Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 December 6 December >

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 merge to Sayyid Ghulam Hussain Shah Bukhari. MBisanz talk 22:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naqshbandi Hussaini Golden Chain

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

Article created by a repeat sockpuppeteer. There have been no significant edits by anybody else, and no source material I'd trust (two links are to external pages created by the puppeteer). The article is totally tainted by association and lacks any virtue which overcomes that. Bazj (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am not seeing any reliable sources from my numerous newspaper sweeps, including Asia, India, Middle East. But there may be a problem with the name of the article. That is, the topic may be notable, but goes by a different name? This might be a subject which Wikipedia is not really good at covering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Newspaper sources are not likely for a chain of succession going back to 11 AH = 632 CE. But this is apparently the succession of the leaders of the Naqshbandi, and should be merged in that article, where it is much needed . DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:42, 21 November 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 21:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The discussion is leaning toward a merge, but two different merge targets have been presented. Relisting in hopes to obtain more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep based on articles found by User:Czar. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CDIO

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

Several editors on the article's talk page note that it is not possible to tell from the article what the program is, and the article may be self-promotional. Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the article is the typical education sector hot mess, but we're looking at the notability and potential for the topic, not its need for cleanup. There are plenty of sources on the topic:
Crawley, Edward F.; Malmqvist, Johan; Östlund, Sören (2 April 2014). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-319-05561-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Articles
"New programme to boost engineering education." TODAY (Singapore). March 20, 2013. LN
"Local universities adopt Engineering education model." New Straits Times (Malaysia). June 17, 2012. (origin, desc, expansion of framework) LN
Dearduff, Jeff. "CDIO: An Old/New Engineering Concept." Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery 100, no. 7 (07, 2011): 63. http://search.proquest.com/docview/877039024. (applications in bakery industry) PQ
Li, R., Y-T Wang, and Y. He. "Exploration on Reformation of Metalworking Practice Course Based on CDIO Training Mode." Zhongguo Minhang Daxue Xuebao / Journal of Civil Aviation University of China 30, no. 5 (10, 2012): 41-45. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1323228314. (analysis of college engineering instruction with CDIO) PQ
Guo, Jiao, Pei Yan, Hong Ying, and Xiaofeng Chen. "Experiment Teaching Reform for Computer Majors Based on CDIO." Shiyan Jishu Yu Guanli / Experimental Technology and Management 28, no. 2 (02, 2011): 155-157. http://search.proquest.com/docview/875085694. (CDIO in computer major syllabus) PQ
Chen, Wu Ying. "The Research of the Teaching Mode Based on the Concept of CDIO Architectural Design." Applied Mechanics and Materials 584-586, (07, 2014): 2753-2756. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.584-586.2753. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1567058126 (CDIO in architectural design) PQ
Conference papers (not sure if vetted)
Hsu, John C. and S. Raghunathan. 2007. "Systems Engineering for CDIO - Conceive, Design, Implement and Operate". 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit; Reno, NV; USA; 8-11 Jan. 2007. http://search.proquest.com/docview/29064172. PQ
Okay, that should be enough to show that there's enough to meet the general notability guideline. There are plenty more mentions for anyone who wants to sort through it. czar ♔ 05:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you volunteering to rewrite it? If so, I'll change my opinion to "Keep." DocumentError (talk) 03:17, 28 November 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 21:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take an axe to the article if you see fit, but the article topic's notability is not contingent on the current state of the article (AfD is not cleanup) czar ⨹ 23:16, 29 November 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 23:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Fuhghettaboutit per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Of The Beat

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

Seams like non notable band. No reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Note that this close does not preclude the potential for a merge. NorthAmerica1000 03:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bixee.com

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

Not meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines. Thinking of merging with ibibo but still wanted suggestions Lakun.patra (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 22 November 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 21:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and convert to redirect to Ibibo. The company Bixee no longer exists. The official website is a redirect to ibibo. Although the acquisition was a long time ago, so this page might not be important enough to merge. I looked and there is no trace of Bixee at the Ibibo website. However, this article had over 300 page views in the past 30 days, which is kind of a mystery. Maybe it is still listed in some job search directories. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:35, 1 December 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 22:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The first three sources provided by User:Yerpo demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica1000 03:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gramatik

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

No indication of notability other than an award by an online music store. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Ifnord (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs {{refimprove}} at most. There are two substantial articles about him on the Slovene national TV's portal (1, 2), a HuffPost interview, and a mention by the Rolling Stone magazine on the first few pages of Google hits. — Yerpo Eh? 22:09, 21 November 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 21:27, 28 November 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 22:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica1000 21:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Model N, Inc.

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

Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article makes no claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs. A search turned up corporate sites incidental mentions, and this brief article on stock valuation cnbc, but this isn't enough to establish notability. Possibly there is more coverage in pharma trade magazines, since the company appears to be fairly large and well-established in this specialized field.Dialectric (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The recently added sourcing meets WP:RS and notability is established. Changing my vote to 'Keep'.Dialectric (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added a couple of independent references and added to content somewhat. Needs more work, but it's a start. I'm avoiding adding info from their SEC submissions or press releases at this time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow time for consideration of new sources added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:24, 28 November 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 22:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. slakr\ talk / 05:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devyn Rose

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

Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NMG - could not find confirmation of the music claim not a single 3rd party RS that confirms notability. EBY (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Does Devyn's song "Falling 4 U" qualify under :

The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria. 

   Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.

Devyn Rose's single "Falling 4 U" is currently ranking on Amazon.com's Top 10 Best sellers Charts[1] and #1 in R&B[2] and #1 in Soul[3] Charts. Amazon reports to Nielson Soundscan as required in Record Charts:

A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics: 

   It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan. Recognized national measurement firms, such as Crowley Broadcast Analysis for Brazil or Monitor Latino for Mexico, are legitimate sources of charts.
   It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources.

