Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 May	28 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Fantasy prone personality. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overactive imagination

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

This is simply a common English phrase, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An AfD for Overactive Imagination (the formal, capitalized term) resulted in a redirect to Fantasy prone personality, but I don't see a verifiable basis for that, so do not suggest it for the uncapitalized form either. Agyle (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since other one already links there, maybe it would be best to just redirect it, even if it's not the best outcome? It would be kind of odd to only have one variation of a phrase redirect somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fantasy prone personality per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As NinjaRobotPirate says, it would be odd to only have a redirect for the upper case version. Overactive Imagination is also the alternative lede title of the Fantasy article so it is logical. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the rationale for a redirect; my opposition is because Overactive Imagination seems to be a made-up psychology term coined by a first-day Wikipedia editor a week or two ago. Including typo redirects of made-up terms just seems to be compounding Wikipedia inaccuracies. Agyle (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee it isn't a term "coined" by someone a week or two ago. There are many online forums and blogs that refer to people suffering an "overactive imagination", usually as a symptom of some actually-recognised disorder or in the context of the non-medical Overactive Imagination Disorder (OID) which a great many people (alarmingly) seem to have diagnosed themselves as having. It makes sense for us to have the title redirected as suggested above but it certainly shouldn't have its own article. Would suggest that Over-active imagination (a common alternate with hyphenation) also be created and redirected. Stalwart111 00:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider discussion of overactive imaginations as different from discussion of Overactive Imagination (capitalized); and the authors of the separate Wikipedia articles about them seemed to agree. Though I admit I did not survey blogs and internet forums, and it does seem almost likely that people outside academia have used the term before. I'm not even ruling out the possibility that it occurs in scientific literature, but no references have been cited. Agyle (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's certainly possible and I didn't trawl them all to determine if the mentions were capitalised or not - all were unreliable sources anyway, so doing as much would be pointless. I think we're pretty much on the same page. Stalwart111 05:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you (@Agyle:) read this: Fantasy proneness is a trait that can be equated with having an "overactive imagination". Byrd, Jonathan S. (2003), "Creative genius or psychotic? A look at the strong positive correlation between creativity and psychoses", Monitor on Psychology. --Bejnar (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bejnar, no, your assumption was wrong. I also don't believe that was published in Monitor on Psychology; volume/issue? The link at the top of the cited page says "Readers should remember that these are papers by students, not psychologists," and the page in question has "peer commentary" from other students, with a followup response from the author. I would not consider that a reliable source. Agyle (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Stalwart111 00:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. See cite to Byrd 2003 above. --Bejnar (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per my reply above, that seems to be a student paper, not a reliable source. Agyle (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a student paper, but you cannot deny that it was peer reviewed. I stand by my analysis that the best outcome for Wikipedia is to redirect this, rather than delete. If nothing else, that might help stave off re-creation. --Bejnar (talk) 02:58, 5 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 Modern Drunkard Magazine. Redirected to Modern Drunkard Magazine. If there's anything worth merging, the content is still available through the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Kelly Rich

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

Editor of a minority interest magazine. Article already exists for the magazine. This has no refs other than his own magazine. At best it should be merged into the Magazine article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Modern Drunkard Magazine. Subject appears to fail WP:BIO. I couldn't find enough on this guy to ring the notability bell and the sources fail WP:RS. I'm not sure there is much to merge given the paucity of reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per nom and User:Ad Orientem. -- GreenC 01:16, 3 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 WP:CSD#A7 ~Alison C. (Crazytales) (talk, edits) 21:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Ajwad bin abdullah al Fassi

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

Biography that doesn't assert the notability of its subject ~Alison C. (Crazytales) (talk, edits) 21:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:CSD#A7 ~Alison C. (Crazytales) (talk, edits) 21:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Sheik Dr, Muhammad Ibrahim Al Fassy Al Macci Ash Shazulee (Raliallahu Anhu)

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

Biography that doesn't assert the notability of its subject ~Alison C. (Crazytales) (talk, edits) 21:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Memoria Pichilemina

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

Article about small-town history web-page created 1 year ago by Wikipedia user:Diego Grez (aka. Kuñall and MisterWiki). No evidence of notability (WP:N) except one-time mention in a few local newspapers. (this might also possibly be a case of WP:COI, but lets discuss relevance here first). Sietecolores (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination was incorrectly formatted. I have reformatted the nomination using {{Afd2}}. Mz7 (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Sietecolores: - I'm a tad confused. User:Acalycine created this page, no? NickCT (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes User:Acalycine created the page, but did so apparently on Diego Grez's (Kuñall) suggestion. Sietecolores (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the CoI seems to be irrelevant here. Suggesting an article to be created by others via WP:Requested articles is precisely what we suggest editors with a CoI do. Although Diego Grez may have suggested it, he never edited the page. Huon (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has already made clear I am related to the article's subject, I founded the website, and so I am not voting in this discussion, to avoid COI accusations. However, I think that the website satisfies the web content notability guideline. Why? It conforms to the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, yes, it does. There are two major sources in the article, the recent articles of El Expreso de la Costa and La Voz de la Región. Both news articles are one-page-long, they are not simple "mentions". We do have other articles on local Chilean websites too, like WikiLosRíos, for example. To finish, it's important to mention I'm not even making money out of the website, it's non commercial and its content is released under a libre license. This will be my sole comment, because I don't really want a COI outcry, it's the least thing I would like to experience here on Wikipedia now. Küñall (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Verifiability and one-time mention by tiny-local newspaper (I suppose now in good faith that Diego Grez has no connection with people from Pichilemu News or El Expreso de la Costa, albiet that is difficult in such small town) does makes Diego Grez's website notable. For that to happen it should have perhaps one of these..: 1) recieved some national/international recognition/prize, 2) be mentioned more than 1 time by a large national newspaper, 3) considerable traffic. Sietecolores (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not say anywhere in the notability guidelines that a website has got to be mentioned more than 1 time by a large national newspaper for it to be qualified for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria states notability for web-based content is "based on meeting one of the following criteria":
  - "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations"
- It complies with that criteria. There are two in-depth articles on the website, it passes the guideline. Küñall (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC) (By the way, this will be my actual last comment here.)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kuñall/Diego Grez, it does not complies with the criteria because its lacks significant coverage (WP:N) and you should refrein from making further comments because of WP:COI. Sietecolores (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have removed material relating to the founder from the article - if the website is notable, it is for the content, not the founder, and I can see no justification whatsoever for such off-topic detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material you deleted contained information that showed that the founder/owner/administrator Kuñall works at one of the newspapers used to "establish coverage" (a clear case of WP:COI). Besides that I insists in that coverage is not large enought, no large nationwide newspaper has covered mentioned Memoria Pichilemina, and the local newspapers have done so only once. Memoria Pichilemina has also not recived any significant recognition or prize. Sietecolores (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, there appears to be a clear COI - as I have made clear at the thread on the noticeboard. It isn't however necessary to retain off-topic material in the article to demonstrate this, as it is all visible in the history. As for whether the article (minus the off-topic material) deserves deletion, I've so far voiced no opinion either way, and should probably avoid doing so, given my previous interactions with Kuñall. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are local press only and therefore insufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage not enough coverage. Only local newspapapers (connected to the owner adn creator Kunall). Website locks significant recognition or prize. Sietecolores (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you nominated this article for deletion, it's unnecessary that you vote. I do write for El Expreso... but I have no relation to La Voz de la Región, which is published by a company from San Fernando. Küñall (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local press coverage only ,fails wp:GNG & WP:WEB. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 06:02, 2 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. Go Phightins! 01:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Crimson House (2013 Film)

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant third-party coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do also have the Theatrical Poster awaiting approval for upload as well as a Clear Channel owned advertisement and a news publication. What other items can we submit to better assist?JuggaletteJen216 (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment indicates that you may have a conflict of interest. Also, in response to what you asked, you might want to read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. G S Palmer (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You may also want to read our guide for editors with a conflict of interest. G S Palmer (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, but without prejudice to recreation if it gains enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. This just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. I'll leave a more detailed note on the editor's page explaining NFILM in more detail. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Lemi Ponifasio per sources [1] and [2] stating he is the director. It's a cheap fix that if the short film becomes something later that reaches WP:NFILM standards then it can be redone. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong film. Wrong country. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete without prejudice. Not completely unsourcable. The film premieres on Thursday the 29th.[3][4] If it gets the requisite coverage to meet WP:NF it can come back... and what might then be undeleted, is just a tad better than what was written by its inexperienced contributor. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the option of re-creation if it gains notability. G S Palmer (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mail2tor

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

Not finding any reliable sources. (Fails GNG / NWEB). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm adding more reliable citations. Give me time, User:RhododendritesAlphaslucas ^talk 09:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Ok, User:Rhododendrites I've added some reliable sources. Alphaslucas ^talk 10:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS (and possibly WP:HEYMANN). Widefox; talk 10:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 0 WP:RS fails WP:GNG (I'm not counting WP:UGC and passing mentions as significant coverage). Widefox; talk 11:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also found zero reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. None of the currently cited sources (after the above comments said they were added) met what I'd consider "reliable" (see WP:RS). Agyle (talk) 22:34, 4 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 Community gardens in Nebraska. Before merging, applying a bit of WP:TROUT wouldn't be a bad idea either. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska

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

I merged this newly-created list into Community gardens in Nebraska, but it has been recreated by its creator as a stand-alone article. There is insufficient content to justify two articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Change to List - Seems to me that this article might survive as something like List of community gardens in Portland, Oregon. Seems so trivial though, and I'm having trouble seeing the references. Deletion wouldn't be bad either. NickCT (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it was just started. The Portland list has been referenced as a model already, at Talk:Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska. Notability of a list has already been established by discussion and references provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden. Give it some time here. --doncram 22:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Portland list isn't a good example of how this should progress: two years after it was started, one entry is sourced to Facebook, another to a dead link on a site probably associated with the garden, and the rest to one source, a directory, and there's no lead section or any prose outside of the list entries. Peter James (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anything, that AfD decided that the list should be at Community gardens in Nebraska. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Pigsonthewing, in fact, that is NOT what was "decided" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden. You can still clearly see that there are two comments there for Merge; one for Nebraska, and the second one for Omaha, which also highlighted that the list does not contain a single garden in Nebraska that isn't in Omaha. And, the second one is actually from the same User: Ammodramus who, one hour after suggesting the Nebraska list, changed their position to support the Omaha list. You seem to have a habit of just saying that things happen or are decided in these discussions that back up what your opinion, rather than what actually occurs. There was no poll that tabulated all the votes in that discussion. That AfD didn't "decide" anything so clearly as you try to make it sound. If you think that the List for Nebraska should superseded the List for Omaha, please, in one of these discussions somewhere, give a reason. And preferably, make edits to the appropriate article with references. ScottHW (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The closing admin's statement, in full was: "The result was merge to Community gardens in Nebraska". Note that it was not "The result was merge to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska". Your allegation of "just saying that things happen or are decided in these discussions that back up what your opinion, rather than what actually occurs" is a baseless and unacceptable slur, which you should retract. As I've said to you elsewhere (and as people can decide here, if they wish), feel free to propose moving Community gardens in Nebraska to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska. There is still no need for two articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I won't be retracting what I said. I will acknowledge that User:Number_57 did cite that as the when they decided to close the AfD. This was a mistake of oversight, probably because the Admin was not actually involved in the discussion, read through quickly, and then acted. I will reiterate that if you spend 30 seconds and read the AfD, you will see two comments tagged as supporting Merge. They were both from User: Ammodramus. The first suggested merging to a Nebraska list, and then, 3 hrs later, based on the discussion including a lengthy list of provided references, User: Ammodramus voiced support for merging to an Omaha list. It seems that Admin User:Number_57 missed this when they acted to close the AfD.ScottHW (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        User:ScottHW, you've completely misstated my position, and I'll urge you to go back and re-read the AfD. My initial !vote was for deletion of the Dundee Community Gardens article, on grounds of non-notability. Later in the course of the discussion, User:Candleabracadabra suggested that the DCG article be merged to Community gardens in Nebraska, which s/he'd just created. I responded to this suggestion by questioning the notability of "CG in N", based on the paucity of sources in the article. Candle responded by coming up with an expanded set of sources, all of them related to CGs in Omaha. At this point, I changed my !vote to support the merge, with the suggestion that Candle's target article be moved to "Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska", which at the time was a redlink—the list article of that name was created about five hours after my !vote. At no point did I ever support the merge of the DCG article with any list article. Ammodramus (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        To Ammodramus: Do you just mean that you did not support a "list-article". I think that is a technicality. It is natural for any "Community gardening in AREA" type of article to include a list, whether it does yet or not, and it is fine for a list-article to have title not including the word "List". The nation-level article includes a section "By state" which is a list of states. I think that any Nebraska state-level article is going to have a list-section. So I think you might be making a distinction, that you technically did not support merger to any list-article, when ScottHW was correctly citing you as supporting merger to the Omaha article which he sees as a list-article. I haven't thoroughly checked, but perhaps ScottHW's quote that you object to was a slight misquote, as he was not seeing a distinction between an Omaha article vs. an Omaha list-article. Hopefully this was just a misunderstanding on that fine point, as I don't believe ScottHW was deliberately trying to misconstrue anything. --do ncr am 17:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I described in detail on the Talk:Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska page, merging a list of Omaha gardens into a Nebraska gardens entirely misses the point of Community gardening. Omaha has a vibrant group of community gardens which are interrelated and work together e.g. Tour de Gardens bike tour. A list of other gardens hundreds of miles away doesn't contribute to encyclopedic knowledge in any way, and obscures the significance of a community in community gardening. In response to User:Pigsonthewing's comment "insufficient content to justify two articles", the article that should be kept is the one that is actively being developed by a number of editors, the article about community gardening in Omaha. At no time has any editing whatsoever been done to a list of garden across the entire state, other than the creation of the page in response to the AfD discussion of the now-defunct Dundee Community Garden article. - - - ScottHW (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC) - - -[reply]
- Those editors can just as easily work at Community gardens in Nebraska. The community that purportedly exists in Omaha is of no consequence here; it's not Wikipedia's job to foster or promote that; and we can describe it just as well in the more widely-focussed article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Pigsonthewing By your logic that a "more widely-focused article" is the best decision, why not have a List of Community gardens in the United States of America, or a List of Community gardens on Earth for that matter. I, along with several other editors, have consistently stated that we will write a coherent article about community gardens in Omaha, about the community of community gardens in Omaha. You have still, in any of these discussions, not provided any reason whatsoever that a broader article would have any benefits over a more focused article. ScottHW (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - But you haven't written such an article, have you? We're discussing what has been written, not what might be. My argument is that we don't need two articles, and I have made a case for that. I'm still waiting for the citations I requested from you earlier, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I definitely have started writing that article. I think you need more practice using your computer machine... Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska was started by me, then edited by User:Download and User:Doncram, and then immediately Merged... by YOU! With no discussion. That rapidly descended into an Edit War, for which you were blocked. I'm surprised you don't remember that happening. It was yesterday, and you had to request an unblock. ScottHW (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Community gardens in Nebraska. Article is nothing but a chart. Doesn't matter how many people care deeply about it, WP:GNG is the guideline here. Community gardening is great and all that but seriously? Two lists? Naah. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Call for immediate administrative closure. There's no need for AFD attention. A proposal to merge was previously opened, and is ongoing, at Talk:Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska#Merger proposal. It was proposed by User:Gilliam in this notice calling for discussion and linking to where the discussion should happen. The current AFD nominator since removed the notice, and has since also commented at the discussion. This was all discussed also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pigsonthewing reported by Doncram (Result: Both blocked for 48 hours). The current AFD nominator was participating in the 3RR discussion at 18:06, and opened this AFD at 18:54, before being blocked. He was unblocked on basis that he "promised not to engage in further disruption," but had opened this AFD already. This AFD should just be closed.
Seriously, there is no need for far-away editors to apply attention here, it is just extending dramah. Let the editor(s) developing content on community gardens do what they want to do, and they will make sensible decision to merge in due time, if there is not sufficiently different material for two lists. If anyone wants to butt in, do contribute to the article, and/or comment at the ongoing merger proposal, a less confrontational medium than AFD. Assume good faith and some competence on the part of the productive editor(s). --doncram 22:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And you were the other blocked editor. If you wish to assert that this AfD is disruptive, take the matter to ANI; otherwise you should strike your false allegations here. And do explain the significance and meaning of "far-away editors". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - "False allegations"? And you surmise something untoward from my use of "faraway" term? Not faraway = editor ScottHW, who I perceive to be local, and Ammodramus who takes pics in Nebraska and offers at ScottHW't talk along those lines, and anyone else with balance of relevant local knowledge, interest, access to news sources that faraway editors don't have as easily. Faraway = everyone else, including me. Let's not personally battle; I don't expect to comment more here. --doncram 00:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, Doncram, "false allegations", because you clearly can't substantiate them. And from your further comments, about "far-away editors" I now surmise that you believe that this matter only "needs" to be discussed by those who are geographically local to its subject. Wikipedia has a number of policies about that, not east WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - User:doncram is correct, I do live in Omaha. I have been to the community gardens I write about, many times. And I have used the "primary daily newspaper of Nebraska" as a reference. "Far-away" are editors like User:Pigsonthewing, who, from literally the other side of the planet, state that the newspaper is not "Reliable", and/or is not sufficient to connote "Notability". We can't all live in Manhattan and have The New Yorker write about the subjects of articles we are trying to write. But after 129 years, the Omaha World Herald is qualified to verify facts like what year a community garden was founded. If you feel otherwise, you should give real justification, rather than just hurl belittling comments across the ocean. You're entitled to your Opinion about whether the List of Community Gardens should be drawn from the Omaha community, or from across all of Nebraska. But for Merge/Delete decisions, you're going to need to demonstrate more than your Opinion. ScottHW (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Please provide a citation for me saying that a newspaper is not reliable in this issue; or retract that statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Pigs Citations: You literally are on the other side of the planet. (source: User:Pigsonthewing) You began the AfD process on the Dundee Community Garden article I wrote, citing Notability as your criticism. (source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden. As that discussion continued, numerous independent references were added to the article, including references from the Omaha World Herald newspaper. (source: [Dundee Community Garden:Revision history] After starting the AfD process, you took no further part in the discussion, even though your Notability concerns were addressed with newspaper references. That is an implicit statement that the newspaper references were not worthy of Notability. Other editors directly stated that the OWH newspaper was unworthy of connoting Notability, or criticized the Reliability, which is why my statement was "editors like User:Pigsonthewing". ScottHW (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Neither my name nor user name are "Pigs". I asked you to cite your claim that I had stated 'that the newspaper is not "Reliable"' (the inner quote marks are yours). You haven't, and can't. Your claim was again bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, it's a new article that's still being edited and not obviously inappropriate or of a type usually deleted. Discussion can continue on the talk page(s). Peter James (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be a new article, but it's an unnecessary one, when we already have Community gardens in Nebraska. Why does that not suffice? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article Community gardens in Nebraska only exists as a response to a suggestion from the AfD discussion about Dundee Community Garden. It was created, with no content, at approximately the same time as I created the more appropriate Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, which actually represents a "community" of gardens. Every bit of the content on the Nebraska article was poached from the already-merged Dundee Community Garden article, and from the description (with sources), and the List, that I I put into the Omaha article, User:Pigsonthewing, I don't get what your deal is with this whole string of discussions, Deleting and Merging the articles that editors are actively trying to develop. If you don't want overlapping articles, then just allow the Nebraska article to be closed; no one wrote ANY content for it. I am actively developing the Omaha list, why should that one be the one to be closed?? ScottHW (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, both articles were created recently, and in short space of time. That is not in dispute. However, we only need - if we need any - one. As for your allegation of "poaching", perhaps you ought to re-read the licence terms which you and everyone else agrees to when uploading content to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - In this case, "poaching" did not refer to anything to do with the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license with which I am well familiar. I am highlighting that only one of these two articles (the Omaha list) is actively being written with content, including references. The other (the Nebraska list) is merely a copy. That meaning, and the fact it highlights should be perfectly clear... because I directly said it in my comment: "It [the Nebraska list] was created, with no content...", and the fact of this matter is clear by simply looking back through the history of the Nebraska list article. I do recognize that I understated the content; the original article had two sentences, one of which was factually incorrect and used a poorly formatted reference, and the other which was copied from what had originally been written for Dundee Community Garden. Within 10 minutes, the article had been edited to include a third sentence, which was also factually incorrect (about USDA funding). For a Merge target article, into which all of the content from the Dundee Community Garden article (which was 6011kb and had represented 11 references) was ostensibly to be merged, that seemed very close to "no content". I stand by my description. User:Pigsonthewing Why are you so insistent on the copy being the article that is kept, and the original article being merged into it?? ScottHW (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Earlier on, I said to you "As I've said to you elsewhere (and as people can decide here, if they wish), feel free to propose moving Community gardens in Nebraska to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska. There is still no need for two articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, after which time I proposed Community gardens in Nebraska be merged. You'll clearly see that at the top of the article. If you're having trouble, it's a rectangular box with a little purple flag, and a red and a blue arrow pointed at one another. My question remains: why are you so insistent that the Nebraska article be kept? Without an actual reason to support your position of favoring the Nebraska article over the Omaha article, I expect you to join that Merge discussion I started and support that the Nebraska article be merged into the Omaha article, which would clearly address your repeated critique of not having two articles. And also to relent in your Melvillian attacks on this list article. ScottHW (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Community gardens in Nebraska. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support merging that article to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska (or at least moving it if they are merged as you propose), only because the creator and main editor of Community gardens in Nebraska has been blocked as a sockpuppet, also as all content is specific to Omaha. Obviously "Community gardens in Nebraska" wouldn't be a suitable redirect and would have to be moved to a more suitable redirect title such as "Community gardens in Omaha". Peter James (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Community gardens in Nebraska has multiple authors, so the original creator being a sock is not an issue here. And if that article is moved or merged, then of course the current name should be kept as a redirect. Others might be created, but we're not limited to just one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Nebraska" alone would be misleading for an article limited to Omaha, so a redirect wouldn't be appropriate. Editors more involved in that part of the encyclopedia appear to prefer the Omaha article. Peter James (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Omaha article should be merged into the Nebraska one and then the redirect will go - appropriately - from city to state. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge material from this article into Community gardens in Nebraska, then move Community gardens in Nebraska to this title. The Nebraska article contains only material about CGs in Omaha, and its creator hasn't supplied any sources addressing CGs outside of Omaha, so the Omaha title is more appropriate. As of this writing, the Nebraska article contains all of the information in the Omaha article, so the merge step is already done; it remains only to move that article to this more suitable title, eliminating the current duplication. Ammodramus (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you wrote that, the article has acquired a section on Lincoln, Nebraska. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, editor RexxS who self-identifies as living in the West Midlands, England, has helpfully added some information on community gardens in Lincoln, sourced to "Community CROPS", which is an organization that coordinates community gardens in Lincoln. There is no source in the Nebraska article that supports anything about community gardening at the state level. RexxS changed the lede, making it appear to have a state-level source, but that source is merely a Google-UK search. The lede currently reads: "There are numerous community gardens in the U.S. state of Nebraska, mainly clustered around the principal cities of Omaha and Lincoln.^[1]

