of Wikipedia articles, and it seems to meet WP:L. Arguments for deletion are based on what might happen to this page (e.g. it might become unmanageable) but that isn't a valid reason for deletion. The notability of a topic isn't based on whether it's a fair championship (otherwise we wouldn't have articles like Russian presidential election, 2012) but whether reliable sources write about it. Those proposing deletion claim that this has been decided by past precedent, but it would be nice if they'd provide links to precedent, rather than just asserting it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colapeninsula @Lugnuts About Original Search, it is when he said "major promotion" and "world championship". Project discussed and we haven't a definition about both therms, which are subjetive. About the number of promotions, with the templates about promotions in USA, Japán and Mexico, I count 79. Promotions like NWA or CMLL use a lot of titles, we're talking about near 300 titles. If you take a look on some independent promotions' articles, a lot of them aren't update. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean original research. I don't see any problem with this list. 79? Wow. Big numbers. Not unlike this list, for example. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: - you pointed to List of current world boxing champions? That list has championships of five companies (one is a magazine though) with 17 weight classes, which theoretically equates to 85 champions listed. Earlier you pointed to active companies from the List of professional wrestling promotions, which I counted has 90-100 companies. Each company doesn't have one single title, but multiple. Usually one top singles title and one team title, optionally one or more secondary singles title, rarely one secondary team title, optionally one women's title. I'm not going to count the total number of champions but it's very likely we're looking at 300 champions listed or even more. starship.paint "YES!" 10:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do most of those 300 champions have articles (or are included in the promotion's article) on WP? Chances are they do, and therefore there are editors who'll be updating them individually to reflect who the current champion is. So having one master list can't be too much work, once the initial shell is setup. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually don't think that most of the 300 champions have articles. Take a look at the Canadian companies. 6 companies. 1/5, 2/5, 0/3, 0/0, 0/5 and 0/5. Total of 23 champions, 3 have articles. Setup is one thing. Keeping it continually updated is another - also, this is a current list - if it is not updated - it becomes factually inaccurate. The Pro Wrestling Wikiproject is understaffed I'm afraid, I think it'll be very, very hard for us (blue editors) to keep up. We're going to rely on IPs to keep the article factually accurate? starship.paint "YES!" 13:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We rely on all articles to be kept factually accurate. I don't see how this is any different. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For any other article which is not updated, it's usually missing information that doesn't render the current information in the article inaccurate. For any list of current ..., if new champions are not stated it is simply wrong and misleading to say that 'this guy is the current champion'. starship.paint "YES!" 14:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the whole problem. The used divided the promotions between majors and...? Then, he divided the championships (world and seconday). However, he didn't put all the promotions, only promotions he wanted and he didn't put all titles (WWE Tag Team, Divas?). The article is a mess, is incompleted. Also, if somebody takes a look on some indy promoions, he'll see a lot of titles aren't updates. Does somebody want to try? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments First, there is something called "assume good faith". I get the impression that HHH Pedigree isn't a native English speaker. Second, the aforementioned discussion can be found in the archives of WT:PW. I'm on my phone as opposed to a real computer, which means that it's more trouble than it's worth to dig up the link. That discussion focused on what criteria makes a championship a "world" championship. Strangely enough, we appear to be applying it to this discussion, even though the list's title says "champions" rather than "world champions". Third, after reading the list, I agree that SOFIXIT is the best approach to take. That isn't necessarily a keep vote, however. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Wikipedia's seeming obsession with reflecting what's current may mirror the state of immediate-onset amnesia found just about everywhere else on the web, but it isn't entirely compatible with the goals of building an encyclopedia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not a native-English speaker. I use (usually) simple sentences and TV catchphrases. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the discussions was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 88#Again, What is a World Heavyweight Championship?. I invoked it because we've got a similar list to what we saw at List of professional wrestling world champions and World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling) where, for some arbitrary reason, what some editor considers to be a major championship gets listed while others are not. At least the World Heavyweight Championship article made an attempt to list other world championships in some fashion (although it violated WP:NPOV if I remember correctly), this article lists seven and leaves it at that. Colapeninsula's argument would make sense if we could leave these seven companies were the only companies listed as that is easy enough to manage. But once you get 79 promotions, which pass the WP:GNG (rather important), each with many titles of their own, I think you're bound to have a mess of an article on your hands. There's probably a good reason why there isn't a general category for all wrestling championships without being divided into a number of subcategories (see Category:Professional wrestling championships). Splitting this into separate articles (list of professional wrestling midcard championships, list of professional wrestling womens championships, etc.) would be a better idea, but a flawed idea nonetheless, as we shot that idea down in the previous world heavyweight championship discussion.LM2000 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The idea of "champions" is confusing to me, in what might be respectable entertainment and a show of athleticism, but this is not on par with my normal association of "sports", where the winner isn't predetermined before the event. Let us be honest with ourselves here. It isn't about "fairness", it is about the reality of what the product is: as real as a soap opera. Fun to watch for many, but the ending was written days ago. To treat the list no different as baseball or football makes no sense and simply isn't a valid argument. To compare to fraudulent elections also makes no sense as the intent of some was to have a fair election. In wrestling, no participant is under the illusion they might win unless they were told so ahead of time. Treating as we do "any other sport" is the definition of "apples and oranges", they simply aren't the same. This would better be represented by a category if organization is needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This would better be represented by a category if organization is needed.". Read WP:CLN. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this ends up kept, let's see what happens to the article in three months. We'll see ... 1) If all promotions with an article on Wikipedia are included, or just an apparently random selection of promotions like now; 2) Will the categorization get better, world champions are definitely a subset of singles champions, why are they in different categories? Why is the IWGP Heavyweight Championship a world championship but the ROH World Television Championship or an Intercontinental Championship isn't a world championship? 3) Where do the women's titles go? starship.paint "YES!" 12:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Simply because of the ridiculous notion that this is original research. Feedback ☎ 23:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Argument for keep? Michael22 decided to put only 7 promotion and we list more than 100. He decided by his own and subjective criteria divided in major promotions (NWA is a major promotion?) and world titles (NWA title is a world title? ROH? We decided it in the project). That's original REsearch. This is another list about world champions, but this time, he didn't complete the job and he expects we care about the list. In a few months (if somebody decided to complete the list with 300 active titles) the list will be a mess, because nobody cares about titles from small promotions, like WxW or the endless NWA territories, or Titles from Puerto Rico. Even the author deleted the article from his own list "articles I've created". The doesn't care about the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based purely on notability, the topic is definitely notable. Your "nobody cares" argument is just as as flawed as your OR argument. If not 1 person cared, we wouldn't have the individual articles to begin with. The list requires cleanup and that includes adding more titles. But nothing here is original research. There is no original thoughts here. There is no made-up analysis to support a biased conclusion. There is nothing OR about this. Once this article is cleaned up and organized correctly, it could even become a FL. This article was nominated at AFD due to your misguided understanding of what WP:OR is about. Feedback ☎ 18:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
as I said, he decided to include some "major" promotions and "world " titles based in his own criteria. It is another try to create a list of world champions, which was deleted by the project.-HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good example of "nobody cares" would be List of Yukon Quest competitors. That list hasn't been updated in several years and also has a handful of lesser issues, yet remains an FL. I live a short distance from the Yukon Quest trail and many of my neighbors are dog mushers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm willing to take on yet another task. That may be the important factor here. The Yukon Quest happens only once a year. Title changes in professional wrestling happen a lot more often. If it came down to you and you alone to keep the list from becoming outdated, would you stick with it? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what RadioKAOS says, Feedback. Nobody has even bothered to improve the article while it is facing AfD despite its issues of sourcing, categorization or lack of inclusion of all notable promotions with an article on Wikipedia. Feedback, are you or any other keep voters willing to constantly keep tabs and source for on 90 promotions to keep it factually accurate? starship.paint "YES!" 23:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete I went back and forth on this for a little bit. By and large, I find myself agreeing on one point with the nominator and I agree a lot with LM2000. I disagree that it's original research and think that assertion is preposterous, and in that regard agree with Feedback. So in the end, I have to say either reform this list in to a disam page linking to the respective promotions' championship lists or just do away with it. It doesn't have the same purpose as a list of Boxing champions or MMA champions would. Mainly because the varying degrees of credibility with fans and world wide recognition. It's an unnecessary page to maintain and keep up to date. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 05:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rearrange. Should be split either by company then by singles/team or by Singles/team and then not subdivided into world etc. Will require maintenance but tagging with categories will make that easier. SPACKlick (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect to Meir Katzenellenbogen#Some notable descendants. Because there is a lot of material there, I will leave as is while the editors please finish the merge/redirect themselves, soon. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of descendants of Meir Katzenellenbogen

[edit]
List of descendants of Meir Katzenellenbogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per my understanding of WP:NLIST, stand-alone lists of people must consist of individually notable people, as well as listing a non-trivial attribute of the people listed. While the people listed here are easily notable, the problem is that there are easily hundreds of notable descendants of Rabbi Meir Katzenellenbogen of Padua. As demonstrated by The Unbroken Chain, this list's main source, practically every blue-blooded Ashkenazi Jewish family can trace its descent from the Katzenellenbogens.