Please let me know if this helps - I also added and changed information on the page itself to try and better fit the criteria. PinkStaircase (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Voice article, while not the best quality source, is ok, but there isn't much else out there in reliable sources. The Amazon chart doesn't count towards notability. There just isn't enough to justify an article at this time. --Michig (talk) 10:05, 28 November 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 21:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PinkStaircase and Michig, thoughts? czar ⨹ 04:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC) @EBY3221, sorry, meant to ping you too czar ⨹ 02:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that Off the Hook would qualify as a reliable source, but if I'm missing something there feel free to point it out. Singersroom also, and there isn't much there. The MTV bio cited is clearly not an independently written bio but one submitted by her or her management. The Amazon charts are not an accepted national chart. In my view what we have is below the threshold for notability. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the chart looks ok, I would ask you to immediately cease editing the article. Apparently, you represent a PR company managing Devyn Rose. Your account may be blocked. Kindly read up on COI before thinking of creating another user account on Wikipedia. I'm leaving a note regarding this on your talk page. Wifione Message 17:31, 5 December 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 22:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Walsh (filmmaker). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh Bros

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

This page is a violation of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. It's almost entirely copied from the article John Walsh (filmmaker). Luthien22 (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Luthien22 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 22:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G7 blanked by author. Tokyogirl79 has given the new author good advice on better ways to approach the subject. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coping with a Public Menace: Eugenic Sterilization in Minnesota

[edit]
Coping with a Public Menace: Eugenic Sterilization in Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a book report or school paper, judging by the initial text preceding the bolded title. The subject itself is a paper on Eugenic Sterilization, which is used as a source in many other articles that I can find, but not much to prove that the paper itself warrants an article. I would have Boldly redirected to the article on Eugenic Sterilization, but the title doesn't seem to be a plausible redirect, especially given that the paper is not used in that article. CrowCaw 21:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am seeing some places that use it as a reference ([8], [9]), so it may pass notability guidelines. I have no opinion just yet, but I will note that I've cleaned up a bit of the article and removed a large portion that was largely redundant to the overall article for eugenics. 05:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ed Gass-Donnelly. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pony (film)

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

This shot film claims to be "award-winning", but without any specifics. I wasn't able to find anything but brief mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 November 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 21:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 08:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Ace

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

NN person - notability is not WP:INHERITED from who he's met. BLP with only LOCALNEWS sources. See prev AfD re SPAM. Widefox; talk 08:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 November 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 21:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 08:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DSC Ground Zunheboto

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

Not Notable. Please add references if the ground is notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 November 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 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Carotta

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

Not notable TV person. Retrieved from WP:PROD by the subject themselves. Lots of passing mentions and minor credits; a few puff pieces with no evidence of independent journalistic research but no solid sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amazing that Stuart has multiple accounts and having lived in NZ cant seem to find any current listing or notable credits. Perhaps this link will provide Stuart what he needs to limit his sense of power. http://www.choicetv.co.nz/tv-guide Currently airing in your backyard. --70.198.45.108 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That page lists one credit (as Aadeventure Aaron). It lists it six times, as the series repeats on the schedule, but having one credit listed by the broadcaster does not make one achieve notablity. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2014

ok...? I believe you mean 'Adventure Aaron'? Again, notable is debatable, perhaps your looking for a few other links to validate the information, here is just a few?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.42.135 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I received an email from one of the major contributors about this page. I appreciate you taking time out of your day Nat, Stuart, Gene. I have nothing to do with this site or info, but I can assure you the links and info seems to be correct. A simple google search for both confirms it all and as far as whats notable or not, could always be up for debate. Bottom line is the links are correct and factual"-Aaron Carotta, aka Adventure Aaron.

To quote the relavent policy, we're looking for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The excludes: one-line credits; press releases from his employer or associated parties; promotional material for events where he will be appearing; interview-based non-adversarial material; etc. Did I miss anything? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe we all know its obvious you did. Instead of quickly responding, perhaps you should look at the links provided above, IMDB?!-MAV TV?! (A major network not employer as the page suggest as an independent producer, and numerous listing including the TV guide. Looks to me as if your going out of your way to make a point instead of paying more attention to your own reasons for numerous different accounts...but hey, maybe that is just your sole MO. Out of curiosity, Choice TV which doesn't even air in the US, instead your very home country, has current airing on now. How would that contradict or justify deletion? Its also not an employer as they license other materials and had numerous press links including Food TV in NZ to reference this deal. I am assuming you do not have a TV which would be the only way I could justify your initial flag. 21:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

First off, please stop with the personal attacks. They do not advance your argument, they discourage people from taking you seriously, and they are against Wikipedia policy. Having said that: IMDB does not signify notability. They try to list every credit for everyone. Having one's name in there is no more an indication of notability than is having a listing in a phone book. A network airing a show is not an independent source. A TV listing shows that a show exists, but does not signify notability. Again, as Stuartyeates has pointed out, we're looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted above fails SIGCOV. I would also note that it is difficult to establish notability in an article which has been edited not only by the subject but also a number of other single purpose accounts and IPs which seem to constitute significant COI, not to mention IP 70.198.42.135, whose only contribution to wikipedia is this discussion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to take another look and 'look at every single link.' So:

I hope this helps. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike yourself, I will revert to the simple understanding that if you have the time to go through and evaluate all of these, it is a case in point. The mentions in some of these, 'press release' which is from the tourism board to which many of these papers are funded by, does not object to the guidelines, nor does 'fly-in-fish-fly-out non-independent (author admits the subject is a friend)'. I question your stance on it and like myself, helped Aaron by contributing to this original page. Anyone is entitle to be a friend of his and paying it forward for him, is the 'notable' thing to do. The fact that he's friends with the author of one of your examples, would suggest he is a notable person given that article was published in the NZ herald. You can decide if your personal choice to debate that quideline, is the notable life decision you feel good with in life. I beg to differ and personally suggest you proposed correction instead of deleting. Then perhaps you would be taken a 'bit more serious'. 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.2.252 (talk)