^ "community gardens in Nebraska". Google Search. Retrieved 28 May 2014.

I don't think that adequately supports the state-level article. --do ncr am 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Community gardens in Nebraska. Lincoln has community gardens as well and there may be others. It seems sensible to have a single decent-sized state-wide article, rather than a collection of small city articles. A broader scope will attract more editors and there's no reason why those mainly interested in Omaha shouldn't edit that section, rather than a stand-alone article. The reader will also benefit from being able to see all of the information on Nebraska on a single page, rather than on several. --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi RexxS. Thanks, I am glad you have contributed to the Community gardens in Nebraska article. Your adding a section and two source footnotes to Community CROPS of Lincoln is a help towards making a case that a state-wide article can exist. Let me be entirely clear: I think it is relevant to note that you are from the West Midlands of England, where editor Pigsonthewing has associations (he set up an editathon event at the West Midlands Police Museum, for example). (It is relevant to note because the location of editors has been made an issue, above.) I suppose you are on-line and/or off-line friends, which is fine, and you don't need to comment on that. I personally welcome you to contributing in this general topic area and here, which is perfectly consistent with me having noted somewhere above that I supposed local editors would have more access to sources and so on. What I said allowed for anyone with interest (local or not) to contribute. It's great that you have interest.

- I disagree that merging city-level info to a state-level article is necessarily better. Why not merge the state-level article to the nation-level article? Wouldn't that be better?

- About the Nebraska state-level article, I disagree that your Google UK search, which you added to the lede, supports the wikipedia-notability of the topic. For list-articles at AFD, many editors will argue that coverage of the topic at a general level is needed, else the list is a mere collection of indiscriminate information. Until the recent creation of the Nebraska article, there were no state-level articles in Wikipedia. See Category:Community gardening in the United States. There is a country level article Community gardening in the United States (with a "By state" section not including Nebraska and not including Oregon), and there are three city-level articles: for List of community gardens in Portland, Oregon, Community gardens in New Orleans, and this Omaha, Nebraska article. It seems to me that there are some communities of community gardens, at a city level, which are clearly notable, including for Omaha. There are sources on the topic of the city articles. It has not been established anywhere that there is a state-level wikipedia-valid topic. --do ncr am 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Battleground. C'mon people. This subject area has become a battleground, and nothing is being gained by prolonging this AFD. See wp:BATTLEGROUND and see wp:WINNING. I think it is fine that RexxS and maybe others wish to develop the Nebraska state-level article some, although it may not survive a future AFD because there are not yet any sources supporting the state-level topic. However I think there is plenty of evidence, even consensus, within these discussions (above, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden, the two articles' talk pages, and perhaps elsewhere), that there are sources supporting the topic of community gardens in Omaha, and that being a community of community gardens.

In the Dundee Community Garden AFD, editor Candleabracadabra provided 7 Omaha-level sources (not yet added to this article, given contention): seven empty city lots to be turned into community gardens, City planning document, local award, News story on city council vote for community garden, news story on a community garden makeover, story on celebration of community gardens and another story on a community garden program in Omaha. Candleabracadabra commented "Seems to be kind of a big deal in Omaha." and Ammodramus replied "Merge per Candleabracadabra, who's come up with enough sources to establish notability for a community-gardens-in-Omaha article; move target article to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, since the sources don't seem to cover any other locations in the state."

It is interesting that the Omaha gardeners have links with the Portland gardeners, city-level community to city-level community, not state-to-state (I saw this in some source that i can't find now, about Omaha and Portland representatives sharing on some idea at a national conference, i think about the bike tour between gardens.) Thus the topic of the current article is supported. If anything, the state-level article should be deleted. But I suggest we just KEEP them both for a while, and let productive editors from anywhere try to develop them for a while. These AFDs, contentious editing at the articles (e.g. silly, passive-aggressive tagging), and so on, are not making this a pleasant environment for mainspace article editing. I suggest to the closer that this be closed "No consensus". Sincerely, --do ncr am 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: There is an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hill Farm Community Garden, which may be of interest. Please consider commenting there. Also, FYI, I have given notice of this current AFD at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. --do ncr am 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Community gardens in Nebraska. This duplicates information that should be there and that is a much more logical search term. Carrite (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Community gardens in Nebraska, as above. --Bejnar (talk) 00:00, 5 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 decker ^talk 03:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy (Hidden social network)

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

Not finding even one good source on the subject (fails GNG, et al.). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's pretty bloody hard to find info on it in the clear web. Are you even aloud to cite sources to the onion net? §Alphaslucas§ (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter where the sources are, just that they're reliable according to Wikipedia standards. I'm not sure of any reliable sources on Tor that aren't also available elsewhere, but I don't know. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue explicitly addressed in WP:RS, and my guess would be that community consensus would not accept such references, but unless someone is claiming such sources establish notability, I don't think it matters for this discussion. Agyle (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added three more citations that according to Wikipedia standards should be reliable.Take a look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_(Hidden_social_network) Alphaslucas ^talk 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references assert that Galaxy exists, but it's all passing mentions or directory listings. No evidence of the "significant coverage" re: WP:42. --LukeSurl^{t c} 09:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete which of these are RS? lack of WP:RS fails WP:GNG (I'm not counting the weak and passing mentions as significant coverage in RS). Widefox; talk 12:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any reliable sources, didn't meet notability standards. This is a difficult topic to search for, since "galaxy" is a common word with many meanings, so it's extremely possible I overlooked valid sources. I would note that the article's current references strain my acceptance of "good faith" intent on the part of the editors. This reference in particular is a page of meaningless gibberish, with the phrase "GALAXY SOCIAL NETWORK" among the babble, apparently as some fraudulent mechanism to attract search engine notice or something, but in the interest of fairness, it could also have been cited due to incompetence, illiteracy, or perhaps it's a legitimate source steganographically encrypted, or was changed since the time it was cited. Agyle (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not even sure if it is verifiable, much less notable. --Bejnar (talk) 02:49, 5 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. Go Phightins! 01:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Terentjev

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

This player completely fails to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY, similar to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaanus_Sorokin --Nug (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Nug (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --Nug (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail all relevant notability guidelines. --Sander Säde 06:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Reso lute 13:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria #6 of WP:NHOCKEY “Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship).” Member of the Estonia men's national ice hockey team from 1996 to 2009[5]. Dolovis (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you have multiple non-trivial, independent sources sufficient to demonstrate a GNG pass such as to justify this keep vote? Reso lute 13:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the other Afd linked, while he meets NHOCKEY he still fails GNG which is the ultimate decider. There is no coverage of this individual to be found. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We both agree that he is to be presumed notable per NHOCKEY until proven otherwise. Presumably GNG can be demonstrated with the help of Estonian sources, which I am not able to search due to the language barrier. Have you tried looking for Estonian sources? Dolovis (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes actually I have. And NHOCKEY isn't presumed notable until proven otherwise, you should read it. Its actually notable until questioned. Being that the nom is a very vigorous defender of Estonian articles, I find it highly unlikely they didn't also look at Estonian sources. -DJSasso (talk) 00:15, 4 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. Go Phightins! 01:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mihkel Võrang

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

This player completely fails to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaanus_Sorokin --Nug (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Nug (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --Nug (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria #6 of WP:NHOCKEY “Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship).” Member of the Estonia men's national ice hockey team from 2010 to 2014.[6]. Dolovis (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While he meets nhockey by playing in a lower non-championship division of the world championships. He does not pass GNG. There are no sources about him to be found. Being that a player is still required to pass GNG ultimately this needs to be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We both agree that he is to be presumed notable per NHOCKEY until proven otherwise. Presumably GNG can be demonstrated with the help of Estonian sources, which I am not able to search due to the language barrier. Have you tried looking for Estonian sources? Dolovis (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes actually I have. I am also sure the nominator did as well being from that region. Having dealt with the nom in the past I would find it highly unlikely they would nominate an Estonian unless they could not prove them notable. I would also note, its not notable until proven otherwise, its notable until questioned. The minute the notability is questioned it must be proven. -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 4 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 improvements from Philg88 Go Phightins! 01:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Praveenprem