(A possible alternative is a selective merge to Meir ben Isaac Katzenellenbogen; reducing the list to names alone, and including only the most famous descendants.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree re hundreds, though not sure if they can all be sourced to merit inclusion. I'm not that worried about the list getting to unwieldy. We can deal with that when it happens via deletion or by breaking them up into sublists.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing? The Unbroken Chain is very thorough, and is an adequate source for most of my theoretical hundreds. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that is correct, who cares about size? Would you support deleting List of victims of Nazism, which should be far greater number than this list will ever be. If the subject is notable, and it appears you agree that it is as there is an entire book dedicated to the descendents, deletion is unwarranted. Don't worry about Wikipedia server capacity.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator will probably be first to agree there are numerous books (mostly in Hebrew) on genealogy relating to rabbis in the last few hundred years and books that specifically discuss the descendents of Meir Katzenellenbogen (especially in connection to hasidim). Nothing personal here but your position exemplifies Wikipedia:Systemic bias.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those numerous books demonstrate only the notability of general concepts in rabbinic genealogy, while a detailed listing of descendants over several hundred years and 15 generations verges on WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which I think was Clarityfiends point. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "detailed listing of descendants over several hundred years and 15 generations verges" and nobody is arguing there should be so WP:DIRECTORY is a strawman argument. As to your first point, do you not agree that there are other books besides Rothstein (not necessarily in English) that cover the subject of the descendents of Meir Katzenellenbogen?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list, as it stands, consists mostly of 20th– and 21st–century personalities, who are, as I wrote, approximately 15th generation descendants of Rabbi Meir Katzenellenbogen of Padua. You seem to have misunderstood my words due to my inadequate use of commas in rambling sentences. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Doubel-Bi

[edit]
Yu-Doubel-Bi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a non-notable musical group. Fails WP:BAND. - MrX 20:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly not notable. Possibly it could be deleted even without an AfD process. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "A new style called trollpop/buttoncore", huh? Googling for "Yu-Doubel-Bi" (don't forget the quotes or you'll get hits for every page with the name "Yu" in it) gives a whopping 9 results, which consists of this article, some pages on Soundcloud, a Twitter account, a story on a fanfiction site, a Wikipedia mirror, and an unidentifiable site that gives a "502 Bad Gateway" error when I try to connect. Just a group of high school kids messing around. — Gwalla | Talk 22:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Small indie band created by a group of friends, by far nothing significant past social media pages. Absolutely no substantial news sources. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arguments revolved around PROF C1 j⚛e deckertalk 17:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf-Daniel Ehlers

[edit]
Ulf-Daniel Ehlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear notable per WP:ACADEMIC. All of the cited sources are simply links to the mentioned institutions or web material published by the subject of the article, none of which establish notability. Appears to be an autobiography. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Nevill Green

[edit]
Philip Nevill Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written by PNG's assistant. Distinctly lacking in independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Hartigan

[edit]
Dylan Hartigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another child actor sourced only to an unreliable database. Declined the BLPPROD per Wikipedia_talk:BLPPROD#Expanding_BLPPROD_to_.22IMDB_only.22, but haven't found reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of him, so here we are. j⚛e deckertalk 20:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Shires

[edit]
Colton Shires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined BLPPROD despite Twitter and IMDB not being reliable sources, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which would evidence the notability of this child actor. j⚛e deckertalk 20:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone can find coverage outside of ICBM or Twitter. This might well be possible, but should be done. Most of his roles are extremely minor. Since he is not yet 18, I think we should err on the side of caution and not create an article unless we have clear evidence of his being notable, which the current sources are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whatever other COI or SPA issues we have here, the consensus is that this is a BLP1E, perhaps a case of too soon but ultimately not suitable for inclusion at this time. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenie Carys de Silva

[edit]
Eugenie Carys de Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is not independent reporting on this subject as required by WP:BIO (the one most-cited source seems to be quoting press releases without editorial judgment being applied) and the editing of the article, which is about a minor, appears to be entirely WP:COI editing by an immediate family member of the article subject. There is no verifiability here, and no basis for notability. The article creator objected to a previous PROD. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary from article creator.

RESPONSE TO DELETION AS PER ARGUMENT PUT FORTH BY USER:WEIJIBAIKEBIANJI: EDIT: User WEIJIBAIKEBIANJI has now also uploaded personal discussions on his talk page aimed at parenting, which is of no relevance. This is also another reason why this claim for the deletion of the page should be further investigated on the basis of bias and discrimination.

Based on the tone of your comments, in addition to the ways in which you have posed your questions and arguments, you have clearly not read, nor conducted any research on the individual in question. The sources are from across the world. One search on Google would have reaffirmed all information that had been uploaded to the page. In this manner, you have seemingly not even taken the time to take such a minute action. Accordingly, please ensure that you thoroughly read all information herein stated, because this will act as the basis of further investigations. None of the information was libelous, nor was it self-published. Any individual could have easily determined this as true by making one phone-call to any of the many articles that were used to reference the work. The individual in question was also recently named a Top Thirty Thinker Under Thirty by the Pacific Standard magazine, which is an academic magazine. Are you going to dispute this as not have merits or being useful as evidence in favor of the validation of the information in the Wiki article? Nonetheless, if you had read all regulations you would have noticed the following:

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Although this page was not created by the individual being discussed, your argument would fail under these standards, since the page was not self-serving, does not involve claims about third parties, does not involve claims about events that are not directly related to the subject, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity due to the inclusion of multiple articles to further validate all evidence, and the article is primarily based on a wide variety of articles which were further included in the additional sources component of the article.

Further, see below:

"The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared to this policy (WP:BLP1E)."

The individual being discussed has been in the media frequently since she was eleven years old in 2009. Once again conducting research and/or noting the sources that had been uploaded can validate this information. This person is of enough significance to be included on the page that you seek to have deleted.

See more:

"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: • university-level textbooks • books published by respected publishing houses • magazines • journals • mainstream newspapers."

The articles used sources from mainstream newspapers. Further, information from magazines can be uploaded, too! This was not included since all the information that was included had already been referenced.

Finally, see below:

"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion."

Prove how any of the sources are questionable sources as per this regulation from Wikipedia. None of the sources have poor reputations in fact many have significantly profound reputations. None are extremist or promotional, nor do they rely on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinions. ____________________________________________

The article was referenced with many sources from many different individuals who hold high positions in newspapers and media stations across the globe. Are you now insinuating that the individual in question or I myself am related to every individual who has happened to upload an article about Eugenie Carys de Silva? You should check your records and the records that are freely available to all individuals in the public domain. Based on your background on your page, you claim to have worked for the Federal Government; thus, it is astonishing that you are unaware of how to utilize Open-Source information in order to develop a report that would suffice in the validation of your statements. If further proof is necessary, you will receive signed letters from government officials and accredited university systems and internationally renowned educators who will validate all the information. In fact, more information could be included through the utilization of articles that are written in other languages (which is what others seem to do on the Wikipedia pages in order to fulfill the requirements of citing sources that you seem to have carelessly overlooked). Nonetheless, this information had not been included, since the incorporation of such articles should not be acceptable in an English Wikipedia in which individuals should be able to prove the achievements in the English language.

Your statements are based on false grounds. Eugenie de Silva is from Manchester, England, and has been in the U.S. for many years. Based on your comments, you have not understood, nor even investigated this information. Thus, rendering any opinions or attacks to “Delete a Page” seems to be plainly a means to fulfill one’s biased desire to have a certain individual removed from a page. You are not only clearly attacking the individual in question, but you are also undermining the notion that this individual is who she says she is (which has been further validated by U.S. magazines and news stations across the world, such as the Pacific Standard). This is defamation of character and smear tactics. Your remarks are not in the interest of upholding the standards of Wikipedia, but rather seem to be aimed at furthering your own biased agenda. I suggest you reconsider your arguments consequent to actually weighing the evidence. You have also failed to address any points that I raised in my previous post, which is a sign that you are evading the very underlying basis of this entire debacle.

You have somehow fittingly chosen to select “Eugenie de Silva” as the target, whereas a majority of the claims for other individuals on the “List of Child Prodigies” page have not be verified and are supported by PDF Google Documents that anyone could develop, in addition to outdated sources that can no longer be accessed. I suggest that you delete this information immediately. Otherwise, it will certainly seem that you are being discriminatory.

The page has many additional articles to which you should refer; additionally, if you are serious about the attacks that you have made, then you should conduct research and develop a report to explain how you are correct.

Your comments are false and are trying to have a page removed from Wikipedia, which has been in place for over a year, since you seem to believe that you have the power to do so without actually considering all information and evidence. Do you have a personal vendetta against the individual in question? If not, please provide evidence.

Further, if you continue to falsely develop arguments to have a page removed, then please once again be aware that this will be considered as discriminatory tactics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Europa6 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 May 2014‎