  • Keep "Significant" simply means significant enough to establish notability. What is "significant" is an opinion. It's true that many of the sources listed by Stuartyeates are not usable due to independence and PR issues. However the ones marked "non-adversarial interview-based article" are acceptable as markers of notability. There is nothing in the guidelines that say these sources are not reliable. It's kind of ludicrous to frame a source that quotes the subject as being an "interview" because in that case any article that quotes someone is an interview. And then require it to be an "adversarial" type of article, whatever that means. The notability guidelines have a lower bar. The bar is being artificially raised due to COI and other concerns that have nothing to do with the sources. -- GreenC 16:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to "not in depth" with a five-paragraph piece doesn't exactly make your case. And it doesn't matter what service is being used to distribute a press release; a press release does not establish notability, as anyone can issue one. I suggest you review the general notability guidelines and consider what they are pushing toward. That doesn't mean that every call being made by Stuart is correct (a source need not be adversarial so long as it's independent), but you seem to be working under some sort of assumption of what "notability" means that does not accord with its use in the context of Wikipedia. Simple database listings of credits do not indicate notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:23, 30 November 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 21:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Despite the filibustering from anon IPs--- try WP:KEEPCONCISE, willya?--- when you weed out all the chaff and garbage there's no there there. The IPs keep asking what they need to come up with to prove the subject's notability. Here's what. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, which discuss the subject in significant detail, and not just mention his name in passing, and not just the hometown weekly. Don't take my word for it, read WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:V for yourselves. (Also, get a grip. You can "not take us seriously" all you like, but if you think that razzing on folks is the best way to save your article, just wait another couple days and see how well that works out.) Nha Trang Allons! 21:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It would appear to me that there are articles sourced which have more than enough acceptable markers of notability as some would agree above. I also did a search on Google referring the subject to which many more articles of notability have arrived. I would suggest the 'clean up' the questionable links and continue to contribute the notable ones. It would also appear that this was deletion proposal was created by one particular account that my have an ax to the page in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sftimes (talk • contribs) 22:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC) — Sftimes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Of course the deletion proposal was created by one individual (that's how all Article For Deletion proposals are done) and it's someone who has a problem with the page in general (if they didn't think that the page had a general problem, rather than individual problems that could be reasonably fixed, why would they propose deletion?) If you want to suggest that some of the links establish notability, you should note which of the links provide that, so that your claims can be recognized as valid or addressed with concern. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is cut and try and based on the comment from Nat on a few various occasions, it would appear to me that the level of interest is unusually stronger than normal for a typical editor making comments about a violation. Regardless here are a few closing links which as previously mentioned, I confirmed notability. I searched for ones provided by a creditable source referencing the subjects story and bio as it pertains to the Wiki Page

https://soundcloud.com/adventureaaron/newstalk-zb-new-zealand - Appears to be a valid interview with a top news personality that suggest details on what the original subjects pages, refers to.

http://fourhourworkweek.com/2009/12/22/cold-remedy-free-flights-anywhere-in-the-world-plus-live-qa-tonight/#more-2421 - Tim Ferriss, a best selling author seems to break the initial story on the subject here.

http://choicetv.co.nz/component/k2/item/1090-catch-cook-with-adventure-aaron - A current tv show listing about the subject and his show Sftimes (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • A few notes:
      • I have struck out your second "keep" !vote above. It is practice in these deletion discussion for each user to only get one visible bolded !vote, so that they do not get undue weight in analyzing the discussion. If you have previously placed a "keep" statement in this discussion using an IP address rather than the new sftimes account, please indicate which one.
      • The phrasing of your message can be read as saying that I was the one who proposed the deletion of this page, which is not the case.
      • The Ferries blog would appear to be a self-published source, and per WP:SPS, we do not accept self-published sources as reliable sourced about third parties.
      • The ChoiceTV listing is a channel promoting their own product. It is not independent, and thus does not reflect notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, I think, I came here by opening a wrong door on the Net- but curious as I am, I tried to read and understand whereabout serious people are discussing. Don't really get a clue. What's , actually the problem? Do you propose to delete an article or the links/sources by the article?? There is nothing wrong with article self , I think - he (whoever it was) didn't lie a word. OK, there may be discussion about some .. "lighting" and "sound effects" - but which man doesn't like to have the greatest one? [reputation] ( to be honest, women do it often too, just more subtle and sophisticated). Is he "important " enough to get his wiki-place? I though, Wikipedia was initially created for users- readers, curious people like me. About 50 000 people on Facebook and almost same on Twitter were curious and even liked him - I found people on Wikipedia with much less . Is he really good? Don't know, but if TV channels pay for the second seasons of his series - obviously they find him good enough? Oh, and that "journalist-being-friend"-question ... Excuse me, would someone write an article about a person, that he doesn't know, doesn't like, doesn't find interesting? Yes, perhaps, if he got paid therefor. Independent-dept? If you well interested in someone's story, feel you curious/inspired/surprised/amused...or just like the way he smiles - are you friends? Who am I to decide? Just a little, curious woman that likes Wiki a lot - because you can find here everything in the world and beyond what you want to know [By the way - I'm ridiculous superficial, never can take a part in intellectual discussions of my friends - I constantly forget the name of "Run, rabbit"-author, hate Chehov, can't remember if I've seen anything of Fellini, all physical formula's passed by my brain without living a trace and certainly don't ask me anything about sources- but believe me or not, I've read that article wrote by friend and even seen the video - friend or not, he just very accurate describes episode and he has sharp and funny tong ( should he use it only for friends?!) I'd vote "live and let him live" -if I'd found the vote-button ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camel-on-the-beach (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shanks, Amy (2012-02-06). "TV adventure star samples the wild life". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2014-12-16.

      The article notes:

      Aaron Carotta spent three days in Hawke's Bay last week, filming the show, which focuses on adventure and diverse foods, and features internationally regarded guest chefs.

      His challenge while in the Bay was to catch a wild pig, which chef Peta Mathias made into a gourmet "boil up" at a Master Class at Cape Kidnappers Lodge.

      "We were able to catch a wild pig and stopped off at the Hastings Farmers Market, which was an adventure in itself," Mr Carotta said.