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

Prod expired with 2 sources added. But this article is completely unreadable and nearly gibberish The Banner talk 18:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/Wikify I found this article while searching for Praveen Prem. I think he just speaks by WP:GNG, but the article needs a lot of help, not the least of which is moving it to the proper name spacing and dealing with the autobiography issues. PaintedCarpet (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that it will be possible to establish notability, but the article requires more work to bring it up to standard, plus a move to Praveen Prem. I've cleaned up the lead as a first step. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious autobiographical WP:PROMO piece by a WP:SPA. The first reference fails WP:RS and the second is far too brief to count towards establishing notability. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the WP:NACTOR bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moved to Praveen Prem. References fixed up. Notable per actors guidelines. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have rewritten the article to address previous concerns over unreadability, promotional tone and autobiography. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now it is in a far more good state (after the addition of sources). Now it passes our notability guidelines. Jim Carter ^(talk) 19:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meltemi (operating system)

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

In the previous deletion discussion the consensus was Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. This still applies. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't have the ability to look at the previous version of this article but based on what I see in this one, and the comments from the last AfD discussion, it would seem the same issues exist. And for the record I concur with the consensus from that discussion. This would seem to be a potential CSD G-4 candidate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read CSD G4 again. Anyone can tell that this is not a repost: it's been edited numerous times since it was created, including multiple non-minor edits. Even if it were originally a repost (which it isn't; it's a completely new article), it's been edited enough times that it definitely wouldn't be a repost anymore. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please stop the disallowed practice of WP:LAWYERING. G4 would apply since the reason for the deletion in the previous AfD (lack of notability) still applies. And additionally the previous AfD settled that A7 would definitely apply. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the whole point of G4 is, and always has been, to get rid of content that's already been deleted at AFD. Anyone can tell that this content was never before at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually G-4 applies even if there has been editing, if the same problems identified in the original AfD are still present. G-4 is only disallowed if the new editing/version has corrected those issues. As far as I can see that is not the case here. See WP:CSDX. -Ad Orientem (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read the actual criterion, which "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". This criterion is for reposts, and the essay has it wrong. Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the same problem that lead to the first deletion still exists, then common sense would suggest that the article is not substantially different. Your defense appears to be relying heavily on legalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic article based on rumor and hearsay — in major venues such as The Register, but still. Blogs and news websites citing each other and what they overheard/interpret about a product that may at some point have been in development simply cannot pass for reliable reporting, nor in-depth coverage of a topic. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, required by WP:GNG; however, Wikipedia policy in WP:CRYSTAL is exceptionally clear: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Agyle (talk) 00:42, 5 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. Go Phightins! 01:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Rosario

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

No WP:IS in article, could not find any. Emmy nomination does not seem to meet guidelines for WP:BIO Zeus^u|c 18:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST....William 11:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Timeout Drawer

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

Small band that hasn't existed since 2006 ReferencePlz (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in Pitchfork[7][8], Allmusic[9][10][11][12], PopMatters[13], Dusted[14], Splendid[15]; Chicago Tribune interview[16]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula. Plenty of existing coverage, including more reviews of the band's works at Tiny Mix Tapes [17][18] and Exclaim! [19]. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 17:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly meets WP:NBAND. Respectfully suggest nom reconsider nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 03:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David I Orenstein

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

Unsourced autobiography of a non-notable professor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps speedily under A7. I had it tagged as such but he removed it. Zeus^u|c 17:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a Speedy Delete -- full professor and chair is an assertion of notability; it might not be enough to pass WP:PROF but way more than enough to pass speedy deletion.

True, even the assertion of notability suffices to avoid a speedy delete. Unfortunately, in this case, the assertion is unverifiable -- there does not appear to be any evidence that Orenstein is anything other than the librarian at MEC. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I wanted to head off a quick SNOW/SPEEDY though. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, check out the talk page, maybe he can add some verifyable and notable info. Lets assume good faith Tomato 33 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:PROF. ~~Article cites no sources thus failing WP:BLP. (That's an automatic delete unless fixed).~~ Beyond which this is an obvious autobiographical WP:PROMO. Serious candidate for G-11 CSD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noting addition of some sources. Subject however still fails WP:PROF and many of the sources are not reliable. And the article is still an obvious WP:PROMO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears to be chief librarian at his college, which is not so much an academic position as an administrative one (at a lower level than the threshold set by WP:PROF for administrative positions). I don't see much evidence of him having a role as a regular faculty member, and the "chair" claim appears to be a reference to his position as library chief. As such, I think WP:GNG would be a better fit than WP:PROF, but I don't see any evidence of notability through that criterion either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the head librarian at a major university library, I believe, would be enough for a WP:PROF pass, but other than that I think David Eppstein's analysis is correct that GNG is the better guideline for the librarian duties, and I don't see a pass here. There may be something in the prof. position, but it hasn't been documented. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is insulting! "Delete" because of academic position? CUNY librarians have had faculty status for 75 years. Eppstein is writing from ignorance and bias and not fact. The credentials equal all other faculty in CUNY as well as all other responsibilities to the Academy including teaching, writing for refereed publications, community service and public speaking.

Also, this is why the whole process is subjective. I looked at several pages, including one "Carmen Trotta" (just an example don't think he should be deleted) and Orenstein's information is just as (perhaps more) valid and verifiable. Take a look. And then explain how and why the Orenstein page, which is well documented, unbiased, and as notable, should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.214.76 (talk • contribs)

Comment Please assume good faith among your fellow editors. Eppstein is writing from the viewpoint of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Calling a chief librarian equivalent to an academic department chair flies in the face of all common usage, and would require a valid reliable source for verification. As to the presence of other pages whose validity you question, please read WP:Other stuff exists to understand that this is not a valid article to make at a deletion discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I happen to think that head librarian of a university is more like a dean than a chair in rank. And librarians have faculty rank at my own university, too, meaning that they belong to the faculty senate, but this does not mean that it would be accurate to refer to them by the professor job title. Anyway, none of this really affects my opinion above. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

- Wait a second - Advertisement? - How is this so? No where on Orenstein's page does he advertise to sell ANYTHING. It is a list of noted accomplishments - all real. chronological, factual and verifiable, like all other biographies found on wikipedia. Orenstein is not selling any product or any service. This is an unfair characterization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.183.26 (talk • contribs)

Comment: I would like to point out that per the SPI inquiry, the IP on this edit is probably from the same school as the creator of the article, and is possible the creator himself. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 16:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Orenstein is selling himself. An article doesn't have to be selling a product to be promotional. If it exists solely to praise and promote the reputation of the subject, it is also promotional. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikidan61 is himself reading into the entry something which does not exist. In no place in the Orenstein entry does it ask to be consulted, hired, or employed in any way. It is a list of facts about the subject. Period. This is a sad state indeed, almost a form of intellectual Fascism, to think one's own bias in what they read is true for everyone. If you read other entries about people, living or dead, list their accomplishments, writings, and other information. The question to you sir is where does Orenstein "sell" himself? Please explain and give a direct and specific answer please.

Also, there is no "praise" or other adulation in the entry. Where sir, in the entry is there such a value judgement? You are implying something based on your own bias. Please, read again and give specific examples of praise. If you can find one, just one, I will agree with you.

Do you consider that some may read the entry and not praise but be revolted by the activities or just be neutral? Given that there are other ways to respond to what is read and since you do not know the intent of the creator of the entry, the idea of "selling or promoting oneself" is a stretch indeed.

Comment: I would like to point out that per the SPI inquiry, the IP on this edit is probably from the same school as the creator of the article, and is possible the creator himself. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 16:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it very ironic (and funny) that "Zeus" has called the writer above "the creator." Isn't that Zeus' job?" :-)

Comment This is written by Wikipedia itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editors_will_sometimes_be_wrong

Delete per nom. This professor is borderline notable at best. Most of the references don't meet WP:RS and the few that do refer to this individual accepting relatively obscure positions not warranting a Wikipedia article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 20:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" Subjectivity rules based on the less than esteemed comments by the editors. "Borderline notable" How do you arrive at this? And where is that line? Please explain "Obscure positions" You mean Orenstein's major programs in the United States and Internationally? If I didn't know better, I'd say this whole message board would make a great article or college class in communications or information science about how uninformed and "paper tiger" Wikipedia truly is. In its efforts at democracy, it has settled for mediocrity.

Comment All the arguments made for deletion have been valid, article doesn't meet multiple Wikipedia policies, is of a non-notable professor, and there are several several sock puppets adding comments and not signing them. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 22:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" As of 5/30/14 this article is no longer an "orphan." Someone independently linked it to the Medgar Evers College faculty page

I don't think that is going to change many votes. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"Comment" The reason why Carmen Trotta is "allowed" is because the reference are from a source that satisfies WP:RS (check it out) And if you want the article to keep on existing, add a list of articles here and show us (according to regulation) why the sources are correct. P.S -read the WP:RS before commenting again :) Tomato 33 (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment" Super! Based on this direction and the need for non-primary sources, the entry for Orenstein has been updated to include articles from a respected professional journal and respected professional association. Take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleolibrairan (talk • contribs) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" The problem here is that source 1) does not meet WP:notability (Read it, and understand why, you must understand the reasons, being a librarian). It states that you were one of the 30 leaders chosen to be honored at a meeting. This source is about you getting a "Ten percent across-the-board raises for professional staff, which translate to about $7000 per person, and increases for non-MLS supervisors as well". Look, the reason why you think you are notable is the blog and your website and your stance in evolution right? If you find a source that meets the WP:RS AND is wp:NOTABLE then you've got yourself a page.

Look at it from the wiki perspective, if we gave every blogger that had more than half a million viewers a page we'd get stuck. Check out List_of_blogs to see what other people/bloggers have gotten as coverage to be able to exist on Wikipedia. There is a page on wikipedia about "the bear club" a blog on teddy bears, I mean really? Teddy bears?. The reason the page wasn't deleted is because the blog had coverage on bbc 1 and 2, and a few others. Tomato 33 (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tomato33 appears to be confusing the notability of topics (i.e. things that might be the subject of a Wikipedia article) with the notability of sources. Sources are neither notable nor non-notable. They may be either reliable or not, and we really only want the reliable ones, and they may include coverage of the topic that is significant or not (and we really only want the significant coverage). In this case, the Library Journal profile of Orenstein is both reliable and significant, and does count toward the weight of coverage for this individual. However, it appears to be the only source which meets these criteria. We might, possibly (although unlikely) end up with an article on Orenstein as a notable librarian, but based on available sources, not as a notable secular humanist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like tomato33 (great name BTW) isn't a fan of the Orenstein page. Ok. No hard feelings. But when the editors ask for evidence and it is provided, to then minimize the evidence really speaks to bias more than editorial fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleolibrairan (talk • contribs) — Paleolibrairan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A few random comments...