Reply to article creator I would like other editors to check whether the "newspaper" cited for most of the article content is doing anything other than accepting press releases as is for "reporting" on what is surely not a story accessible to staff reporters of that newspaper. Search the newspaper online archives (as I did just before this nomination) for the sources mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and note that the bylines of those source articles strongly suggest submission through a press release forwarding service, without the independent reporting required by WP:BIO. There is a BLP issue here (besides the very obvious WP:COI issue made plain by the article creator's response), and we always have to be especially careful about sourcing any BLP on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not only are there notability problems, there are child protection issues, as well as the fact that this article is pretty blatantly promotional. Wikipedia is not a place to put your CV. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to Carrite, I think BLP1E, taken with the child protection issue is still enough to support deletion. If there are enough sources to meet the "multiple" prong of GNG, I would argue that this particular subject is as clear a case as I've ever seen for letting things develop more. Honestly, I really question the claim to notability anyway given we're talking about a graduate from a for-profit institution (that's my own intuition, rather than a particular source-based argument). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Mendaliv and nom. I am tempted to hat the WP:TLDR comment from Europa6 as disruptive. It contains much personal attack and not much in the way of valid argument. John from Idegon (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a couple of reliable sources that go into depth, but there also appear to be inconsistencies. She may well be heading for notability, but it is not quite there yet and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Userfying is an option here since it is also not unreasonable to think that she will become notable. On the other hand, the article was created by a WP:SPA account, which indicates it should not be userfied. I am One of Many (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came here pissed at the content writer after seeing the report of their apparent legal threat at AN/I. I've calmed down now. This passes GNG based on sources showing in the footnotes. I think that one might argue for deletion based on BLP-1E (being a prodigy and graduating young). I'm not leaning that way though. Please look at the sourcing with clear eyes, don't opine delete just because of an epically bad AFD defense by the content writer. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the sourcing I nominated this article for deletion, after reviewing WP:BIO, because I noticed that the great majority of the sources in the article accept user-submitted content without any editorial activity. Wikipedia articles about living persons and statements about living persons in article text anywhere on Wikipedia are supposed to be based on reliable sources, that is sources to which editorial judgment has been applied. There is no indication that we have such sources here, and considerable indication ("articles" from obscure publications in other countries, not the country where the subject of the article lives) that what is really going on is family-submitted press releases turning into "sources" for a family-edited article. That isn't kosher by WP:SPA, WP:COI, WP:BLP, or WP:BIO. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carrite, I was going to vote to keep initially, but this case is very strange to say the least. Her degrees come from American Public University System, which is an online university. I'll say no more about that, but it does raise issues. The Huffington Post article in 2013 states she was accepted into a masters degree program at Harvard, but later retracted it. I think deletion is the best way to go rather than getting possibly hoaxed on this one. I am One of Many (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - this looks like WP:BLP1E off the back of a relatively obscure event ("youngest person to have graduated with a bachelor's degree in intelligence analysis"; every university subject in the world has such a person). Pacific Standard giving her a one-page profile in a "top thirty thinkers under thirty" article adds some weight, but it shades into being more of a WP:PRIMARYNEWS interview. --McGeddon (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tilting that to delete, from the context given since, regarding significant omissions over the university being online and "Harvard" being the Extension School. The heavy reliance of sources on quotes from her and her father make them WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and we're left with minor press coverage of a WP:BLP1E. Perhaps she'll merit an encyclopedia article later, but not yet. --McGeddon (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the other articles that have been listed below:
Local 8 News: http://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/15-year-old-Harrogate-teen-earns-Masters-degree-and-a-world-record-title-259888591.html
Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/30-top-thinkers-30-aspiring-defense-secretary-wants-change-intelligence-community-76792/
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/eugenie-de-silva_n_3744704.html
International Business Times: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/eugenie-de-silva_n_3744704.html
The Guardian - Sri Lanka: http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2014/04/sri-lankan-gets-double-masters-at-15_25.html
Te Interesa: http://www.teinteresa.es/increible/Eugenie-de-Silva-Harvard-Estados-Unidos_0_935308388.html
Sunday Times - Sri Lanka: http://www.sundaytimes.lk/130811/plus/harvard-here-comes-a-teen-prodigy-56871.html
United Press International: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/06/05/Prodigy-Eugenie-de-Silva-14-off-to-Harvard-for-a-masters-degree/UPI-10371370453673/
American Military University Frontline: http://www.amu.apus.edu/newsletter/archive/2013/08-2013-on-the-frontline.pdf
American Military University Frontline 2: http://www.amu.apus.edu/newsletter/archive/2012/08-2012-on-the-frontline.pdf
The girl is a student at Harvard University which was not retracted if one looks at the entire page. It seems that no one is actually reading this from an unbiased perspective. Please refer to the above-mentioned articles. AMU is an online university which was awarded the US News World Report Award for the best online Bachelor's degree program in 2014, so one's opinion of an online university should not weigh in the analysis of the evidence. This individual has also begun a Ph.D. at University of Leicester. These are facts that can be verified easily by those who may struggle to check the validity of provided references. All one has to do is make a simple call to the Presidents of the universities. If this a hoax, then major newspapers have fallen victim, is this not correct? If necessary, I can contact the individual and ask the individual to produce clear records. While we are discussing that, I will open a discussion for other prodigies to see how similar fact checking is applied. We must be unbiased in all situations. ----— Preceding unsigned comment added by Europa6 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 May 2014‎
  • Comment As a simple Google search reveals, the subject of the article is in Harvard Extension School, which is open to the public with no application required.[2] I agree with WeijiBaikeBianji's points above. I think we need to be careful about this one. I am One of Many (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The author's first user name was "Virginiaresearchinstitute", an org founded by the subject's father, which is enough for a clear WP:COI, and based on edit history WP:SPA. The author has also attempted to make direct contact with another prodigy in order to discredit their inclusion on the List of child prodigies showing WP:OR (see edit on my user, not talk, page). When reviewing a couple of the WP:RS present I do not see supported claims, just loosely puffed and omitted word statements.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 19:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for mentioning the previous editor activities Yes, the activity of the same editor under the previous user name is what first put this issue on my radar screen. It is a legitimate point that the whole List of child prodigies article is basically a magnet for self-promotion or family promotion, and there may indeed be much other content there that should be deleted on sight, but two wrongs don't make a right, and current inclusion of dodgy content on that page does not justify including more dodgy content on that page, much less in a separate stand-alone article on Wikipedia. All editors who have a sense of how to verify sources about child prodigies are invited to give List of child prodigies a thorough looking over in the interest of cleaning up that article and meeting Wikipedia policy on reliable, encyclopedic content, especially for BLP statements. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neither the title of her supposedly already published book, or her upcoming book produce a direct hit on google; just references to her talking about them. If they are for real, what are the ISBN #s? John from Idegon (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am joining this discussion now, since I was asked to comment on this page. All of you who have commented on this page for deletion either have not done proper fact checks or are blindly reporting the substance you want to use to support your arguments. My first question is, did this individual achieve a bachelor's and a master's at the ages mentioned in the article? If you contact the American Military University, it could be clearly confirmed. Has any of you called them? The second question is, is the individual currently studying at Harvard? Then this also could be confirmed easily. Have you actually called Harvard? Also, if you think Harvard extension school has no application required to enroll as a Master's student, then definitely you have not attended Harvard. Then, if you have an issue with the books published, you can buy them and read or search on the web the same way you attempted to search Harvard university extension school. In my opinion, this decision to delete is an action culminated as a result of some of you trying to promote your own agenda. I see no other promotional work in the article other than the mentioning of an upcoming book. This could be easily removed. So, my question to all of you is, how come none of you have answered the questions raised and issues stated by the contributor of the article, but continue to discuss other things? I would like to know the answers to questions I have raised.— Factcheck1111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Factcheck1111 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:20, 30 May 2014‎ (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I completely agree with the following statements, made in the above post:

>My first question is, did this individual achieve a bachelor's and a master's at the ages mentioned in the article? If you contact the American Military University, it could be clearly confirmed. Has any of you called them? The second question is, is the individual currently studying at Harvard? Then this also could be confirmed easily. Have you actually called Harvard? Also, if you think Harvard extension school has no application required to enroll as a Master's student, then definitely you have not attended Harvard. Then, if you have an issue with the books published, you can buy them and read or search on the web the same way you attempted to search Harvard university extension school. In my opinion, this decision to delete is an action culminated as a result of some of you trying to promote your own agenda >— Frizvanov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was previously closed as "delete" by an administrator. As a result of discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 2, this discussion is relisted.  Sandstein  20:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the BLP reliable sources for an article about a minor? Returning to the discussion after reading through the relisting discussion, my question for editors here is where we can go to find independent, reliable sources about the article subject for a biographical article about a person who has not yet reached the age of majority? I think an editor in the previous discussion here who looked at the sources then suggested has the best rationale for deletion. The article is basically about a subject notable for one event, with the event itself not being very notable (nor being readily verifiable), so having an article about this young person on Wikipedia can wait until the article subject's adulthood when more notability criteria have been met. I ask other editors to be sure to check how many "sources" for this article essentially rely on press releases from immediate relatives of the article subject, without independent editorial judgment. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was relisted because it was closed early, not because of any merits of the article. The original author has asked to have their account deleted and blanked their talk page. Unless more sock/meat/ducks appear and convince the closer otherwise this article should end up with the same result as before the relisting.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 06:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP1E at best, and even the '1E' is not especially notable. We have high standards for BLP articles, and higher still for BLP articles of minor children, for very very good reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a case of one event, and mainly a case of recentism. She is largely able to be the "youngest graduate in x" because the specific x is a fairly recent innovation. She may well do something that will make her notable, but she hasn't yet. Her unnamed children's books clearly don't make her notable. At least not per the coverage we have in the article. Maybe they are best sellers, but I see no evidence of such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, if she is a degree student at the Harvard Extension School, that would seem to mean she passed some level of admission requirements, but not the same as for other sub-divisions of harvard. However, it remain unclear is she is a degree or non-degree student. That said, being a student at Harvard does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple sources in-depth meet the GNG. Article could be trimmed a bit. I don't see it as a one-time event but rather an impressive accomplishment, earning college degree and working on masters degrees at such a young age. I don't think the issue of the subject being a minor should limit us, given the coverage on TV stations and in newspapers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (striking previous). I'm going to flip on this, I think I've sold myself that while there is sufficient published material for a sourced biography, this is currently a BLP-1E situation. I wish the subject the best of luck in life and look forward to reading her bio after her career takes off in whichever field she aspires... Carrite (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Matzke

[edit]
Dylan Matzke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Had to decline the BLPPROD because Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#Expanding_BLPPROD_to_.22IMDB_only.22.

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence the notability of this actor, whose article references only a single unreliable database. j⚛e deckertalk 19:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl J. Strikwerda

[edit]
Carl J. Strikwerda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns; one source fails WP:ROUTINE and the other one is not independent. Thus fails WP:GNG. Launchballer 19:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Also: Original article title now a redirect to an event article, as is appropriate. Steven Walling • talk 00:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda and Jerad Miller

[edit]
Amanda and Jerad Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. damiens.rf 18:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: "List of of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2014"? That is not the subject of the article. The subject is the killing of two police officers and one civilian, based on far-right and fringe beliefs. Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I understand that, however, it is believed that Jerad was killed by a law enforcement officer. Also, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has a section for fallen officers. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - For better or for worse the subjects clearly meet WP:SIGCOV. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - while victims of such crimes are often not notable (ie notable only for their death, thus the murder of mr. foo articles), the alleged perps often have a long history prior to the event which made them "famous". this history is currently being pored over with a fine tooth comb. their back story prior to the shooting doesnt easily fit into an article on just the shooting. Wait, are people actually debating the shooting as an article? i was actually arguing for the people having an article. while that is at least theoretically debatable, the shooting is NOT. its now moved to 2014 Las Vegas shootings, no separate article for the couple, which i had assumed was what was being discussed. so this is a Tachyon Keep, where we go back in time and retroactively keep.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm pleased to see more resolve to cover such well documented events. I don't deny that the changes in coverage (suicide versus police shooting for example) pose problems, but these events never stop getting new interpretations. ah-ooh shoo-be doo-wa Wnt (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Alain

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Cody Alain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Number of references stopped me simply CsDing this, but they are mostly simply credits of his work (ie routine) & I see nothing that establishes notability. Created by new editor who has created several similar quasi-promotional articles. TheLongTone (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Citations, with few exceptions, the cited references indicate that Alain received stylist credit for a photo shoot. The few exceptions are instances when Alain was sought by a journalist as the "expert" to give some hair-styling tips. None of this indicates any significant coverage of Alain. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, and promotional to boot. Deb (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 07:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The International Portfolio of Artists Photography