    2. Arneal, Nathan (2014-07-23). "Wehner risks life and limb globetrotting for reality TV show". North Bend Eagle. Archived from the original on 2014-12-16. Retrieved 2014-12-16.

      The article notes:

      It started with a video he posted to the Facebook page of “Adventure” Aaron Carotta auditioning for a spot on the TV show Bucket Wish.

      Carotta, an Omaha native, has produced TV shows such as Alive! with Adventure Aaron and Catch and Cook, shows that featured various adventures around the globe.

      His latest venture, Bucket Wish, will be appearing on MavTV (DirecTV channel 214, Dish 248) this fall. A Facebook casting call asked viewers to send in videos of themselves and pick one of 13 adventures they wanted to go on.

    3. Ryan, Rebecca (2013-09-03). "Waitaki to be world famous". The Oamaru Mail. Archived from the original on 2014-12-16. Retrieved 2014-12-16.

      The article notes:

      Thrill-seeking American TV presenter Aaron Carotta was in Waitaki over the weekend, filming an episode of Catch And Cook with Adventure Aaron.

      The 30-minute feature on the Waitaki District, features Carotta being challenged by Oamaru chef James Glucksman, to track down certain ingredients.

      ...

      The show follows Carotta with his catches including hunting, fishing and more. The show is filmed and screened worldwide.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Aaron Carotta to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fully endorse Green Cardamom's comment:

    "Significant" simply means significant enough to establish notability. What is "significant" is an opinion. It's true that many of the sources listed by Stuartyeates are not usable due to independence and PR issues. However the ones marked "non-adversarial interview-based article" are acceptable as markers of notability. There is nothing in the guidelines that say these sources are not reliable. It's kind of ludicrous to frame a source that quotes the subject as being an "interview" because in that case any article that quotes someone is an interview. And then require it to be an "adversarial" type of article, whatever that means. The notability guidelines have a lower bar. The bar is being artificially raised due to COI and other concerns that have nothing to do with the sources.

    Cunard (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica1000 03:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H2desk

[edit]
H2desk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly WP:NN software The Dissident Aggressor 18:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Crum (musician)

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

Not clear that this subject would meet WP:MUSICIANS or WP:GNG. Article in bad need of citation NickCT (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He also meets #6 "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses." He conducted the National Ballet, as the original chorus master of the Royal Conservatory Opera School, chorus master for CBC radio opera broadcasts, conductor for the CBC Opera Company and guest conducted for several companies including the Joffrey Ballet of New York and the Ballet Teatro of Mexico City.
These accomplishments should also merit inclusion per WP:CREATIVE and there seems to be enough coverage for WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica1000 03:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Thomas (ordinarycharley)

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

Unremarkable web personality with no secondary coverage. Most-watched video has fewer than 15k views. Blackguard 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica1000 03:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 South Shore Town Cup

[edit]
2014 South Shore Town Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article on the South Shore Town Cup was deleted for failing WP:N, so I don't see how this could survive. Briancua (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no need to delete this. If you feel it lacks certain information then fix it yourself. Stop going around proposing everything for deletion. Aidan721 03:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan721 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: That's not the way things work on Wikipedia, and looking at the various conflicts you've been involved with in the last few weeks on your talk page, it's troubling that you appear not to be making much of an effort to learn certain key Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or to follow them when they're pointed out to you. The reason that this article was proposed for deletion was simply that it doesn't qualify under Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. For a general article, it would need to qualify under WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ROUTINE. For a hockey article, local amateur and children's competitions are never considered notable unless they qualify under the GNG. In any event, as per Wikipedia's deletion policy, it's not up to others to "fix" articles to your liking; it's up to those who wish to save the articles to do so. I urge you, as others have, to read up on these guidelines, which will better inform you as to what articles are likely to qualify. Alternately, you could turn your attention to improving existing articles instead of creating new ones. Ravenswing 03:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would making this the main page for the tournament be any better as I could add information from all past years. Just an idea so let me know. Aidan721 15:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan721 (talk • contribs)
  • No. The tournament itself isn't notable enough for an article, which is why that article was deleted. Happily, those looking for information about the tournament can always refer to its own website. Ravenswing 18:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that of the sources added to the article by User:5 albert square, one was a primary source and one was a BBC Programme Information search that only provided a passing mention. The third was a link to the IMDb entry for the subject. NorthAmerica1000 03:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Runeckles

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG as of now. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica1000 03:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PhanArt

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

Advertisement and self-promotion by User:Pmmason11 for his "website and brand". Non-notable book at the core of the article. Mikeblas (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm seeing some assertion of notability for the overall art movement named PhanArt ([10], [11], [12], [13]), but this article is so unambiguously promotional that I'm leaning towards voting for it to be TNT'd because it'd have to be re-written from scratch. I do have to note that I'm slightly concerned about one of the Highbeam sources since it does come across slightly like it was based on a press release. If I can find more then I'll post it here, but offhand I'm not really finding anything to show that this really merits its own article. I think that at most this could be mentioned in the overall article for Phish, maybe under a section about their fanbase or in other media. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I just can't find enough to really show that this merits its own article at this point in time. I found this article, but other than that there just isn't anything out there. I do, however, think that we should have a subsection in the main article about Phish that specifically deals with the band's fandom. I just don't see where this specific part of that fandom merits its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 08:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Sundar

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

Fails WP:BIO Harsh (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 17:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nisa azeezi

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

Another article Nisa Azeezi. Nominating in AfD because aricle can't be speedily deleted per WP:A10. All of the content is perhaps WP:OR and the only source it has, doesn't verify the claims in the content.