The IP address, 199.219.183.26, geolocates to location: "Brooklyn, New York, United States, North America", organization: "Medgar Evers College".
While it is true that librarians in universities are generally considered faculty, and the head of the library is generally considered equal to a department chair or possibly a dean, I can't find any reliable source which explicitly states that in this case. What appears to be the authoritative announcement of his appointment only refers to him as "Chief Librarian". That's not to say he doesn't have academic rank; just that this fact is not established by the announcement. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 5 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Power

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

The subject fails to meet the Wikipedia notability guideline. Clive Power (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is an autobiographical WP:PROMO piece. Subject appears to fail WP:NJOURNALIST. Silver medal prize is unsourced and I have been unable to verify it's standing, but at the moment it does not appear to meet the major award criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Independent sources for WP:AUTHOR include Publishers Weekly, Transnational Perspectives, Common Knowledge (journal). The autobio CV can be cleaned up. There are a lot of claims in the article that seem significant enough to meet other criteria in WP:NJOURNALIST but there is no independent verification of the claims is the problem. Whoever wrote the article is confused, we need sources about Jonathan Power, not by Jonathan Power. -- GreenC 01:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It currently reads Jonathan received a Silver Medal at the Venice Film Festival, 1972, for the BBC documentary film,"It's Ours Whatever They Say". The award is called the Silver Lion and he isn't listed as winning it that year. 33rd_Venice_International_Film_Festival I search their official website also at http://www.labiennale.org/en/ using Google and his name isn't there anywhere. Dream Focus 03:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It says he created The Diplomatic Style of Andrew Young. I couldn't find mention of that film on the official websites for the BBC or PBS, but I found it listed elsewhere [20] saying only that Jenny Barraclough was the director, it listed in her article already. Did he write it? It isn't listed at IMDb on Amazon.com. So anyone know if he wrote it or had anything to do with it at all? Dream Focus 10:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for inadequate verification of notability. Most citations are to works by him. One cite is to a letter to the editor about a piece he wrote. He is a writer and journalist. What! No awards?? What about the film award? no substantiation. --Bejnar (talk) 00:14, 5 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. Go Phightins! 01:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander R. Marmureanu

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

I placed a PROD (now removed) on this article because there is not a clear claim of notability and a lack of third party sources. The seemingly good sources, like Bloomberg Businessweek, are actually just directory entries. There's potential notability here, because of his writings and patent, but to confirm that notability, we need somebody writing about him, not just with him. Rob (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG (lack of independent sources) and WP:ACADEMIC (although he has written journal articles, they are not highly cited). I'm sure he is a good doctor and a worthy citizen, but there is nothing notable (as Wikipedia defines it) about him, his activities, or his career. Bloomberg and US News listings are self-written, not independent. (I don't think I have ever seen a doctor list himself at Bloomberg before! This person, or someone on his behalf, is really promoting. But this is an international encyclopedia, and subjects have to meet certain criteria to have an article here. This subject does not.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof or WP:GNG yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. As an academic associated with a top medical school I'd expect him to eventually become sufficiently notable but the citation record doesn't show it yet, and what we have now reads more like a cv than an encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 2 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. Policy-based arguments support deletion; in the event more sources are found, contact me for a copy of the article, or just create a new one. Thanks. Go Phightins! 01:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beck Protocol

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

Not being a member of a medical mafia, or a powerful person (see article talk page), I am bringing this to AfD for discussion. Is it notable? Maybe - or maybe not. Is it referenced in accordance with WP:RS? To my mind, definitely not. If it is notable, can it be referenced properly? Up to you. Peridon (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not quite sure what the reason for the nomination is here. Not having reliable sources is not a reason to nominate for deletion. There's plenty of articles about Bob Beck and his "protocol" around the internet, including official pages, fan pages, and stores. People buy this stuff, and the equipment that goes along with it. It'd be great if the article was expanded with some citations about the protocol's effectiveness (or lack thereof). Not sure how nominating for deletion is going to help get us there, though. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least one article about Beck has been deleted, and his pages, his fans' pages, and stores are not reliable independent sources WP:RS. I'm not nominating purely because of the referencing. I want a consensus on notability. If you can reference it to fit WP:RS, please do so. Yes, if the article was expanded giving a picture of the claims, and a picture of the opposition to the 'protocol', with RS sourcing, I'd be quite happy. I brought this here after declining a speedy request that read 'just read it!' or words to that effect. Here, you're getting an open review and time to fix things. Peridon (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell it fails Wikipedia:Fringe theories because there is no serious in-depth coverage in independent sources which are not involved in the promotion of the Beck Protocol. Coverage in scientific journals, newspapers, mainstream magazines, book that aren't promoting fringe science, etc, would be required. But right now, without independent secondary sources, it's impossible to write an article that gives a balanced view of the topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources fail WP:RS. I have been unable to locate in depth reliable source coverage for the subject, As it stands the article fails WP:NRV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Haredi Judaism. It is, of course, left to whoever does the merge, to determine what material, if any, is worth merging. In any case, leave a redirect behind -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-Orthodox Jews (Social Group)

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

Duplicate of Haredi Judaism.

The hatnote and a talkpage comment claim that this article is about the culture and society and that article is about the theology and history. However, the Haredi Judaism article includes almost nothing about theology per se and not that much about history, mainly focusing on the cultural/social aspects that are supposedly reserved for this article.

In fact, the distinction between history/theology and culture/society is tenuous, especially since Haredim feel that their clothing etc. are mandated religiously. Perhaps there could be a separate article "Haredi philosophy", but the two articles currently existing are complete duplicates. Ypnypn (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content fork. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for 2 reasons. 1. content fork, more or less like the nomination. 2. Ultra-Orthodox Jews is a name that should not be used, as it is considered a pejorative compared to Hareidi Judaism. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a controversial term and a redundant article. Andrew³²⁷ 02:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC). EDIT: It would be good to redirect the article to Haredi Judaism. Andrew³²⁷ 02:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the Haredi Judaism article because this is a WP:CONTENTFORK, and the term "ultra-Orthodox" as it applies to Jews is regarded as a pejorative term on WP for a long time now, as can be seen from the many discussions and understandings reached at Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 1, Talk:Haredi Judaism/Archive 2 and at a number of other places. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and merge any potentially useful information to Haredi Judaism. It may be that at some future point the Haredi Judaism article will be so developed that we will consider spinning off some sociological aspects, but we are far from that point.--Pharos (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mensur Peljto

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

Non-notable boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't find significant independent coverage. He doesn't meet the notability requirements for WP:NBOX or WP:KICK. The one line mention of being "sportsman of the year" isn't significant, I don't know if the source is reliable, and I don't know that would be enough to show notability even if the statement is true.Jakejr (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOX, KICK, and GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:28, 2 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 via WP:A7 by User:CactusWriter. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amine Raghib

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines, google search shows primarily links to his own websites / accounts Zeus^u|c 15:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth discussing. This is a speedy delete. --Tachfin (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Jimenez

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

Has one article about her, but doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines for BLP Zeus^u|c 15:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ENTERTAINER. This is the third time this article has been created: once it was deleted by BLP prod, once by G11. Perhaps salting would be in order. G S Palmer (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it had been created in the past -- that's why I put it to AfD this time. Agreed on SALT protection post-this AfD. Zeus^u|c 17:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hopeless case. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This page is being moved to Slavic calendar, while the pages in Category:Slavic calendar will be redirected there. Please rewrite the article to make it fit the topic. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian months

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This supposed list of twelve Serbian months is, at worst, a blatant WP:MADEUP, and at best, list of unnotable words. The month names are based on a single source: sr:Mile Nedeljković: Srpsko nasleđe, br. 9, 1998., by a Serbian journalist and ethnologist. Srpsko nasleđe (Serbian heritage) was a short-lived magazine from 1990s, not a scientific paper. None of the words is listed even in the comprehensive Serbian dictionary of Matica srpska.
The more I research, the more I'm sure it's a blatant hoax: if I search for "ležitrava", it yields a grand total of 11 ghits, forums of Wikipedia mirrors, and 0 GBook hits. In the issue 9 of Srpsko nasleđe there is no such article, and indeed, "ležitrava" is not even mentioned on its website [21]. No such user (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the referenced article does exist [22]. The author does address the history of Slavic calendar and month names, but does not ascribe them to specifically Serbian traditions. It's a vague narrative on how Slavic month names came about, without references. The actual spelling for 'april' is lažitrava, and it has certain web circulation, but still including chiefly forums, blog and news articles on slow days. For example, the most "reliable" news article is this, which starts with statement that "The word calendar has its roots in our language, because it is made from our two famous words wikt:kolo and wikt:dar". No such user (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kukulj, -Article creator

---Pray tell, If these are not the traditional names for Serbian months, what are they? I have provided many different sources for the names of the months, not just 'Srpsko nasleđe'.'Godišnji običaji u Srba - Mile Nedeljković. Vuk Karadžić - Beograd, 1990' is just one example.

These are the traditional names for the 12 months of the year in the Serbian language, there mostly historical records in the form of traditional songs, books, poems and stories.

Moreover, this brings up the question, what do you think Serbians used before they started using the Latin names?

I have provided a comparison of the names of months in various Slavic languages; you can quite clearly see that all of the Serbian names for the months are repeated in one form or another in the other Slavic languages. For example; Ležitrava in Serbian, Travanj in Croatian, Treven in Macedonian, Mali Treven in Slovenian. The sources are not of the same opinion when it comes to the spelling of this word, but 'Lažitrava' gets more hits than 'Ležitrava', I was going to add them both but didn't know how to put one under the other without changing the table. This is an important part of Serbian culture, and there should be an article on it.

My suggestion is this; This article needs to be improved, not deleted. Different regions of Serbia had different names for the months, and these need to be added. If you are interested, or for that matter, if anybody else in interested, research needs to be done on the matter and included into this article. Kukulj (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BUT please read. Lists of words in other languages are not usually encyclopedic; this article seems to fail WP:N. It is possible that the content could be salvaged in the context of month names in Slavic languages, through I am not exactly sure where it could go. Probably Slavic calendar, a top article at Category:Slavic calendar, seems like a notable concept. Moth articles in it should probably go, and if this is deleted I'd encourage the deleting admin to go and prod/mass AfD the articles in this category. I'd also encourage User:Kukulj to start work on Slavic calendar, after familiarizing him/herself with WP:N and WP:OR policies. I find this topic somewhat interesting, and I could help review the new article if it is put at WP:AFC or draftspace/sandbox. You may want to request that the deleted content is userfied.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quite understand.