[edit]
The International Portfolio of Artists Photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Transferred from a PROD by User:Piotrus - reason was "I am unclear what this article is about, but my best guess is that it seems to be about a book that misses Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. The use of references is misleading; the one I checked ([3]) does not mention the book or its presumed author, Jacob."  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per my prod rationale, which I hope is sufficient here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Requests. Even before examining what are presented as sources to see if they indeed are sources, I note that much goes unsourced. I also notice that a lot of what appears to be sourced isn't directly about the book. That said, Wikipedia:Notability (books), cited by the Prokonsul, is an odd set of criteria. It seems to be intended for the kind of book whose author(s)/publisher hopes (however deludedly) will sell in the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands). But let's look at just one part of it: Books should have at a minimum an ISBN (for books published after 1975), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. ... [B]ooks [may be] notable despite not meeting [this] threshold [standard]—but they will be rare. No they're not at all rare. (Just for starters, it was only in the 1980s that ISBNs became used for the majority of Japanese books, and several publishers of more or less notable Japanese books still don't use them.) And there are other oddities too. ¶ But back to the article. It claims (for example): Having contributed to the network of artists and artists' spaces working in this period, and with ongoing support from the Soros Foundation, New York, from '86 through '89, Jacob traveled bi-annually to Eastern Europe and the USSR to develop further projects with them. The American photographer and theorist Diane Neumaier, in her history of Soviet non-conformist photography, credits these projects as foundational to the work of later historians such as herself. If I understand this correctly, this is not about the ostensible subject of the article, but is instead about related but separate activities. If I'm right, cut; if I'm wrong, explain. Further, the article introduces a long list of what was included in "Jacob's Second Portfolio related productions related to Eastern European photography". I can't even parse that, but again it seems to be merely about "related" (How?) productions. If I'm right, cut; if I'm wrong, explain. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Cumberbatch Must Die

[edit]
Benedict Cumberbatch Must Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable independent play. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this isn't notable at all. It has just been announced, yes. Just see the press release, thus the lack of significant coverage and reviews which will surely follow when it premieres. This is also about a famous actor and when the mainstream press finds out about it, there will be more coverage and sources for it. It is also staged at the BATS Theatre, a well-known theatre in New Zealand. Here are posters of it all over town https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bplzs3QCcAAvnfG.jpg000BCF (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't mainstream coverage yet, then it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article. Once there is significant coverage the article can be recreated. We have to be careful on Wikipedia to not try to predict the future or serve as a means for promotion. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The actors are already in rehearsals (see press release), so it's definitely happening. They're also already open for booking (one can't book on opening night as it's sold out). In film terms, they're already in post production and has already set out promotion. The only problem with this is the lack of secondary sources (found a few, still, it's entirely different to not being notable or being an article created "too soon") and reviews (the show hasn't premiered yet). If there are no secondary sources/reviews cited after the end of its run, then that's the time it should be considered a candidate for deletion. 000BCF (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Articles shouldn't be created because they are expected to be notable in the future. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and there's no rush to preemptively include every topic. I would support a move to draft: namespace or a Userspace draft as proposed below, and if this play does become notable the article can be moved back. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Move it back to mainspace if it gains notability, or delete as appropriate. Ivanvector (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI there are numerous films and books and plays that are unauthorized by their subject. For example, Grace of Monaco, The Fifth Estate, etc. It may be a fanfic piece (like Fifty Shades of Gray, let's be real here) but it got press (local as it was featured in Radio Active FM in NZ and international http://www.myheimat.de/news/kommentieren/benedict-cumberbatch-muss-sterben-was-sagt-der-sherlock-star-dazu-d2612865.html and it's going into actual, real production. Also, the title is misleading. From the primary source, if you cared to read is a complimentary piece on the actor.120.28.127.52 (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't read German, but this appears to be a user-submitted news site not unlike a community blog. I think it would fail WP:RS but at any rate it appears to be the only source we have that's not based on the press release from the theatre. I maintain this should go into draft or user space until such time as it opens, and major independent critics review the play.
For those who are interested, the draft guideline on notability for plays is worthwhile reading. Ivanvector (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Mackin

[edit]
Joseph Mackin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear notable per WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. Seems to fail WP:GNG as well. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've cleaned out the worst of the sourcing, as much of it was WP:PRIMARY such as the guy's own website and a routine notification of an event. I also removed duplicates of the same source, as the same interview was posted in several different newspapers. For the original editor and anyone coming in, a news story is considered to be one source, regardless of where it is posted or re-posted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just too soon for an entry. There are two trade reviews and one interview, but not really anything else out there. If there was a review in a more solid source or another interview or news article somewhere, then it'd be different and maybe a weak keep, but he just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Keep"'. The cleaned version looks OK. Article could be improved over time. Nmwalsh (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Delete, basically one debut book and contributions through other channels such as the 2paragraphs website and the New York Journal. My searches found a Reuters (saying the same thing as the Malaysian news link in the article), one review website that my computer said was "untrusted", other small review websites and primary links. Not much. It's not a terrible article but it could have some more substance. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per request of article creator. Non-admin closure. --Finngall talk 18:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark wiggins

[edit]
Mark wiggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based on my reading of machine translations of the sources, there is only routine coverage of this person. I would normally redirect to the article on Guandan, but there isn't one. If Guandan isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, I doubt that a player who peaked at #16 is. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Mark Simpson (journalist). ...applying editorial judgment at the target, of course. WP:NEO sets a high bar; the WP:USEFUL argument is generally a weak argument at best and was discounted as such j⚛e deckertalk 17:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spornosexual

[edit]
Spornosexual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a merge to Mark Simpson (journalist) --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, with kudos to User:Bejnar. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Butterworth Cover

[edit]
Butterworth Cover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After doing a verification check, all results that contained "Butterworth" and "Cover" were sheer coincidence and bear no relation to subject whatsoever. One cited source may be published by creator. Failed WP:V test, and possibly is WP:A11. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment doing a search using "Butterworth cover hatch" came up with [10], [11], [12], so it is a genuine term. However I doubt if is notable: is there any suitable merge target?TheLongTone (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable. Butterworth hatches and covers (plates) are standard on oil tankers and similar vessels. They have been responsible for a number of marine losses. Consulting additional marine engineering texts should help clear up any lack of understanding. I have added additional citations to the article. --Bejnar (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following added citations and other improvements by User:Bejnar. PWilkinson (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Žamboch

[edit]
Miroslav Žamboch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Challenged G11. Unambiguous promotion of a possibly notable subject. Content is not very encyclopedic. WP:NOT dictates that Wikipedia is not a place to promote. Mr. Guye (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 15:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Aburjania

[edit]
Giorgi Aburjania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Peridon per CSD G7 (one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Ferrante discography

[edit]
Roberto Ferrante discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Large, poorly-sourced discography of a non-notable producer. This list seems to include everything that the producer was even remotely involved with. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - MrX 12:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haline (novel)

[edit]
Haline (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a non-notable (self-published?) book. Fails WP:NBOOK. - MrX 12:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, can find nothing to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications that this book has made any significant impact anywhere. It is the author's debut novel (according to his Amazon profile) and is published by an organization (Forward Press Books) of which I can find no information. There is a Forward Press books company, but the appear to be in the business of spiritual publication, and do not list this book among their offerings. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 07:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Ferrante

[edit]
Roberto Ferrante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced promotional biography of a non-notable producer, arranger, composer, musician, and record company founder. The sources consist almost entirely of closely affiliated coverage of the record company that he founded. The article has potential WP:BLP violations and numerous unsourced claims. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. - MrX 12:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhiloda (Vidhan Sabha constituency)

[edit]
Bhiloda (Vidhan Sabha constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. Launchballer 12:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Barnstar given. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Shyamsunder (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. There are no sources around other than a couple from the government. This topic is just fine sitting alone in a section about divisions of India or whatever. Tezero (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to what? India? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An easy google found me dozens of references, ranging from governmental sources to newspapers and political pundits. Possibly there's something wrong with your search engine... RomanSpa (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Vidhan Sabha constituencies—the equivalent of U.S. state Congressional districts—are by default notable.—indopug (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow keep, all legislative constituencies are notable per default. There is definately material for expansion, it used to be a double-member constituency, had a bye-election in the 1950s, and again in the 1960s (in which the Swatantra Party suffered a defeat), etc. --Soman (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is easy to use Dictionary.com for words you don't understand. In this case "per" is being used in the third sense cited in its Dictionary.com entry: "according to; in accordance with". RomanSpa (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 07:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Curtin

[edit]
Chris Curtin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage in reliable sources that I can find, other than the usual corporate webpages – article lists several "sources", which are either all self-published or fail to mention Curtin at all. He certainly seems to have held the positions listed in his article, but done nothing in them to suggest any particular notability. Appears to largely be a puff-piece, written by an editor with no other contributions. IgnorantArmies 12:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, not notable. Shorn again (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 07:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renya Xydis

[edit]
Renya Xydis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn selfpromotional puffpiece Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - even if the client list was accurate and sourced (it isn't) she still wouldn't inherit notability from her notable clients. There is some coverage out there but much of it is just someone quoting the subject talking about herself. Hardly independent significant coverage. St★lwart111 11:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Largely based on GNG j⚛e deckertalk 16:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Sorola

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gus Sorola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being a computer technician and voice actor is not enough, not by a far stretch. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I cannot find "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject...", which is required to meet the basic standard of notability under WP:BASIC. Neither is there any evidence of a) significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; b) a large fan base or a significant "cult" following or c) unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, which are required to establish notability under WP:NACTOR. I therefore support the nomination on the basis of lack of notability, as destined in WP policy. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - RoosterTeeth has one of the largest fanbases of the online gaming community, so I'm not too sure where there's no evidence of a "significant cult following". Also, as referred to in the previous AfD by User:I JethroBT, Red vs. Blue, which he has a significant role in, is one of the most notable types of machinima. Connormah (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is not about Rooster Teeth, which has its own WP page and is not being considered for deletion. The notability requirements for a person need to assessed through the existence of secondary sources - and in this case there do not appear to be any supporting either he basic criteria for a person's notability or the the three more specific ones relating to actors. If there is a "significant cult following", nobody is writing about it (as far as I can tell), and that means there is a lack of credible source material to verify notability. On a side note, the previous AfD was in 2011 and in the three years since then not a single secondary source has been added to the article - the article continues to lack any reliable secondary sources whatsoever. Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments from the previous nomination in 2011 can be restated here, but to keep now only because it was decided to keep then is not a valid argument. Claims that the actor is notable need to be supported with substance in accordance with policy - otherwise they should be disregarded in assessing the outcome of this debate. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Wikipeterproject. I'm saying I agree with past arguments. Want me to copy-paste here? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EvergreenFir - Perhaps you could just summarise the main points of the arguments you wish to incorporate into this current debate? Copy-paste is not desirable, in my opinion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of arguments: He satisfies all 3 criteria of WP:NACTOR. He's a voice actor for a main character in Red vs. Blue (which he also cofounded) and also a voice actor in The Strangerhood. Red vs. Blue is a video series with 241 episodes and is currently in its 12th season. Some of its content was included with the release of Halo 3, DVDs of the seasons are sold at Game Stop, and they had a film in the Sundance Film Festival (see also 1 and 2) . His work has been the subject of reviews (1, 2, 3) and he's mentioned on other websites (1 and 2). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, EvergreenFir - appreciate the summary. I recommend that the closing administrator should look at the above sources as part of the closing decision to determine whether they are adequate to meet WP:GNG. As stated in my delete opinion, above, I do not believe that either GNG or the three notability criteria for WP:NACTOR are, in fact, met. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, the three references (whether reliable or not) are reviews of Red vs. Blue; Sorola is only mentioned once by name in the first two, not at all in the third. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarityfiend yes, but in my reading of WP:NACTOR that's all that's needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete; consensus and strength of argument is stronger for deletion. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outer South London Line

[edit]
Outer South London Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first sentence says it all "The Outer South London Line is an unofficial name...".