It can't be merged/redirected to Nisa Azeezi because the title of the existing article i.e, Nisa azeezi is not a plausible redirect and the content is OR. Harsh (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as copyright violation of [14]. Also, I can't find any reliable sources to indicate notability, there is likely OR included with the copyvio and the whole article is overly promotional in tone. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarahj2107: I tagged for CSD. Thanks. Harsh (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted (G7) by Carlossuarez46 - Even tagged it since no one below even bothered. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Светоглас - Болгарский Полифония

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

Not in English ! Xcia0069 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Nthep per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk to me 12:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadek telecom

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

Wrong language ! Xcia0069 (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nightflight (Kate Miller-Heidke album). czar ⨹ 05:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ride This Feeling

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. I made it a redirect to the album, but this was rv with no reason given. Not notable. Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 move czar ⨹ 08:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Fancy

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

Dab page with two entries: replace with a hatnote leading from the magazine to the general practice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as dab page, noting that the magazine is about to change its title to Catster. Or alternatively, redirect to Animal fancy (as Cat fancy, lower-case "f" already does), where there is already a hatnote to point to the magazine. I am not convinced that a US magazine is the international Primary Topic for the phrase. PamD 15:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Cat fancy is already a redirect to Animal fancy, so the only way to even get to this page is to type "Cat Fancy" with the capital F. Plus, if the magazine is about to change its name, neither of the titles on the dab page will be the titles of the actual articles. It will be a dab page to two redirects. Why can't this be handled with hatnotes? – Margin1522 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the G6 since PamD has argued against the move it can't reasonabel be seen as untroversial. That said, I agree the page should be deleted and replaced with the magazine article. A hat note is preferrable to a dab page when there are only two possible targets. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move Cat Fancy (magazine) back to this title. The original move, which occurred without discussion, contradicts Wikipedia's naming conventions. (In particular, see WP:DIFFCAPS.) When a user searches for "Cat Fancy" (with an uppercase "F") it's far more likely that he/she seeks our article about the magazine than anything else.
    Also, my understanding is that Catster is a new magazine with a different format and publication schedule, not a continuation of Cat Fancy under a different name. (The page to which PamD linked actually corroborates this, noting that Dog Fancy and Cat Fancy are "shutting down, to be replaced by print versions of the Web sites Dogster and Catster.") —David Levy 17:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Hill

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

No credible claim of significance. Local character in Hamilton, New Zealand whose claim to fame is "frequenting the Frankton railway station" and being "feared by many children". Fails WP:GNG as, outside of an entry the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As background, Hill is included in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, and the people who appear there are usually considered notable. However, the DNZB includes a small number of people as representative of New Zealand society, and these people will not meet our notability standards. This is explained at Wikipedia:Notability (New Zealand people)#Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (current). Hill may well be one of these representative entries, and I have no objection to the article being deleted after a discussion, but I declined a speedy deletion nomination because I thought this discussion needs to be held.-gadfium 05:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that this article should be listed as one of the representative entries as part of the DNZB article. I have thus no objection to its deletion. Schwede66 07:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I believe that this woman is notable by virtue of appearing in the DNZB, I would not have created the article. Having said that if merge and redirect is done per Schwede to Dictionary_of_New_Zealand_Biography#Representative_entries, please leave the machine readable persondata in the redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability in any undertaking, and no references beyond one source, which notes that it contains some biographies of non-notable people. Without at least one additional source and one notable undertaking in life this clearly doesn't meet notability standards.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep. I added two more sources to the article. I think Hill is a person of importance to New Zealand culture, and I would compare her to Ben Hana (the article on him has survived two deletion discussions), but because she died in the pre-internet era there is much less available information online. The most substantive source may be Coffee and bun, sergeant Bonnington and the tornado: myth and place in Frankton junction by Anna Green, published in 2001 (and perhaps again in 2004), but I have not been able to locate a copy. Her obituary in the Waikato Times 27 Aug. 1983, p 6 might also be worth chasing up, but I don't think an archive of this paper is available in Auckland (where I live).-gadfium 22:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upgraded my recommendation due to additional sources found by Stuartyeates.-gadfium 00:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

§ Delete -even with refs, this article tells the reader nothing of any encyclopaedic value. This person existed, she had a nick-name and she frequented a rural NZ railway station. That could apply to thousands of people. The article needs to make clear what it is exactly that she is supposed to be notable for and have the refs to demonstrate it. Without it, this should be a simple deletion.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/ is essentially useless for things more recent than WWII and coverage is surprisingly patchy for things prior to that. National news made every newspaper in the country, so those things are findable, but coverage of local issues is poor. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another Light shed on mystery lady By: IRVINE, Denise, Waikato Times, May 09, 1998 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=anh&AN=WKP9805090141-COFFEE-ED&site=ehost-live with more biographically details. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 05:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Welch

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

Sources are all dubious fringe blogs and a few small press books no one has ever heard of. There isn't a shred of credibility here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.226.87 (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: My thoughts on the subject have been previously expressed at Talk:Russell Welch and User talk:BarrelProof#Russell Welch. On the whole, this is a fringe topic with fringe sources and low credibility. I'll repeat here what I said on my Talk page:
    "I would be tempted to dismiss the article entirely except for the connection to Barry Seal, which seems to be a more well-documented subject, and the one referenced article by the well-known journalists Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. I suppose they are not really mainstream objective journalists, but they are (or were, in the case of Mr. Cockburn) at least notable and relatively widely read. Several of the sources seem to be basically self-published, or seem to be simply documenting what Russell Welch himself has said without providing any indication that they have tried to verify the veracity of his claims. Several of the factual assertions that are made would be highly notable news if they are verified, but it is clear that mainstream press has not been saying those things. The mainstream press seems to have mostly just ignored Mr. Welch as far as I know – without even bothering to publish something to debunk his claims, much less verifying them. It might be nice to find a copy of the referenced article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, since that appears to be a mainstream publication, but I have been unable to find that article using the search tool on the newspaper's web site. Note that there was a proposed deletion of the article two years ago (just after the article was created on 15 March 2012), which I endorsed at the time."
—BarrelProof (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 05:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for the Bone