The comparison of months was just to add a nice touch. I don't understand what's wrong with the article; it shows what the months in the Serbian language are; there are almost identical articles for all the Slavic languages, and those articles have LESS sources and information than this one, so if this is deleted, they should be too. If they aren't, it will become clear that 'No such user' has a problem with me, or Serbia in general.

However, I do agree with your Slavic calendar idea, it's interesting. If all of these articles are deleted, I would be more than happy to start Slavic calendar User:Piotrus, yes, I would like to request for the deleted content to be userfied, and I will start at WP:AFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kukulj (talk • contribs) 11:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what Piotrus said, that all the articles should be deleted and the information should be put into a new article, Slavic calendar. FkpCascais (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Piotrus that the whole Category:Slavic calendar violates WP:WINAD and should be pruned. Also, the whole concept of Slavic month names is notable, but the reader should be served with a single article (Slavic calendar or Slavic months) explaining the history and side-by-side comparison of month names in various languages and other calendar data, not bare tables. There are scholarly articles (and I'm sure a deeper research could find more) about the topic, such as [23], [24], [25] (the latter could be used as model for our article). So, I suppose the answer could be merge and fix/expand of all these articles into one, rather than outright delete.
That being said, I'm still unconvinced with the veracity of the single source (Nedeljković) on which this article is built upon. It is a broad narrative in an entertaining historical magazine (likely a WP:OR by its author, or at least a primary source) turned into a system of "Serbian month names" which is simply not there. But that might be an issue for a later editing. No such user (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that all the articles in that category should be merged into one. Slavic names for months might be a better title, unless the "slavic calendar" was ever somehow different in structure to the gregorian calendar, in which case that could be discussed too. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 15:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, I'm 100% for this idea. They should be merged into one article. I think that Slavic calendar would be more appropriate than 'Slavic names for months'; more information would be included that just the names. Also, there already exists an article, https://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenski_kalendar, with translations in many different languages, so it would be very simple to add an English version.

Kukulj (talk) 12:59, 16 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or Merge to Slavic calendar per Kukulj and a lesser degree filelakeshoe. --Bejnar (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge to Slavic calendar. 1292simon (talk) 00:42, 8 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} 14:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Z

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

PROD removed, BLP with no claim to notability and a lack of multiple, nontrivial, reliable sources about the subject. Two sources exist that might fit, but one is an interview from an Examiner-style website in which anyone can submit an article and the other is a press release about an appearance in a small, now-defunct alternative magazine. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:AUTHOR for being "widely cited by peers" and his works receiving recognition in independent sources. The "claim to notability" is in the lede. Wikipedia articles are not written for a toddler's mentality, and do not begin with insultingly simplistic things such as "This topic is notable because....". The article AND project will be be improved through regular editing without crying "it has not been done or it cannot be done". Topic notability is met through verifiabilty of contents and assertions to show it meeting our inclusion criteria. While nice, WP:GNG is not the only criteria for determining if something might be within these pages to serve its readers, specially as guideline specifically tells us at WP:N, that if lacking GNG, "a topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right", which this topic does. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Complying with WP:BEFORE I took a look at the 100 or hits from the scholar search above. Some are triggered by the books listed in the bibliography. Some are links to articles Mickey Z wrote, or to chapters he wrote for books edited by others. And, while the rest include hits to instances of other "Mickey Z", the remainder are to works written by others that quote our Mickey Z, or which reference his work. I am satisfied he meets the criteria for inclusion, as per WP:AUTHOR, which says: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Geo Swan (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan and Schmidt, , an alternative ground to WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 00:20, 5 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 Peripitus (Talk) 06:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legarns

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

Possibly hoax, possibly fantasy, definitely not encyclopaedic. I can find traces of the associated website, but none for the business - which is not yet in operation. I cannot find the place listed as the future home of the business. The author has already been notified that it is too soon. Peridon (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say Delete: is a clear hoax to me. If not, it should have some kind of source to prove notability, which is not the case. Regards, --Urbanoc (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lego prototypes? Speedy delete per G3. Now Mechano, that would've been a different story... Clarityfiend (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3, G11, A7, and/or A11. Article has already been A7-speedied twice. --Finngall ^talk 14:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as unremarable business at best and hoax at worst.TheLongTone (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Even its own website is not operational. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G3. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Powerman 5000. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Quijano

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

Man with a job who fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 10:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Powerman 5000. He has been a member of three independently notable bands, but fails WP:MUSICBIO #6, because he was never "reasonably prominent" in the two he used to be a member of, having only gone on one tour with each. It's possible he could be a search term for his current band though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Torchiest. I'd say "merge" but there's almost nothing to merge - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect doesn't make a lot of sense as he's been in 3 notable bands and I'd say his contributions certainly raise to the level of "reasonably prominent". Si Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#6. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Powerman 5000 per Torchiest and David Gerard. A redirect to his most prominent band makes sense as opposed to delete, which would be the alternative. --Bejnar (talk) 02:42, 5 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 decker ^talk 02:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arksun

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

Google doesn't seem to have much on this guy other than this article and the usual Twitters, MySpaces and Facebooks. There doesn't seem to be enough independent evidence that Arksun is actually notable, even on a fairly lax interpretation of the term. Certainly, he appears to be some sort of record producer, but simply doing your job is not a claim to notability. The article has been tagged with a "disputed neutrality" tag since November 2012. RomanSpa (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article, zero notability, piggy-backing Wikipedia for SEO purposes. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources provided. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any sources to support the subject's notability with a Google search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Ess

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

Classic WP:BLP1E. I don't think we need an article on everyone who has had hand transplants. A good news story to add to the "And finally..." section of any news broadcast. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - She's not even mentioned in the main article, Nonetheless we don't need articles on everyone who's had hand transplants. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:57, 9 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:10, 19 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Davey2010. --Bejnar (talk) 02:02, 5 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Alvis

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

This was an article up at CSD earlier, and I axed it, but it was restored by Fram (talk · contribs) on grounds that the given reasons for csd - A1 & A7 - were entirely incorrect. That is fine, after all we build by consensus, and I'm only human so I have no reservations about admitting when I have made a mistake, so if I jumped the gun on speedy deletion with regards to this article then I accept full responsibility for the error and any sanctions or censorship that my poor judgement here necessitates, however I am concerned about the article because there seems to be a few relevant policies here that the article comes under that are sending mixed signals. To begin with, the article is short - its got two lines and a few statistics, and little useful information beyond what you may get in a drive by Google search. This would seem to put it at odds with WP:ONEEVENT, since the man in question appears notable only for having been a few races of fame. From this perspective then, the logical choice would be to merge the article into a list of cycling persons or some such place. However, that is contradicted by WP:SPORTS, which implies that the person in question is notable by virtue of participation in major event such as the tour de France, and indeed the man did participate in the event, but came in well behind the leaders to say the least. From this perspective, the article should be kept, but there seems to be a lack of information at present to justify keeping a full article on the cyclist. Finally, WP:BIO lays out that "All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. The tag may not be removed until a reliable source is provided, and if none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after ten days. This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere." In a review of the article it was never proposed for deletion, which I missed in the csd log check (and I am not proud of that), and to be fair here the article does have one source provided, but the source given speaks to Norman's placement in the races, and not to other information in the article such as birth place, age, etc, which cycles back to case for redirecting or merging the material. Lastly, there are WP:NPF issues to be considered here, as the cyclist seems rather unknown judging by the two lines that comprise the entire biography. That does seems to suggest that a merge or redirect would be appropriate here until such time as the article is expanded on, but I've seen smaller articles exist for years as stubs here and they do just fine, so I would assume there is no reason for this one not to exist as a stub as well. As far as what happens to the article, I'm indifferent if it stays or if it goes (by deletion or merging or redirecting), being an inclusionist I will root for the people making the case to keep it, but I am just enough concerned about this article that I'd like some community input here to see what the rest of the Wikipedians think. Should we keep it, merge it, redirect it, or delete it? TomStar81 (Talk) 10:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No reason for deletion given that would even remotely apply. Frankly, how did you become an admin if you first completely incorrectly speedy delete the article, and then sprout the amount of nonsense in the above? Don't you know the difference between what the article is like (short) and what the notability of the subject is? That's probably the most basic aspect of an AfD, but at least half of your "nomination" (if that's the word one can use for this) is filled with how poor and short the current article is... Further: WP:NPF? Really? That's not an argument for or against deletion, that's about what information to include in the article. Nothing in the article comes even close to NPF, so scratch that. WP:ONEEVENT? No, he is notable for a career, including winning two national championships and participating in some of the greatest sports events. He won 21 professional races, in multiple countries, and raced in some of the most important teams, not some insignificant third-rate team. WP:BIO and the "you need one source" argument, which you yourself refute, as a source is present, which contain his birth date (conbtradicting your claim that it doesn't give the "age" of course). You have given nothing which can withstand even the most cursory check. Please withdraw this nomination and take a lot more care with your speedy deletions. Fram (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Bad idea to CSD A1, bad idea to CSD A7, and bad idea of Afd. OccultZone (Talk) 10:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 10:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

On Fram's order, I hereby withdraw the nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Ryder

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

No claim of notability. Fails WP:PORNBIO as won no awards merely a single nomination. Fails WP:GNG as no independent, reliable sourcing. Finnegas (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well known and also meets the requirements of WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify how you believe this article is notable? Finnegas (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's amazing that an article like this could have passed PORNBIO back in 2007. Fails any recent version of PORNBIO with just a single award nomination. Fails GNG. Zero reliable sources cited in article. Only passing mentions and routine announcements found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Internet Adult Film Database is reliable source. Also, I add Internet Movie Database source, also reliable. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 18:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment IMDb can be used as an external link, but cannot be used as a reliable source. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. "can be used as an external link", "but cannot be used as a reliable source" - nonsense. IMDb is reliable source, very useful as a source for date of birth, etc. Subtropical-man talk
      (en-2) 16:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment please see WP:Citing IMDb and Wikipedia:IMDB/RS#IMDb. Thanks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. Fails POENBIO criteria, no reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This well-known performer SHOULD be a slam dunk keep, but because of the highly exclusionary requirements for adult performers to be deemed Wikipedia-worthy, this article has no chance of being kept in its current state. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain the policy basis for arguing that a BLP without decent reliable sources should be a slam dunk keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No notable porno actress. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs require better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 03:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh International Recovery Developments