The "line" comprises parts of the Brighton Main Line and the Crystal Palace Line. There do not appear to be any reliable sources referencing the name - the few ghits which aren't wikipedia mirrors are forums or user comments (not even the train operator calls it this). -mattbuck (Talk) 09:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and could the closing admin, if this is closed as delete, also move Inner South London Line to South London Line, as this disambiguation was created due to the Outer South London Line page. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Invented wiki-name with no references since its creation to demonstrate verifiability or notability. As stated above, the article describes a service pattern which in itself fails WP:NOTTIMETABLE. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obviously unofficial name & no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Rewrite and rename or Redirect - While the name is apparently invented by a Wiki-user, that doesn't make it an illegitimate line. If there is an official name it should be renamed as such. Otherwise redirect it to either the Brighton Main Line or the Crystal Palace Line. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a legitimate line in the railway sense. There may be services that operate that route, but they don't have a particular name. Nor should it be redirected as it is not completely covered by the Brighton Main Line or the Crystal Palace Line. The best redirect would be to Inner South London Line (or rather "South London Line", as it should be renamed once this is deleted). -mattbuck (Talk) 21:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So would that make it more like the Metra Rock Island District which splits between the Beverly Branch and Rush Hour branch? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike the Rock Island line, this particular route has no individual identity as such. One user has thrown together parts of two lines and given them a made-up name. The vast majority of ghits are for Wiki-clone sites. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I think I useed this many years ago. However it is more a train service than a railway line. It is convenient to run trains in a loop from one central station to another, rather than on a there and back-again basis. If "Southern London Line" if an official name, I would support the renaming of the other one: this would not prevent this one surviving under its present name. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siphiwe Robert Mtsweni

[edit]
Siphiwe Robert Mtsweni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find evidence that this person exists. A google search finds WP mirrors. The International Young Design Entrepreneur of the Year page doesn't mention him. Possibly a hoax Gbawden (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of Colonia St. John

[edit]
The Kingdom of Colonia St. John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article about a topic that's sitting somewhere indeterminable along the line between non-notable micronation and total stinking WP:HOAX. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the opinion of User:Bearcat. Z10987 (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete: My response to Mangoe appears to have disappeared after only a couple of hours, so to reiterate...

This page is certainly NOT a Hoax page, as has now been accepted. This is a genuine issue and is presently before the International Court of Arbitration in The Hague. If the statements made on the page were untrue, then A) The Lawyers would be all over us and B) The Hague would not be wasting their time (and considerable financial outlay) formally considering it. I say again, if there are specific issues that require editting on the Page, then we are more than happy to engage & assist in addressing such issues in a positive partnership. However we would ask that the Page is not Deleted, certainly until The Hague has given its judgment. Thank you. MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.67.185 (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some actual reliable sourcing would be a start. We don't keep articles just because somebody asserts the topic's existence, if that thing doesn't actually show up in any real sources which properly verify the claims in question. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, hear what you are saying Bearcat. So how can we address this matter? - what kind of things would you like to see included? We could link to the Government of Colonia website for starters but what else do you need to see included? Grateful for advice here. MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincday1 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a topic's own website is never sufficient sourcing for an article on it, because it's not independent of the subject and thus does not constitute proof of notability. (Not to mention that since it's remarkably easy to put up a web page containing absolutely anything the page creator wants, it's not even the least bit difficult to create web content that would "prove" the truth of a hoax — so even having a website doesn't inherently prove that it actually exists.) Reliable sourcing is media coverage (newspaper/magazine articles, books, etc.) about the topic. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understand - I can pull this material together over the next few days and will add it to the Page. Thanks for guidance here. MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincday1 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, No Redirect This is covered in the Kalayaan Islands#Geography. I would get this out of here right now. It is mostly rubbish, e.g. CIA Factbook cited: No results found for "Kingdom of Colonia" site:cia.gov. etc. Some of the territorial issues mentioned are before the Hague court, but not this. Subsumed in Philippines' claim, see Yorac, Haydee B. "The Philippine Claim to the Spratly Islands Group." Philippine Law Journal 58 (1983): 42-63. --Bejnar (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually mentioned, under another name, in another section of the article, the main article for wchih is, as I said above, inside Tomás Cloma. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:FRINGE concepts require additional third-party reliable sources, and as of present there are very few sources within this article demonstrating notability of this self-purported nation state. There is essentially zero coverage of this topic in mainstream media. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform to introduce and push new ideas, this encyclopedia only covers information well established in existing literature. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 07:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riyaz Gangji

[edit]
Riyaz Gangji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non-notable fashion designer. Fails WP:GNG. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 08:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 08:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 08:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The one news article included is from the past week which I found in a Google News search along with a video of him accusing MP Nilesh Rane of assault which a separate search found many more links, an additional search with "Riyaz Gangji fashion designer" found nothing aside from one news links that weren't significant or solid including this with "fashion tips". At the end of that search, I found some more results for that assault accusation. I've seen links including that current Times of India that say he was selected out of certain number of people and there doesn't seem to be anything there. Additional searches at Times of India found this and at Financial Times, photos. There are links here (including from the past 4 years) but nothing significant (no awards, other recognitions, etc.) to add to the article. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Restaurant. ...to the extent that content about the term can be, with good editorial judgment, included at Restaurant, at least. j⚛e deckertalk 16:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piqueteadero

[edit]
Piqueteadero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a dictioary entry at best and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This noun did not even merit an entry as a word in the dictionaries of the Real Academia Española or Larousse dictionaries, which are the prevalent language guides in the country where this word claims to be used in. This is not a word, this should not be in wikipedia, this should be deleted as it is not in widespread usage, not if any significant value or purpose. -eadero is a Spanish noun/verb-forming suffix, similar to -ery in English, like tannery. But just like in English, just because you add the suffix to a word doesn't automatically make it a valid word. piquet- apparently comes from the word piquete (marked only as a Colombian-only regionalism), which means picnic, whether it derives its root from the English word is less certain as most dictionaries don't even include it. Now, I am from Colombia, and this word is most definitely not in the common usage, and at most is a regionalism. From the sound of it, and the current description in the article, it just seems like an appropriated word akin to the word eatery in English to describe an informal place where one gets informal and bite size forms of food. There is an entry for it in the Spanish Wikipedia, which also lacks any reasoning for inclusion as an article and which frankly should also be deleted. mijotoba (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a Google Books search shows that the terminology is quite real. A regionalism? Yes, probably. But these places serve a distinct type of cuisine and I, for one, would like to know more about them. There is an article here on Spanish Wikipedia about this subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Is not like other types of restaurants don't serve this food as well, this is fast food, everything from food trucks, to cafeterias, to restaurants (including Colombian restaurants here in the US) serve this food as well. And please don't reference the Spanish wikipedia, it is one of the most unreliable places in the internet I've seen; and that article's only reference is a blog site. mijotoba (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are, presumably, articles for cafeterias, cafes, drive-thrus and buffets. This is a type of restaurant that you are not familiar with so you should be happy we have an article that explains a bit about it. Even in English language sources we find it noted as here and there are restaurants in the U.S. that use the term. The word is used in various guidebooks and other sources and it's reasonable to expect us to explain what it is. Here's another source explaining what it is and the type of food served at this style of eatery. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica1000 06:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Restaurant. It's a Spanish-language word and term, per Google Books searches. However, the topic may not merit a standalone article per the depth of coverage existent about it, at least those available in online source searches. NorthAmerica1000 13:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thamuz

[edit]
Thamuz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable comic book character without third person sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real world info, aside from the unsourced note about an action figure (but said note is phrased as trivia with original research). Redirecting to List of Spawn Villains seems pointless since the list includes nothing besides names. I have no issue with changing it to a redirect for the deity as mentioned above. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legion (Image Comics)

[edit]
Legion (Image Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable comic book character without third person sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Spawn villains. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Aside from the perfunctory inclusion of the word "fictional" in the first sentence, this article is written entirely from an in-universe perspective. The only good use for the content that I can see is transferring it over to the Spawn wiki. And since I don't think the article's subject is explicitly referred to as "the Legion" more than a handful of times, "Legion (Image Comics)" doesn't seem like a useful redirect term.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no real world info in the article, and a quick google search doesn't indicate much to add anyway. The list of spawn villains is just a list without any context, so merging doesn't make much sense unless. If the list is ever expanded like the current efforts on the List of Marvel Comics Characters, I wouldn't oppose including something about the character then. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Padmalochanan Nair

[edit]
Padmalochanan Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined BLPPROD assuming good faith on the one reference added, to a book called "Unknown Philosophers" I can't find evidence of.