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

Another rivalry which doesn't meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG. With conference realignment, its very unlikely these two teams will meet in the future. Delete Secret account 03:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 04:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it may not be much, but the teams have met 11 times – more than several of the other rivalries currently at AfD – and the rivalry does have a name. Also, the teams dislike each other enough that there was a brawl in one meeting. I'm not persuaded that deletion is the answer in this case. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC) upon further consideration, delete Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mellowed Fillmore:@Secret: Roger that. For the last two days, I've been working through a Google News Archive and Newspapers.com search for significant coverage of this game series as a rivalry, not just an annual series in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. I'm not close to being done, but I have yet to find anything that would tip the balance in favor of keeping this article. What significant coverage have you found so far, MW? If you have found significant coverage, please post links. We're looking for coverage that discusses the history and significance of the "rivalry" -- some discussion of why the series is a "rivalry" in the coverage is helpful. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the standpoint of evaluating the game's notability pursuant to NRIVALRY and GNG, whether the game has a name is irrelevant. ESPN and fan bloggers make up silly "names" all the time. In order to be notable for inclusion, the topic must either have significant coverage under the general notability guidelines, or satisfy one of the specific notability guidelines (which presume the existence of significant coverage). That's the point of most AfD discussions, including this one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have spent several days looking through various on-line keyword searches (e.g., "Fresno State" & "Louisiana Tech" & rivalry) trying to find significant coverage of this "rivalry" in multiple, independent, reliable sources to determine if it's notable per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Yes, there is coverage of the "rivalry," but virtually all of it is generated by sources we would not consider reliable (e.g., fansites, blogs, etc.) or independent (e.g., college newspapers, athletic departments, etc.). A surprisingly large number of these lesser sources seem to be based on the Wikipedia articles, and several even expressly mention Wikipedia as a source for the existence of the "rivalry." This is a good example of what is wrong with many Wikipedia sports rivalry articles: the coverage, if any, in mainstream reliable news and sports publications consists of trivial mentions, and anything approaching significant coverage is only found in non-reliable and/or non-independent sources that may not be used to establish notability. And this is apparently another example of an artificial "rivalry" that athletic departments and local media attempted to create in order to drum up ticket sales, and the "artificial" characteristics are all there: relatively short-lived game series, no single-subject books about the "rivalry," no national coverage of the game as a "rivalry," no feature articles even in local newspapers regarding the history and significance of the "rivalry." When Wikipedia becomes one of the primary sources for the existence of a sports "rivalry," it's probably not notable as a traditional college rivalry. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created this article. At the time, it was the only active rivalry game that Louisiana Tech played. The game was billed as the Battle for the Bone by the athletic departments. It was a short-lived but heated series in football that also spilled over into other sports, most notably women's basketball in which there was also a brawl between the teams. I think you are going to find a hard time finding any single-subject book about Louisiana Tech or any aspect of the university other than media guides and yearbooks, but that obviously doesn't make the university or its athletic programs not notable. As far as whether to keep or delete this article, I will leave that up to y'all. I would prefer to keep it because I think this rivalry was central to the WAC era of Louisiana Tech football, but you certainly aren't going to find any single-subject books or much outside of the athletic department releases or school newspaper articles about this rivalry. -AllisonFoley (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allison, as you know, the Wikipedia concept of "notability" is all about significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Here, that coverage is lacking. Your description of the short-lived rivalry is mirrored in the rivalries section of the Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football team article. While the rivalry is obviously now defunct, and received little in-depth national attention while it was active, the team article does provide a nice summary of it. Gone, but not forgotten. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peter Pan Records. Don't see anything to merge, but pull sources from page history as you wish. czar ⨹ 19:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caroleer Singers

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

This group does not seem to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Sources are links to online discography lists, but tells us nothing about the group other then they exist in some form. As there is no list of members it would suggest this is a transient music group hired/formed on the fly by the record label to cash in on the Christmas season. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:14, 21 November 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 21:38, 28 November 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, Biblioworm 02:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Marie Collins

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

Notability not assertained 🍺 Antiqueight confer 01:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sweeney Astray. czar ⨹ 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeney's Flight

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

I'm not seeing any reviews of this book of photos. Not much of a seller on amazon.com.[15] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Sweeney Astray. The book Sweeney Astray is notable and I can find various sources discussing it, but I can't really find enough coverage of this book to really show how it's independently notable. From what I can see, this book pretty much takes snippets of the original text in Sweeney Astray and sets it to photographs, so this would be a reasonable merge in this instance. I'll try to clean up the article for the main book some, as it's pretty deplorably sourced at the moment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There are a couple of obscure reviews cited at the photographer's website, but not enough to establish notability. I did find this terrific interview with the photographer, which might be useful, especially if someone wants to write an article on her. The sources at the main article are in much better shape compared to a week ago. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I've moved the article to Ubagarampillai Sagayam as that's his full name. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U. Sagayam

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

Not a notable civil servant. Mid level. Fail WP:GNG Uncletomwood (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 21 November 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 deckertalk 01:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The biographical information is OK, but there is nothing especially notable about the English description of his activities. According to Google Translate, the Tamil text at the end is a rather detailed description of his role in the granite quarry case. If it was translated, that might establish some notability as an anti-corruption crusader. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:32, 2 December 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 00:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability.
  • Do not Delete . Please do not delete this page. U.Sagayam is a person of self confidence, fighting the political system from inside, is a protagonist , fighting to remove bribery in Tamil Nadu. He is an IAS officer and has the caliber and the official power to do it. He is an inspiration to many young budding officers and youngsters who want to become IAS officers. லஞ்சம் தவிர்த்து நெஞ்சம் நிமிர்த்து [Reject Bribe, hold your head high] is a slogan which is motivating many officers these days to reject bribe.
People wanting to know about him, come to wikipedia. If you delete this page, then it would be like snuffing the nascent flame, which when kindled would inspire youngsters and erradicate so many clutches from Tamil Nadu and India.
Prabhakar Jeyaraman (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. Found some additional sources covering the subject: a profile in Outlook, which has a circulation of ca. 500,000; a piece in DNA, whose website claims that it has 1.5 million readers in Mumbai; and a five-page piece on the granite-mining scandal in Frontline, an imprint of The Hindu Group whose website gives its average issue readership as 152,000. — Ammodramus (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 16:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arielle Scarcella