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

fails WP:ORG. all the sources provided are primary. a google search just reveals 1 line listings eg as a charity. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 09:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete : Promotional page. OccultZone (Talk) 09:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I found few new references that could make the article stay. Codetalk95267 (Talk) 13:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which ones? Only 1 source has been added last few days. LibStar (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The charity is widely known as BIRD.Being the only UK based bangladeshi youth org,they have got a lot of media attention.I found few more of contents on the web. E.g., this, The charity also got a nomination for the Muslim Association Of The Year[26], a blog in bengali[27]Willy20137788 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.2.14 (talk) [reply]
Keep The charity gets regular attention in Bangladesh. One of it's events news on a leading bengali newspaper here [28] also I found it linked with a leading Bangladeshi band [29] 11:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.141.49 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnosis Guild of Southern Africa

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

fails WP:ORG. created by a single purpose editor. all the sources provided are primary LibStar (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. OccultZone (Talk) 09:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Totally promotional. OccultZone (Talk) 09:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional article for non-notable organisation, no reliable third-party sources.TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson's Cross

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

Unreferenced article by WP:SPA. After several years, there is still no sign of meeting WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. It mentions (but doesn't back up) the claims) that it has won two awards at what seem to be obscure/non-notable film festivals. I could find little except bad reviews. Boleyn (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 09:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: This bears investigation, for coverage is coverage and film notability is not dependent upon only "positive" review. I'll be back. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not seeing the reviews to make this notable: most are blogs/personal websites. There isn't even a Rotten Tomatoes page for it. And if this isn't notable, director Jerome Elston Scott probably isn't notable either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Colapeninsula & Boleyn: A listing or not in Rotten Tomatoes is not an inclusion criteria for Wikiedia. But lengthy reviews in such as DVD Verdict Moving Pictures Magazine and LA Splash Magazine and more-than-trival mentions in Film Monthly and Reel Talk are. And too, we have Media Mikes and What Would Toto Watch. Still looking. Still working. PS: Jerome Elston Scott is notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has now been substantially improved, despite my failure to have reviews in usual sources (Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb are normally good sources for finding reviews, but don't seem to have included significant coverage in this case). Since Scott's notability is largely dependent on the notability of this film, that would mean he's notable too. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my own research showing this project as meeting WP:NF through WP:NRVE. Even though AFD is not intended to force improvement, I will be expanding and sourcing the article a bit later. Wikipedia will be improved. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There's enough here to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lots of secondary source coverage and discussion. — Cirt (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:02, 2 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} 12:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Fleet

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

Appears to fail WP:N for lack of reliable sources providing real-world commentary and criticism. Izno (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 09:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: This was a contested prod. --Izno (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are notable sources for this title. Android Police and Pocket Gamers seems to provide commentary and criticism:

This game was also featured in Android Play store in the past and has a medium scale user base with favorable reviews. I think this game also meets WP:GNG Jimqode (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable and referred by a number of third party sources. OccultZone (Talk) 12:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not as clear-cut as those sources make it out to be. Joystiq and Pocket Gamer are good, and reliable at WP:VG/RS. The TechCrunch is something written by the developer (and as such would be a self-published source that doesn't count towards notability). The Adobe site is okay. And I really don't know about the rest of those Android sites. I think with the three dedicated articles that a fully bodied WP article can be hobbled together, but it is telling when the Metacritic page for a 2012 game has no listed reviews. czar ♔ 12:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Joey Badass

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

Non notable list of random songs by the artist. Koala15 (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 09:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His notable songs are already covered at Joey Badass discography. This looks WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. PaintedCarpet (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & PaintedCarpet - Already covered at Joey Badass discography. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Keeler

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

A prolific writer and activist, but all sources seem to be by her, not about her. No independent sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed some sources, so problem should be remedied. Chahtaohoyo (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)ChahtaOhoyo[reply]

Comment Not significantly. The article by Schroeder at The Good Men Project appears to be the only independent source that mentions Keeler, but as Keeler is a contributor to that outlet, this is only somewhat independent. The only truly independent reliable source (Al Jazeera) fails to mention either Keeler or her EONM organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure why you say the Good Men Project article is the only independent source that mentions her. The CBS article speaks directly about her & the Nike protest and the Daily Kos article directly mention Keeler and EONM, tying in the connection to the other coverage. Chahtaohoyo (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)ChahtaOhoyo[reply]
Keep I added 5 more sources establishing notability. I am One of Many (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty borderline but this does seem to be one of the leading public faces of the "anti-racial stereotype sports mascot" movement (Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, etc.) which is an important public issue in the United States. As the founder of an advocacy group and a person extensively quoted in the media, I feel the burden of proof for this close-call notability-wise should fall upon those seeking deletion. Wikipedia is better off with than without this bio. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While I don't agree that mascots are an important public issue in the United States and I'm not very sympathetic to her cause, her name does pop up here and there in connection with the issue. These references are not limited to various blog posts. [30][31][32][33][34]Eudemis (talk) 09:01, 27 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, ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 03:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject now has ample sourcing to meet WP:BIO. gobonobo ^c 18:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Native American mascot controversy is in fact an important issue, which Keeler is working to bring to greater public awareness and has generated news in reliable sources.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Javed

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

No independent coverage. Fails WP:BAND. Only media coverage is in the list of artists about the a music show, where the subject participates. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the links that are referenced shows the coverage of all participants. But if you see the Pakistaniyan website, it shows an independent coverage and, whose videos are also uploaded on youtube and facebook. Abubakar Javed is being independently covered by many news and entertainment channels many times. So it should not be considered for deletion. 27-May-2014, 10:37 am

~~Keep~~ Referred by 3rd party sources. OccultZone (Talk) 09:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are in total 4 references. 1st just carry his image, 2nd and 4th is about the reality program and describe all the participants , so no independent coverage. 3rd reference is just a photo directory website. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 14:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there's a lot more to do with the notability. 15,000 results or more, but they are mostly the videos, social networking sites, so Delete is welcome. OccultZone (Talk) 00:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 09:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 09:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... There is another artist from the same music platform and the references are same as used there. She is also having her wikipedia page. But that is not considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abubakarjav1234 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not which article you talk about. But if it is unnotable, you can nominate it for deletion. Anyone can nominate any article for deletion.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even I gave an interview to a magazine 2 days ago about myself and my music journey. They are about to publish it coming sunday and that is an independent coverage only about myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abubakarjav1234 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not cited in the article. If it is only an interview then it is not independent. If it is an interview with commentary then it could be independent. --Bejnar (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article, piggy-backing Wikipedia for SEO purposes. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails ENT and GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 01:45, 5 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. and salt j⚛e decker ^talk 02:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edith J. Cromwell

AfDs for this article:

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

This person does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines as I can find no significant coverage about her. The article does not make a clear claim for notability. She is asserted to be a politician, but there is no indication that she has held political office. The only hint in the article is that "[s]he was affiliated with Marion Barry", but the article fails to provide any sort of details. Whpq (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the best you can do for a notability claim is that she was appointed to a municipal economic development commission, and the best you can do for sourcing is that commission's own website (a primary source which cannot demonstrate notability, and fails to even verify most of the content in this article), then what you have is a person who does not qualify for a Wikipedia article under any of our inclusion guidelines. And for the record, an earlier version was deleted which provided reams and reams more detail about her personal life, without actually citing any better sources or providing any more substantive detail about her political career, than this version does. So I'm torn about whether this should qualify for WP:CSD#G4 or not — it's not a repost of the same article, but it does make the same weak notability claim and definitely doesn't source it any better. And even in this significantly less detailed version, there's still enough unsourced private personal information (the names of her parents?! an ex-husband's drug habit?!) that I can't help but suspect a WP:COI violation. Delete with fire. Plus upon reviewing the history I note that in addition to the prior AFD, it's also been speedied three times A7 — so I'd recommend salting the earth afterward too. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, and for all the other reasons explained so well by the nominator and the Bearcat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per comments of nominator and others, the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and is non-notable.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was KEEP, additional expansion of article and discussion indicate that additional coverage of the novel meets Wikipedia:Notability (books), Sadads (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education (novel)

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

not notable book I delete things alot (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. The ISFDB page for this novel lists enough reviews to establish the coverage that demonstrates notability. The nom has apparently ignored the requirements of WP:BEFORE and displays a curious interest in deleting the works of a rather notable author. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 20 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm running into issues with a lot of the sources being offline, as the book was published back in 1996. (The article listed '95, but everything I've found said that it came out the following year.) I am finding quite a few things coming up in snippet view in Google Books ([35], [36]) but so far I've found enough to where it could be considered a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winter storm transportation impact

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

Overly-specific article idea that in reality is exceptionally minor. The article only has two real sentences pertaining to the topic itself before haphazardly listing winter storm events and effects that go far beyond the apparent intended scope. It appears to simply be a list dump to mention various weather events if they can't be placed elsewhere. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - haphazard list of cherry-picked storm events grouped under an artificial title. Transportation takes a hit every time it snows; any particularly noteworthy disruptions or incidents can very easily be discussed in the individual storm articles (which exist invariably). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Branden Robinson

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

Subject of article does not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Only one independent reference (which is not about the subject, and only appears to mention the subject in passing). No significant external coverage from independent secondary sources. The article has been tagged as requiring additional sources for 3 years, and it still only has one lone citation to an independent source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: there are multiple interviews ([37], [38], [39], etc), news items specificly covering his opinions and statements (eg) and other numerous but light sources. Frankly, I can't find anything to decisively support my !vote, but I believe he is worth mention in Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are a primary source and hence are not considered a reliable source, see WP:RS, "Further examples of primary sources include ... , editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews;... A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include .. interviews".
News items are not enough to establish notability. WP:NOTABILITY "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability" and "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage."
Being in the news is not a valid argument for a keep vote. WP:INTHENEWS "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and keep arguments must take this into account."
Being mentioned or quoted in passing in a source is not enough to establish notability, see WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE
The subject of the news is Debian. There is no evidence that Branden Robinson is notable independent of his ex-role as Project Leader, WP:NOTINHERITED
There is no significant external coverage from independent secondary sources on the topic of Branden Robinson. That is the bar for notability. Interviews are primary sources. There is plenty of coverage of Debian by secondary sources, so Debian is notable, but being mentioned or quoted in news about Debian does not make a person notable. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:40, 29 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I generally agree with your points (particularly about interviews ≠ RS), the claim "There is no evidence that Branden Robinson is notable independent of his ex-role as Project Leader, WP:NOTINHERITED" is laughable: people are always note notable separately of their roles. Obama is not notable separately of his political career, Napoleon is not notable separately from his political and military career, Brittney Spears is not notable separately from her singing career, etc. In this sense BLP notability is always inherited, so we may safely assume that WP:Notability (people) wholy overrides WP:NOTINHERITED. Again, for clarity: I have no accountable claim for his notability, only "feeling" that he belongs here per his impact to Debian. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point of WP:NOTINHERITED. The point is that, just because the subject "Debian" or "Debian Project Leader" is notable, it does not mean that every Debian developer, or every Debian Project Leader, is individually notable. If there are articles about Debian, and an individual gets quoted because they have a particular role in Debian, this does not make the individual notable. It is Debian that is the subject of the article. It is Debian that is notable.