In any case, reference aside, I can't find information which would verify the existence or establish the notability of this fellow. Depending on what you think of the source, possibly A7. j⚛e deckertalk 05:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm the editor who added the PROD BLP when the article had no references at all. I'm glad that a reference has been added since then, but that reference itself is problematical. Where one might expect it to describe Padmalochanan Nair (on the page cited), the citation format suggests instead that Padmalochanan Nair is the author. Searching for the publisher, “Jagruti Books”, turns up Jagruti Books, but they produce blank books (“diaries, notebooks, agendas, office stationery”). Various other Websites such as linked-in, although not reliable sources for article content, confirm the nature of Jagruti Books. So the lone “source” citation is a combination of the name of this article, the current year, the phrase “unknown philosophers”, and the brand name from a blank notebook. Maybe I'm just cynical this week after finding another BLP which was a hoax, but I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy about this.  Unician ∇  08:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I share your concern about that source. It was tempting to go with my gut and delete it at PROD, that I didn't may just be an abundance of caution. The title itself is ... suggestive. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unable to find solid links and with solid information, I found nothing for the book and since the article doesn't have much more information, there's not much to search. Probably a minor philosopher. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails verification, the cited book is not in OCLC, nor in the OPAC of the National Library of India (nationallibrary.gov.in), nor in the Online Union Catalogue of Indian Universities - INFLIBNET Union Catalogue (indcat.inflibnet.ac.in). --Bejnar (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect all to Miss International Queen. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International Queen 2004

[edit]
Miss International Queen 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Miss International Queen 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss International Queen 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss International Queen 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss International Queen 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss International Queen 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss International Queen 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss International Queen 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss International Queen 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss International Queen 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per "no consensus" closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss International Queen 2012, what we have here is a batch of articles which break out a beauty pageant by every individual year in which it's been held — but not a single article in the bunch cites even one reliable source to actually support a standalone article (in every last case the only "sources" are the organization's own webpage and its Facebook profile.) The articles, further, frequently contain unverifiable WP:BLP violations like "Bianca Gold, according to rumors in Facebook, she is the mayor trafficant of transgender from Brazil to Denmark and other parts in Europe, this is only a rumor" or "Ruby Bella Cruz got angry before she did not make the Top 10." or, possibly my favourite slice of hell-to-the-no in Wikipedia ever, "Shantell D'Marco from is not virgin anymore. She lost it when she was only 9 years old." We don't need a comprehensive set of unsourced articles about every individual year's pageant — the main parent article (which I'm not proposing that we delete) already contains as much detail as we actually need or can properly source. Either delete all or redirect all to Miss International Queen. No prejudice against recreation in the future if real reliable sources can actually be cited, but the absence of proper sourcing we cannot keep a separate spinout for each individual year (especially ones that contain BLP-flouting assertions about the competitors' virginity — just for the record, it's a transgender beauty pageant, which is why the "lost her virginity at 9" one counts as a bigger BLP violation than the "mayor of transgender" thing.) Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Salvestine

[edit]
Antony Salvestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent hoax. See also Nigel Dawson, and note that I deleted Tony Catherton at BLPPROD and it appears entirely unsourcable as well. j⚛e deckertalk 04:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Article just like the Nigel Dawson article (by the same editor, HyperDrive9) is a blatant hoax. Description of the individual is very cliche, fitting a fake bio. No sources given. Filmography and awards which are easy to verify are completely bogus. Cowlibob (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and with haste) per nom and per Cowlibob above. If the subject had indeed "received nominations for two Oscar Awards, a Golden Globe Award and a Screen Actors Guild Award", it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect at least a smattering of coverage somewhere. Blatant hoax. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is either a hoax, or is over-inflating the role of this person (on the off change they are real). I looked at our article for one of the claimed films with a "lead role" and he did not show up in the 12 listed cast members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, searches on google and google books turned up nothing. Likely hoax. --Soman (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvement and promobumf tonedown. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Junkyard Lipstick

[edit]
Junkyard Lipstick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band with no strong evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC; while the article appears thoroughly sourced on the surface, careful examination reveals that the sources are almost exclusively primary (Bandcamp, Facebook, etc.) or unreliable (Blogspot, Wordpress, etc.) in nature, with barely a shred of proper coverage in real media sources in sight. Nor is there a particularly strong claim of actual notability to be found here, either — at best they're approaching the rural outskirts of criterion #4 (touring), but even that's sourced to a blog post. And I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the creator was User:Junkyard Lipstick — while of course a WP:COI isn't a reason to delete in and of itself, it does confirm that the intent here was advertorial rather than encyclopedic. Delete, unless somebody can salvage it with better sourcing and a stronger notability claim than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with many comments above about unreliable sources, but there were enough powerful sources in there, that the group meets the general notability guideline with multiple, independent coverage in depth. I revamped the article to remove the junk, trimmed out unsourced material, cut out great-looking but overly informational charts (apologies) on the basis of WP:UNDUE, added categories. Look at the coverage in Rolling Stone, and album review and another review and an interview in Rolling Stone. My sense is they're an up-and-coming South African band, winning a following, but they are not so great to earn a multi-page promotional spread (so-and-so was the guitarist in this month, etc, or a listing of every single they've ever recorded -- save that for the web site, thank you) in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Those in favor of keeping cite general notability, but as those favoring merge have noted, event notability (WP:EVENT, WP:LASTING) is the predominating guideline over simply receiving a large spurt of press coverage, as it's an amalgam of WP:NOT#NEWS, a policy, and its relationship to the general notability guideline. It's not enough to simply receive a lot of press coverage in a short spurt and therefore instantly become notable event (would violate WP:NOT#NEWS), nor is reliance on interwiki links, nor are prior closes an inherent pass to retention. I'd suggest, however, waiting a few months before re-nominating this article to allow a more thorough examination of the finer points of WP:EVENT as demonstrated in secondary sources. slakr\ talk / 02:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volnovakha checkpoint attack

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Volnovakha checkpoint attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough of an event for its own article, or to constitute a split fron the Donetsk People's Republic article. There are many small scale firefights. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... I am not entirely sure what to say about this. How exactly do you "judge" the significance of the attack? Also, would not a merge be better than deleting the article so long as the information is accurate? Dustin (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A previous discussion was held to see if this article would be deleted. It was not, and it looks like another discussion is being held again. Well, it might be a small firefight, but it had significant media coverage at the time. I, with help from other users, created this article because something asked me to do it. I say it should be kept--Arbutus the tree (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable event with wide press coverage and many casualities. Three interwikies. NickSt (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Some notability", but not enough to exist as a standalone article apart from Donetsk People's Republic. Read the guidelines at the page I linked. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense:
First source you cite just notes that one of the soldiers wounded in the attack now died. That's not "lasting coverage".
Second source you cite is neither reliable nor notable. It's more or less some internet forum. Where people talk about it. That's not "lasting coverage".
Third source does not constitute coverage of the event, it's just a one sentence snippet as part of a general "So far, on the Ukrainian conflict show" overview. That's not "lasting coverage".
Fourth source you cite is neither reliable nor notable. Nor does it contain actual coverage of this event except for a general "so far, on the Ukrainian conflict...". That's not "lasting coverage".
NONE of these show "lasting coverage". And honestly, "lasting coverage" can't be shown by the mere fact that a particular news story can still be googled a week later. WP:NOTNEWS. There's no reason for this article to be a stand alone one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donetsk People's Republic per arguments presented above regarding every event as somehow meriting an article of its own. WP:NOTNEWS and no WP:GNG credentials established. There are current affairs events relating to the unrest in Ukraine every day and are related to the bigger picture. One so-called 'article' story is forgotten outside of the scope of the larger picture within a couple of days. The number of leaps on every single event smacks of either a desire to get another article under an editor's notch or, more difficult to monitor, a POV push into Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's just merge this with the Donetsk People's Republic, in other words an article within an article.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be the type of incident that will have long term notability and WP:NOTNEWS is not appropriate.--PinkBull 17:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Unless some changes are made to this article to make increase its bulk and purpose, then I think it would be better to just integrate it into another article. You aren't really losing the information then, plus you don't have to worry about maintaining a stubby little article. I believe that tallies up to six merges, three keeps and a delete from Lvivske. Dustin (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) First of all keep per first Afd. The result was keep and it shouldn't of been renominated just days after the first Afd closed. Because of this, the discussion should be closed, and if desired, brought up later at an appropriate time. Also, the subject will always be notable. Well sourced. A clear keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So when it comes to such articles as Titushky, we keep, and when it comes to this we either merge or delete??? Sure, people would say that my example doesn't belong here, but look at the bigger picture. Also, an input from @Yulia Romero:, @Aleksandr Grigoryev: and @Ukrained2012: will be highly appreciated in this AfD. --Mishae (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Speedy G3. It's irregular for me to close this, but I suspect it to be entirely uncontroversial at this point. j⚛e deckertalk 01:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Dawson

[edit]
Nigel Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax. Noticed some oddities in another hoaxed-up bio getting BLPPROD'd, and took a further look at where it came from. j⚛e deckertalk 04:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete All sources are either redirects to main page or don't lead anywhere. Filmography, awards etc. which should be easy to verify are all completely bogus. Cowlibob (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of schools in Bromley#Primary schools. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn Primary School