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

WP:BLP of an Internet personality, relying entirely on primary and/or unreliable (blog) sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage. For added bonus, this shades significantly into advertising territory, particularly when you get to the "life coaching" section: "Currently, she offers one hour sessions via Skype at $100 USD and a bulk option for five sessions at $400 USD.", followed by (primary sourced, of course) client testimonials. I'm willing to grant that she might qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article — but that's not what this article is. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with your point on the shade into advertisement and it was a serious misjudgment on my part. The "Life coaching" portion has been entirely removed as of now. I will be sure to incorporate more reliable and non primary sources as well. --Kerrfluffle (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article has reliable source material and it's content is notable enough to be kept. From what I've researched, she seems to be very mainstream within the online LGBT community.Keep--Magicjamess (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source material? It's sourced almost entirely to primary sources, blogs and YouTube videos — there's only one citation in the entire article that counts as a reliable source at all (#7), and that's not enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some secondary sources to the article. Sorry about the primary sources, going by school essays I thought those were the best to use and Wikipedia is very new to me. Please let me know what else can and should be done or if this article isn't notable enough to continue. However, I believe that this individual is notable enough to deserve an article and there are now more secondary sources to support it. Keep--Kerrfluffle (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything in the article as of right now is still a primary source (YouTube videos and non-notable blogs don't count.) There's only one acceptable reliable source being cited here (Huffington Post), and one source isn't enough to get a person over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 27 November 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 00:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 16:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moodlakatte Institute of Technology, Kundapura

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

Delete, promotional article will take a rewrite to bring up to standards. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 27 November 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 00:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 69

[edit]
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 69 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So, an old text was found among hundreds of other papyri. The find in toto is of course notable, and some (or many) of the individual papyri are notable. But this one? I can't find any evidence that anyone apart from the discoverers have ever paid any significant attention to this (and the discovery was more than 100 years ago, it's not as if there hasn't been enough time yet). It's one of many remaining Ancient Greek texts, and one of the less interesting ones. Serves little purpose as a redirect, so deletion seems to be the best option. Fram (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge This item was picked for an exhibition (and virtual exhibition) in the Eric North Room, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, in 1998. While the main find was over 100 years ago, the suggestion that the scholarship on these papyri is anything other than half-begun would be over-stating the case. William A. Johnson's Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus was only published in 2004. And the main resource The Oxyrhynchus Papyri is an ongoing work, it recently published volume 79 The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Volume LXXIX, Egypt Exploration Society, London, 2014. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep. "P. Oxy. 69" produces more than twenty results in GBooks. I was under the impression there was a paucity of sources from the ancient world. Common sense suggests that this should be kept. Satisfies OLDBOOK. James500 (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will report my findings as I progress (expect this post to be updated as I find sources; and not necessarily in the same order as GBooks). This calls it "perhaps the most colourful case" and "neat detective work". Footnote 35 on page 11 of MacMullen's book might be citing it as evidence. A number of the results are in French, German and Italian. Unless I am mistaken, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Volume LXIX was published in 2005, so it may be that in all earlier sources "P Oxy 69" does indeed refer to the papyrus and not the book. James500 (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly most of them are, but e.g. this one from 1994 uses P Oxy 69 as a typo of P Oxy 59, sadly. With a source like this[16] from 1969, I can't seem to match the source with the actual text of the papyrus, so I suppose something else is being referenced. And this a well seems to be about another text. (Sorry to nitpick, you are doing a great job in getting this kept and proving my AfD to be in error). Fram (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching instead for "P. Oxy. I 69" will bring some nice hits. I like the sentence "das Durchbrechen ganzer Wände mit Hilfe von Rammböcken". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nomination - "the discovery was more than 100 years ago, it's not as if there hasn't been enough time yet" - misunderstands the context of the discovery, subsequent analysis and the associated time-lines. There has been nowhere near enough time, such is the nature of the find. It the context of what has been published to date, I think being chosen from among the thousands of fragments for an exhibition absolutely differentiates this from other samples in the collection. As is the nature of such things, the subject matter (mundane or not) isn't necessarily the deciding factor (preservation, quality, size, clarity, etc are). St★lwart111 08:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – According to the {{Oxyrhynchus Papyri}} navbox at the bottom of the page, there is a project underway to write an article for every one of these papyri. This is one of 207 papyri in Vol. I, all with articles or mentions in group articles. Before we do anything with this, we had better hear from the author of the template and Leszek Jańczuk, the creator of the article. He's one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors. I don't know why he hasn't commented here, but we better ask. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all I should help for the nominator, because his job is incomplete:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