How many reliable sources are there about Obama? Not reliable sources about the role President of the U.S., but specifically about Obama? How many reliable sources are there about Branden Robinson? Not reliable sources about Debian or the Debian Project Leader, but specifically about Branden Robinson? That is the difference. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, but the news item about the actions of particular Debian Project Leader contributes to his notability, not to the notability of position. You should also note, that mainstream press (which is the press that covers Obama) has different habbits, out of necessity: they don't have to explain in every article, what is U.S., what is President, what is U.S. President in particular, and how is it called, because unlike independent tech sources they may safely assume that their readers are knowledgable of subject. At the same time, average tech source has to explain all these points simply to ensure that newbies (largest slice of TA) grasp the news item. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give specific examples of secondary-source-reliable-source articles that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" regarding Branden Robinson?

The only example so far was the news article "Debian developers ponder trademark changes", which is not particular detailed, and would be classed as "routine news coverage" ("it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage").

Notability requires verifiable evidence: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition."

So please provide the evidence of significant secondary coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Because that is what is required. Not primary sources, or interviews, or routine news coverage, or press releases, or personal blogs. Notability requires verifiable evidence, not "feelings" that the person belongs in Wikipedia. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep See also "The end of communities of practice in open source projects? Evidence from the Debian case." for additional coverage in re Debian, and "Governance in production communities" p. 22, but I would like some coverage of his X-Windows work. --Bejnar (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED. 1292simon (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources found by Bejnar are both just passing mentions in very long articles about somethign else. Spinning Spark 12:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I also do not think it meets notability standards. United States Man (talk) 03:27, 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 decker ^talk 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hand cricket

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

Non-notable sport variation does not seem to be backed up by external sources. Liface (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:07, 20 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and reeks of WP:MADEUP. Created more than 8 years ago by a user who made this one article and nothing else and has been unreferenced since. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sure. There are no reliable sources to be found at all. It pretty much seems certain that this was something that some kids made up at school, and then wrote an article on it. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:06, 3 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 decker ^talk 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akampurira & Partners (Uganda)

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

Law firm with no indications of any particular notability. All references are stories about clients the firm has represented, that mention the firm in passing, but that do not provide any in-depth coverage of the firm. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article has some history. It was speedily deleted by me when it was named Akampurira & Partners. The first article and this article were created by a combination of sock and meat puppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wenger256.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 22 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A small firm demonstrably going about its business, but lacking evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CORP. Fails to get significant coverage by reliable sources. References are passing mentions and directory entries. Independent search for RS coverage comes up empty. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim to notability seems to be that they had a couple clients that pass GNG; and in a few cases, litigated against organizations that pass GNG. But that doesn't make the firm notable. The article itself does not make any claims about coverage of the firm, just about the clients (mostly Sharma). TJRC (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broken: The M Series

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. The only references currently in the article are to the authors website and Amazon. I couldn’t find significant coverage in any indipendant, reliable sources. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely self-sourced, appears to be self-published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 20 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. There's zero notability for this series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Richey

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

Creating this on behalf of Mpen320 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose comments from Talk:Jeff Richey I endorse and partially copy below:

“

The former alderman of a municipality of approx. 11,246 people is not significant beyond the local level. Deletions that demonstrate this case are the temporary deletion of Tom Cullerton from January 2012 until November 2012.
He has not been a candidate for "higher" office in over seven years. Candidates for office do not necessarily qualify as notable. Deletions that assert this include David M. Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) who ran for Congress multiple times, Greene County State's Attorney Matt Goetten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the temporary deletion of Tom Cullerton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)</ref> who ran for the same level office (State Senate) and was the PRESIDENT of a Village with approx. 22,000 people.

”

No such user (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Politician. Not notable significant coverage. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:31, 21 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither his unsuccessful candidacy for the State Senate nor his smalltown city council seat get him past WP:POLITICIAN — and as the article's only reference is a primary source (the list of aldermen on the city's own website...which, better yet, doesn't even have his name on it anymore!), he hasn't even cleared the WP:GNG bar in the first place. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Product Owner and Product Backlog in Scrum

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

Entirely non-neutral essay, one of many recently created spin-offs of Scrum (software development), (see also Importance Of Implementing SCRUM into Organizations and Scrum in Marketing Department), sourced solely on self-published blogs or other unreliable sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like someone has just transcluded their SCRUM how-to guide into Wikipedia. Stalwart111 08:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 20 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nuke from orbit for the essay tone. If any useful content exists, add it to Scrum (software development); we don't need this as a separate page. Chris857 (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. There seems to have been a recent class project somewhere on SCRUM and the students have been directed to upload their homework. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Importance Of Implementing SCRUM into Organizations. Ivanvector (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Number 5 7 16:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian Children's Trust

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

small charity in one Cambodian city; population served: 300 DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a strong keep for this one. The restaurant operated by the group has received very substantial coverage for example here and here. Whether or not the group's activities are local to one area or relatively small in scale they have garnered very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. And I mean, it's nice to have article on positive subjects. I do think the article could use some work and better state it's significance. The descriptions sections also need tightening up. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Candelabracadabra and seems notable. Founder Tara Winkler appears notable for an article on herself alone, but can be handled in this article. A link in the article is dead, but I confirmed her NSW Young Australian of the Year Award here. --do ncr am 01:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage of the restaurant would make the restaurant notable. Notability is not inherit from there. There is nothing sourced in this current advert worth keeping to help write an article for Jaan Bai. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Duffbeerforme. Fails GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:50, 26 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Doing a quick Google search, I found two reliable sources. The first is a news article [[40]] about the Cambodian Children’s Trust. The second is a website that states that the founder was named a finalist for Australian of the Year [41] for founding the Cambodian Children’s Trust and gives a description of the organizationTHe sources are kind of slim, but they do exist. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tiny charity with apparent limited coverage by independent media (mainly in the home country of one of its foreign founders). Sietecolores (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete 2 weeks after AfD listing and still no evidence of significant coverage. The founder may have a claim for notability but that does not follow this organization is automatically notable. This fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 2 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. Having roles in movies is what actors do, that in itself does not make them notable, only if those roles have generated significant coverage, which does not appear to be the case here. Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Hinkley

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

Although he appeared in lots of productions, I really can't find any sources that discuss him in detail. I think he does not pass WP:GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 01:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 01:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. Has general notability as an actor. Better sources would be the trade papers, Hollywood Reporter, Dramalogue, etc. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But why can't I find those sources? Are they online? By the way, I actually started the article. So, if you're wondering why I'm nomming if for deletion, it is because I didn't even know about GNG when I wrote it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Search Dramalogue and Hollywood Reporter. Publicists always go there for less well known clients as it's the trades that help get them noticed in the industry, which in turn gets them jobs. You likely won't find him in the NYTimes and LATimes like you'd see leading men, famous directors, etc. I'd keep the article. It definitely meets GNG. You can withdraw the AfD. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I searched them both and found only http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/theater-reviews-158787 which doesn't discuss him in detail. I still don't see how he passes GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: I emailed them and asked if they might have something in an offline archive. If they do, I'll post the sources to the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great. Many thanks for your diligence. I do hope they reply. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 24 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep certainly a recognizable character actor. Character actors get short shrift usually until it is obituary time. --Bejnar (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. There's lots of mentions of him in a google search, but all just blogs and directory-type listings. Nothing substantial. This just proves that he exists and he's gotten parts, not that he's notable. The best source I could find was a mention in the NY Times, but that's 100% perfunctory. In fact, it looks like it's just a syndicated listing (© 2010 All Media Guide, LLC Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide ®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC). -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He passes GNG. He's a character actor and stage director. This means he doesn't get the heavy coverage that a leading man, like Brad Pitt, gets. But he is mentioned in reviews for his acting and his directing. Here is his IMDB. LATimes blog. He meets GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The LATimes piece is not about Hinkley. He's not even mentioned until the 7th paragraph, and then only in the context of ...Also appearing [is] the actress Kate Mulligan [...] along with her husband, actor Brent Hinkley. I would use a source like that to verify a fact such as his appearing in a given production, but, IMHO, it doesn't establish notability. And IMDB is a self published source, which should never be used. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd say he passes WP:ACTOR, having quite a few noteworthy roles. WP:GNG isn't required if you pass that, and I'd say with 70 credits he does. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} _{my edits} 23:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but as far as I can see, WP:ACTOR doesn't say anything about notability standards. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm seeing a whole bunch of people saying he meets the GNG. Well, how? I'm not seeing any reliable sources being presented (IMDB in particular being explicitly recognised as not a reliable source). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Lankiveil I used the IMDB as an example of his films, not as a reliable source. As per User:Taylor Trescott, he does pass WP:ACTOR and therefore the article can be kept. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, Taylor has pointed out that he has a whole bunch of roles like the coveted "Hobnobber #1". If he doesn't meet the WP:GNG, and I don't think he does, then the bio should be deleted due to a lack of notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Found a biography on Google books here. Does this count? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke, right? Did you look at the description of the "book": Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. See also Dicho#Wikipedia_content_duplication. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no sorry didn't see that. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not pass WP:NACTOR
Weak Keep - He was a regular on a short lived TV show The Preston Episodes, and two episodes of Carnivàle, which might make him slightly pass Wp:NACTOR#1. He has also appeared in famous movies like Ed Wood and The Silence of the Lambs (I'll have to check if his roles were memorable). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:52, 9 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.

[G_search-1] "community gardens in Nebraska". Google Search. Retrieved 28 May 2014.

[1]