[edit]
Unicorn Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN primary school. We don't generally keep stand-alone articles for primary schools. Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every such primary school has such a report. And we generally don't keep stand-alone articles for such schools. Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore -- the report is a primary source. We need to find that it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, inspection reports are secondary sources for the following reasons:
  1. They are "one-step removed" as they are written by an independent outsider
  2. They are based upon primary sources such as the work of the pupils and the school records
  3. They are works of analysis which present conclusions
  4. They are written for publication and are well-distributed
We should additionally note that they are written by qualified professionals with plenty of accountability and oversight. They are therefore high-quality sources. As they contain pages of details about the operation and performance of the school, they meet WP:SIGCOV in every way. Andrew (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The test of notability is described at WP:SIGCOV — that there be sources which are independent, reliable and detailed. Ofsted reports are perfect for our purpose as they are all this and more, being professional and neutral in tone. They are far superior to the sensational journalism which passes for sources in many other topics. The nominator's complaint is that the school is much like many other schools but that is nothing to do with notability, as we define it. This is the issue described at WP:MILL but that is not policy. Our actual policy is to have articles about schools or to merge the material into some higher-level article about the locality. Per our editing policy, we do not delete such material. Andrew (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If thats our actual policy then we have been ignoring it fort the last 10 years. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES shows that what we actually do is delete primaries which lack significant reliable sources. Atlas-maker (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that school articles are frequently nominated for deletion but that "schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged ...to... the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." And that's the essential nature of WP:PRESERVE too. So, both our policy and our practise is not to delete in such cases. Andrew (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see what the problem is here. A "redirect" to the education/schools section of the lowest level locality is effectively a "delete" in Wikipedia terms, since it involves removing the original school article once its content (if relevant) has been merged to the appropriate section of the redirect target.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're got it backwards. A merger is a "keep" in Wikipedia terms because we keep the page and its edit history as a convenient way of attributing the contributors. It is also convenient to keep the page to refer back to if there are details to check. It is also convenient to maintain the page so that, if the topic turns out to have more notability than first seemed, it will be easy to expand. Deletion is only used when we don't ever want any of the content. The deletion function makes the pages and its edit history invisible to most users and so it is quite disruptive. This disruption is the reason that the delete function is tightly controlled. Only admins may use the delete function and only when they have permission to do so. AFD exists to provide such permission but participants should understand the nature of the process and the related legal licensing requirements. Please don't confuse editorial decisions about the scope and structure of topics with deletion. Deletion is to get rid of material which we don't want at all. If we going to cover the topic in some way then that's a matter of ordinary editing. Andrew (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil is correct that we generally either delete or redirect these non-notable primary school articles, and rid ourselves of the stand-alone. The fact that we may (as here) lose uncited material to the effect that "Every classroom [in the non-notable school] has a cloakroom" is not seen as a loss. Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to e-Government. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gov 2.0

[edit]
Gov 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nom for User:50.1.100.8, using their edit summary: "Just none of this is reality based but rather unsubstantiated wishful thinking - Non-Encyclopedic and not up to WP standards." Ansh666 02:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 07:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Coxe

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gary Coxe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the second nomination of this article. Previous AfD resulted in a speedy delete (G-11). I removed the G-4 CSD tags to give the creator the opportunity to fix the article (see the talk page). And it must be admitted that this recreation was subsequently heavily edited to the extent that I do not believe it qualifies for G-11 speedy deletion and therefor also fails to qualify for G-4. That said, the creator has made no viable claim to encyclopedic notability. Currently the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. The sources hugely fails WP:RS, thus the article also fails WP:NRV. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. In closing I note that while the hard and obvious spam content has been redacted, it seems quite obvious that this article was intended as an advertisement by a WP:SPA who when asked if he/she had any connection to the subject, went silent. Respectfully urge Delete and salt so we don't have to deal with this again. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 07:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Ferleger

[edit]
Serge Ferleger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No birthdate given but seems to have spent only a few years as a postgrad, contributed to a handful of papers, then left academia. Not enough for academic notability and no indication at all of notability in his post-academic career. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed his PhD was obtained in 1999, so he was a research student for all but a year.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be an autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.150.234.8 (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as I can see, Google Scholar shows that the first article listed in the biography of Serge Ferleger has 49 citations [23]. Having an invited talk at ICM and an article in Annals is some evidence of notability. The fact that he has spent only a limited amount of time in academia may suggest that he is not notable in our sense, but does not prove it. That being said, there are very little sources to draw information from. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My reading of the article was: he was on track to become a successful academic but then took a different path. When he left academia he wasn't yet accomplished enough (and his work didn't later have enough impact) to pass WP:PROF, and his non-academic work does not seem to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, he doesn't have coverage, and fails as an academic. --Bejnar (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Survival

[edit]
Age of Survival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG not met; very little to no coverage by reliable sources. Majority of the page's content is poorly written and violates WP:GAMECRUFT. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randall L. Ridd

[edit]
Randall L. Ridd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced, with no sources independent of the church from which his notability stems. One of many slapdash LDS official articles that need to be deleted pbp 00:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated elsewhere, Ribb does not control the sources invovled. To claim he does just is not a tenable claim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Still waiting for this pointer to consensus. And your insistence that just because the subject doesn't control what the source writes means that it is independent is facile. The work is produced by someone affiliated with the subject. --NeilN talk to me 07:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in light of the fact that no consensus has been shown, and there still isn't proper sourcing, JPL's vote holds no weight. pbp 23:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources that cannot be considered self-sources.Jacona (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources showing notability. --NeilN talk to me 02:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I don't understand why this article about one of the Church's general officers has been nominated for deletion while others are left alone. To me, it's a matter of all or none. That is, either all general officers are relevant subjects for articles or none are. So which is it? I also find it interesting that only the articles I have written are being nominated for deletion. I feel like my work is being unfairly singled out, when there are other articles of the same situation (no sources outside of LDS-related ones) that are being left alone. I also feel like there is no argument I can make that would allow any or all such articles to be kept. This bothers me. LDS-related resources are just as reliable as non-LDS-related resources. They can be verified just as easily. So I don't see the problem in having articles just cite LDS-related resources. I fail to see how an article fails to reach GNG standards simply because the only resources available are LDS-related ones. Any light you can shed on these subjects would be appreciated. As with all previous discussions, this will likely be my only comment. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your premise is incorrect. It's like saying all university professors are notable or none are. No, we use WP:ACADEMIC to determine which are notable. As we don't have a similar guideline for religious figures, we fall back on WP:GNG, meaning significant coverage in independent sources. --NeilN talk to me 07:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are plenty of articles needing deletion that aren't on afd, but that doesn't mean we should give up and never delete another article! It's not that this one is unfairly singled out, it is that many others are surviving in spite of a total lack of encyclopedic value....get out there and delete them!Jacona (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Per above (WP:BIO/WP:GNG). There are a few independent sources, but not many and not very significant. Happy to be proven wrong if more turn up, though. I posted some comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Y. Wilson that are too long to copy/paste, but which address some of the concerns raised. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jairo Mazzagardi

[edit]
Jairo Mazzagardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources independent enough of the subject to establish notability. Similar LDS official articles have been deleted or redirected. pbp 00:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This is part of an attempt to evidently delete all articles on all members of the Second Quorum of the 70, an article at a time. If that is the goal, than all the articles should be considered at once, not an article at a time. Beyond this, the nominator's interpretation of independent tends to make too many things "controlled" by the subject. Mazzagardi does not control the Ensign or the Church News, he did not decided that he should be covered there, nor the form the articles on him there took. This type of interpretation of being controlled by the subject is not applied anywhere else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an external link that is clearly 100% independent of the subject, even by the very broad interpretation of this term used by some editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...It's a blogpost... JPL, the general consensus across all fields is if your notability stems from an association with organization X, ANY sources connected with organization X can't be used to establish notability. As for the pace at which I nominate articles, it's perfectly acceptable. An article that fails GNG and hasn't been previously AfD can be AfDed at ANY time, and it does not have to be bundled with other deletions. pbp 00:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guy is no doubt a wonderful fellow and a leader in his church, but he doesn't seem to have been noticed outside of it.Jacona (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources showing notability. --NeilN talk to me 02:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I don't understand why some articles about Second Quorum members have been nominated for deletion while others are left alone. To me, it's a matter of all or none. That is, either all Second Quorum members are relevant subjects for articles or none are. So which is it? I also find it interesting that only the articles I have written are being nominated for deletion. I feel like my work is being unfairly singled out, when there are other articles of the same situation (no sources outside of LDS-related ones) that are being left alone. I also feel like there is no argument I can make that would allow any or all such articles to be kept. This bothers me. LDS-related resources are just as reliable as non-LDS-related resources. They can be verified just as easily. So I don't see the problem in having articles just cite LDS-related resources. I fail to see how an article fails to reach GNG standards simply because the only resources available are LDS-related ones. Any light you can shed on these subjects would be appreciated. As with all previous discussions, this will likely be my only comment. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your premise is incorrect. It's like saying all university professors are notable or none are. No, we use WP:ACADEMIC to determine which are notable. As we don't have a similar guideline for religious figures, we fall back on WP:GNG, meaning significant coverage in independent sources. --NeilN talk to me 07:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "To me, it's a matter of all or none." That's not entirely true: some authorities may have reliable sources; the ones I nommed don't. And you should be thankful I'm only nominating two or three of them a week, it gives you more time to look for sources. pbp 00:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above (WP:BIO/WP:GNG). I posted some comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Y. Wilson that are too long to copy/paste, but which address some of the concerns raised. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Y. Wilson

[edit]
Larry Y. Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources independent enough of the subject to establish notability. Similar LDS official articles have been deleted or redirected. A bold redirect was tried, but reverted by the article's creator pbp 00:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose First off, this is a nomination by a person who has 1-admitted to viewing all LDS sources as "dubious". If someone with the same sort of antagonism towards all Jewish sources was going around nominating for deletion articles on Jewish rabbis, people would take issue at it. 2-The nominator just tried to unilaterally make the article into a redirect, and only because I stopped that unacceptable behavior, did he bother nominating it. Such underhanded attempts at deletion should be stopped. 3- The nominator's interpetation of what sources are independent of the subject is flawed. The Ensign and the Church News are not controlled by Larry Wilson, and they have staff who write the articles independent of the subject. The attempted interpretation of "indepdent" is just not workable. It makes too many sources considered controlled by the subject. Lastly this is part of a wide ranging set of nomination that really should be taken up together to create maximum discussion. They boil down to an attempt to severely limit the coverage of a particular religious community by an editor who has shown antagonism towards that religious community, and has been shown to have flawed reasoning when the discussions have been held in better viewed forums, as happened with his unjustified attacks on the article on the Medford Oregon Temple. I think he needs to be severly reprimanded for the underhanded way in which he tried to eliminate this article. Such actions are not in keeping with the community consensus nature of wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to get off your soapbox, stop attacking me with weasel words, and actually provide an argument about whether or not this meets GNG. Bold redirects are perfectly acceptable, particularly when similar articles have been redirected or deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lino Alvarez is one recent example). Nobody is going to "severely reprimand" me for nominating poorly sourced articles for deletion; sanctions do not come from AfD discussions. If anybody needs to be sanctioned, it's you, for your use of weasel words and misinterpreting of policy. pbp 00:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and a trout to Johnpacklambert. Instead of soapboxing, find independent sources to show the subject meets WP:GNG. If GM publishes a newsletter and profiles one of its engineers in an issue, we're not going to have an article based on that newsletter. --NeilN talk to me 00:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If GM profiled one of its top vice presidents who was over the opetions of the company in an entire country, the analogy would be similar. The General Authroties are the leaders of a world-wide church with 15 million members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And independent industry magazines and automobile journals would have coverage of him, right? --NeilN talk to me 02:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General authorities are far more numerous than GM vice presidents, and can you actually provide an example of an executive who never rose among the top 100 in his company, had an article only sourced by statements from his company, and had an AfD closed as keep solely because of the position he held in his company? I doubt it. The problem here is your line of argument is based either in expanding GNG to include sources it normally doesn't, or else ignoring it altogether (because of your claim that significant people to an organization should be kept). Neither is a particularly strong argument. pbp 03:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing encyclopedic here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaconaFrere (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. It seems unusual to me that the church of Latter Day Saints has this nomenclature, with which I was heretofore unfamiliar, but the General authority concept of that church defines a small number of individuals who have a high status, including Larry Y. Wilson. These individuals seem to be very limited in number, and individually notable. Every one in List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an article, it appears (although potentially one or more of those bluelinks actually merely go to redirects?). It is asserted in the nomination that "Similar LDS official articles have been deleted or redirected"; please provide evidence, i don't see it so far. My view is this should be kept, as apparently notable, definitely unusual. --doncram 02:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram:, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lino Alvarez and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin S. Hamilton pbp 02:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for followup. I notice that Lino Alvarez is not mentioned in List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, why not? While Kevin S. Hamilton is listed there. Does someone have access to the deleted Alvarez article, which could be used to update the List page. Could an admin provide that to me, please. Also, perhaps the two are notable for being the only two LDS authorities being deemed not notable by the small number of Wikipedians who comment in AFDs about them. :) --doncram 02:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last pbp 03:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, i see that the Lino Alvarez article was redirectd, not deleted, so the pre-AFD version remains available to me. My wikipedia name is doncram. Thanks. --doncram 03:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the reason Alvarez is not listed may be because he is not currently a member of the 2nd Quorum of the 70. However, considering the number of general authorities there have been, there is no reason we cannot list all of them. Would people be ok with expanding the list aritcle to include more than just names?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I don't understand why some articles about Second Quorum members have been nominated for deletion while others are left alone. To me, it's a matter of all or none. That is, either all Second Quorum members are relevant subjects for articles or none are. So which is it? I also find it interesting that only the articles I have written are being nominated for deletion. I feel like my work is being unfairly singled out, when there are other articles of the same situation (no sources outside of LDS-related ones) that are being left alone. I also feel like there is no argument I can make that would allow any or all such articles to be kept. This bothers me. LDS-related resources are just as reliable as non-LDS-related resources. They can be verified just as easily. So I don't see the problem in having articles just cite LDS-related resources. I fail to see how an article fails to reach GNG standards simply because the only resources available are LDS-related ones. Any light you can shed on these subjects would be appreciated. As with all previous discussions, this will likely be my only comment. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your premise is incorrect. It's like saying all university professors are notable or none are. No, we use WP:ACADEMIC to determine which are notable. As we don't have a similar guideline for religious figures, we fall back on WP:GNG, meaning significant coverage in independent sources. --NeilN talk to me 07:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I fail to see how an article fails to reach GNG standards simply because the only resources available are LDS-related ones." That's essentially the definition of GNG: having to find independent sources. If your notability stems from holding a position with that organization, sources published by that organization are non-independent. And you are correct that you cannot argue your way out of this. It's either find significant coverage in reliable sources, or watch the articles get deleted/redirected. pbp 14:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete - not sure why these were created in the first place. Per my commentary in other related AFDs these should be redirected to the list of General Authority members. We do have rules about the inherent notability of catholic cardinals but that's a small group of members-for-life responsible for a billion followers, not a large group of temporary members responsible for millions. The sources provided in each instance simply aren't independent of the subjects they cover. As above, truly notable individuals will be covered in non-LDS sources which is the point at which they become notable by our standards. St★lwart111 12:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Per above (WP:BIO/WP:GNG). I'm seeing a few independent sources, but not many and not very significant. If more are produced I'm happy to change my !vote. Comments below. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments to those !voting to keep/oppose:
    1. I can understand feeling singled out when multiple articles are nominated at once -- like someone is targeting you unfairly or prejudicially. With so many articles being created and updated all the time, it just sort of happens that when an editor notices problems with one, he/she will look for similar problems in similar articles. These subjects are linked so closely and have such similar problems it's not surprising to me that they could all be nominated at once.
    2. Of course I don't know the intentions of the nominator and others involved here, but I wouldn't say there's a conspiracy or some sort of bad faith at work. This seems like straightforward application of our notability criteria, which quite clearly says the sources should be independent of the subject. Just because this person didn't say "write about me" to various LDS sites/publications doesn't mean he couldn't have done so in some way (perhaps not phrased so bluntly, but you get my meaning, I think).
    3. I don't think anybody is saying that no Mormon source can possibly count to establish notability. The only sources at issue here are those associated with the same organization the subject of the article is part of. An independent "Mormon News" website run by someone with no ties to LDS aside from being a believer would be perfectly independent (though still subject, of course, to rules about reliable sources, but that seems less the issue here).
    4. To the page creator(s), there is a process through which you may be able to have these articles "userfied" if they're deleted. That means your work wouldn't just be removed but rather it would be moved to a subpage of your user page. If you believe sources will emerge in the future such that the article can be recreated, this may be a good option. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "userfying" is awful, frankly. Many general authority persons might become clearly notable in the future, and no one will be able to find a "userfied" article located in one editor's account, an editor likely to be demoralized by all this and to have quit Wikipedia entirely. A better resolution, if consensus is against a general authority person being notable yet, is to redirect (leaving edit history intact, and permitting reinstatement of the article later with proper credit in edit history). Really, userfying is insulting and awful. Userfy to whose account? The creator is not the only editor or supporter of the article, note. Again, i do !vote Keep as I do think Wilson is notable, the church sources are enough in my view, and my review of other general authority persons is that they gain more and more coverage, so expect more about Wilson too, so why not keep the article now. --doncram 01:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion noted. But it's not your work that would be userfied in your own userspace. And it's not actually "insulting and awful" to everybody (there are plenty of people who would feel more frustrated/demoralized by having their work buried under a redirect rather than being able to easily see, show, or improve it directly). It's an option if someone wants to request it is all. --— Rhododendrites talk |  02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I agree that there is a lot of prejudice towards and even unfair treatment of "new religious movements" by some (including some hyperactive) editors, looking at this article by itself it really reads like a resume. That is here's a person who's held this and that job and position in his career, and all sourced (as others have mentioned) by sources related to his employer. If no one outside has bothered to praise or criticize him I don't really believe he's notable, and what's more I don't think a worthwhile or interesting article (beyond the resume or who's who) could be written. (All regardless of tons of "other stuff.") Borock (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW it's harder for a religious figure to obtain "notability" since in general they do not try to draw attention to themselves. Borock (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, have no objection to covering LDS General Authority members if they pass WP:GNG. Former members with obits in the NYT would likely pass GNG and we should have articles about them. Current members who have only received coverage from their own congregations are not notable (in my view). Support, absolutely, the creation of articles about notable former members rather than non-notable (yet) current members. WP:TOOSOON applies here too. And support, again absolutely, the inclusion of those former members in appropriate lists. St★lwart111 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but I can't declare myself "pope" and be considered notable, right? This analogy has been raised in the context of other LDS AFDs - cardinals are a small group, appointed for life, responsible for a billion Catholics. LDS GAs are a larger group, appointed for temporary terms, responsible for millions. Cardinals are likely to receive coverage as a group (in much the same way as a football team) and as individuals in their own diocese. Where they do not, we presume they are as notable as their colleagues. There is no such presumption for LDS GAs who, from experience thus far, generally only receive coverage from their own churches. Equivalency in terms of rank does not equate to equivalency in terms of notability. St★lwart111 22:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The essay you point to has two major qualifications: "major denominations" and "People listed as bishops in Pentecostalist denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third party coverage." I'm guessing the latter is because Pentecostalism is not considered a major denomination but I may be wrong. Be that as it may, LDS members make up less than 1% of Christians, hardly a major denomination. --NeilN talk to me 23:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find citing a common outcome as a prescription for the process it purports only to describe problematic, but I know I'm generally in the minority on that matter (see for example the number of keep votes at every high school AfD regardless of sources). Still, when analogizing and reading between the lines is necessary on top of that, something is amiss. --— Rhododendrites talk |  01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bearian:, GAs are nothing like cardinals. There are about as many GAs as Cardinals in the world, even though the Mormon church has 13-14 million congregants and the Catholic church more than a billion. Furthermore, Catholic cardinals are careerist priests and Mormon GAs aren't. pbp 03:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The LDS Church is one of the 5 largest denominations in the US. The reason Pentacostal bishops are generally not notable is actually more why Mormon bishops are generally not notable, but a little more complex. Pentacostalism is not a unified denomination like the Roman Catholic Church, but a complex set of similar religious groups, lacking any centralized administration. Bishops in Pentacostal denominations lack the clear higherarchical standing that bishops in other denominations have. For what it is worth, it appears that bishops in The Episcoal Church are considered notable, but there are about twice as many Mormon as Episcopalians in the US (and probably about 4 times as many Mormons total), so it would seem Mormon general authroties become more notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this isn't the "U.S. Wikipedia". People don't become notable because their position has magical properties. The essay cited is based on the notion that certain things are notable because they usually meet GNG. This has not been shown with LDS officials. --NeilN talk to me 03:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)"The LDS Church is big, and these are high-ranking LDS officials, so they must be notable" doesn't quite make the argument. Also, keep in mind that there are fewer Episcopal bishops than there are general authorities, and Episcopal bishops are careerist priests while Mormon general authorities aren't. The reason something is allowed to be considered notable isn't because of the size of congregants presidents over, it's usually because there is a belief that reliable, independent sources do exist for most or all people in that category. I do not believe that reliable, independent sources exists for most or all the people in this category. pbp 03:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a close call for automatic notability based on the church post. I don't think there is consensus about this particular post, so I won't push that. There is some material out there which might provide verifiable sourcing but in my judgement there is not enough for a GNG pass. Much of the personal information in this piece is unsourced. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "magical" reference above, especially in light of some other mockings of Mormons, certainly sounds like an attack comment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_June_10&oldid=1142628596"