It was an agreement between several users that every ancient manuscript deserves for wikipedia article. Every one papyrus is very important for science and I beleive it is also important enough for wikipedia. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • An agreement between several editors has no value here, actually, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This papyrus may or may not be important enough for Wikipedia, but claiming that all papyri are important enough seems overkill. I suppose that at least not all stone tablets from Mesopotamia are considered Wikipedia-worthy as well... Fram (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OLDBOOK is not a local consensus, and there can be a rough consensus that these papyri generally satisfy it. James500 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If WP:OLDBOOK is the "agreement between several users" mentioned above, then it simplu isn't applicable, as this paragraph-long fragment can ntot by any stretch be called a book. OLDBOOKS is about books that have been published in the past and were notable in their own time. This text was not notable at all in ancient times. Fram (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • OLDBOOK says no such thing. There is no requirement that the document be famous in its own time, nor should there be. The original version of the proposal said that all books written before 1750 were ipso facto notable, so it can't have been exclusively about past fame. James500 (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether they all are seems beyond the scope of this discussion. Since this project is so extensive and well underway, I think we'd have to take it to a wider forum. With respect to this particular article, the alternate source names provided by Leszek turn up 153 cites on Google Books and 21 on Google Scholar, mainly from historians. So I would say that it passes. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read the above discussion completely. I have already countered the same argument: most of these hits are not about this document at all, but about the 69th volume of the P. Oxy collection (certainly from the first and third new link, less so from the middle one). Google searches are useful, but please discuss individual sources, not Gogle hits were most are not about the subject up for deletion. Fram (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is cited by scholars studying the criminal justice system – Petitions, Litigation, and Social Control in Roman Egypt (here p. 79), "Many texts speak of the arrival of thieves, or describe acts of robbery and intrusion in the house." (here), and Apuleius und die Räuber: ein Beitrag zur historischen Kriminalitätsforschung (here p. 291). Then there are the philologists – American Journal of Philology "so that I may be able to recover the barley" (here), and a number of Greek New Testament scholars who were interested in the everyday meaning of the Greek expression for "break down the door". – Margin1522 (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fram, in English literature numbers of volums are written in Roman numerals. In French literature they are written in Arabic numerals (and in several other languages), but in French literature almost everything is different (abbreviations, references, etc.). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Interesting, but hardly relevant as an answer to my post. Most of the hits in those Google results are not about this papyrus, and most of the others are truly passing mentions (being one of many fragments mentioned in a footnote, as in multiple examples linked by Margin1522, is hardly significant or adding to the notability; we could just as well start writing articles about individual letters written by notable authors, as they will be mentioned / cited in biographies, publisher histories, and so on). Fram (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think it is clear that most of the search results refer the printed volume rather than the papyri. So far, you have only given six examples, which is not a majority, even if we agree with all of them. Calling the sources "passing mentions" isn't a valid criticism, because the relevant guideline, OLDBOOK says, in express words, that the number of bare citations is a criteria for notability, which is sensible because this correlates with historical value. This should not be suprising because we have adopted a similar approach with PROF and NJOURNALS. It would be helpful to stop using the word "most", since that is disputed, and start giving specific numbers and examples. James500 (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • "We could just as well start writing articles about individual letters written by notable authors, as they will be mentioned" There is no such publications. No one will publish for you. Irrelevant. If you do not believe, try. Just try. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Speaking of ignorance... You have never heard of "The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien", "The Letters of Vincent van Gogh", "The Letters of Oscar Wilde" and so on? These are notable books with letters by notable authors or artists. Many of these letters are then referenced in other works, like their biographies or the biographies of other artists, authors, publishers, ... That does not mean that these individual letters are notable enough to have an article (with very few exceptions, obviously some letters are individually notable, but not e.g. all 928 letters in the Van Gogh book are... But e.g. this book quotes from Van Gogh Letter 152. Fram (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I hope we are still talking about paleography. In some cases initials deserve for individual articles if they are used in numerus manuscripts and they will published by scientific editors, but not for individual scribe. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Like I just said above, when you read WP:OLDBOOK it becomes very obvious that it doesn't apply to this paragraph-long scrap of text at all. This was not a "book" by any stretch of the imagination, not a published work or work by a notable author (in its time), just a random scrap of papyrus that has happened to survive the ages. it may or may not be notable, but this should be argues with sources adressing it in detail, and applicable policies and guidelines, not by number of Google hits when many of these are not about this subject, and guidelines which don't apply. Fram (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • In my view the reasoning behind OLDBOOK is applicable to this document which obviously possesses the sort of historical value with which OLDBOOK is concerned. Even if we decide it isn't technically a "book" (not obvious), "Coverage notes" says the guideline "may be instructive by analogy" for other documents, so we can still apply it. James500 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let's agree to strongly disagree then, if you can't even agree that this isn't obviously a book at all. The "analogy" section you quote lists a long series of similar things to books. Scraps of paper don't appear in it, nor does anything remotely similar. You can use OLDBOOK to your hearts delight here, but I'll have to ignore any argument derived from it, and hope the closing admin has the same sense. Fram (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Even if I was to accept that NBOOK does not apply to letters or manuscripts (and I don't see why it shouldn't), the extant part of this letter was republished in 1897 in something that was definitely a book, so OLDBOOK must apply. Since part of the letter isn't extant, we don't know that it was a paragraph long, and I don't see its brevity as a significant issue, it being no shorter than many poems. James500 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • OLDBOOK doesn't mean that every part of an old book is notable, only that the whole book may be notable. Please stop grasping at straws and focus on the sources that actually discuss this papyrus, if you want to show that it is notable. Fram (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Vote as above -- I really do not think we can have an artiel on every single scrap of paper in this enormous collection. If the Ms is really as much cited as others suggest, the article ought to have some discussion of the significance applied to be by scholars. If the article is suitably expanded to explain how important it is, notify me and I will reconsider my vote, but at present none of that is there. I therefore must regard it as an article on a NN scrap of paper. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can easily have articles on all of them because we are NOTPAPER. Calling the papyri mundane or a scrap of paper is an IDONTLIKEIT argument. The collection is not enormous. The number of these papyri published is a few thousand, which is a very small number. NRVE requires only the existence of sources. It does not require that they be cited in the article, or that the article be more than a stub, which are not valid arguments for deletion. James500 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have articles on all of them. Some are grouped in tables and get only a line or two of description. I'm not comfortable with calling any of them a "scrap of paper". To me this one is far more interesting than yet another fragment of the Gospels. A scholar studying the New Testament might disagree. This shouldn't depend on the opinions of Wikipedia editors regarding the notability of the topic. It should depend on the cites. Also, why do we have rules about notability in the first place? It's because less notable means fewer eyes on it, greater likelihood of mistakes going uncorrected, etc. Are there any concerns that the information in the article is incorrect? – Margin1522 (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ITSTRUE and ILIKEIT are not accepted reasons to keep it. Like you say, we should focus on the cites, which show notability (or not). Which of the cites, in your opinion, show significant attention from reliable sources? Fram (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IDONTLIKEIT is also not an argument and "scrap of paper" - it is an ignorance. Every this "scrap" cost 100-500 thousand dollars. Margin1522 gave several examples of its notability (duff). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source for price of this papyrus? As for Margin1522, have you really checked these sources. this is a prime example of a passing mention, being listed among a bunch of others in a footnote is not significant attention; this pdf equally gives it in a footnote list stating "see for example" as one of ten examples, no further elaboration; and surprise, in the third one, [17], it is also used as a passing example but not given any significant attention. Hence my question, which sources give significant attention to this papyrus, thereby establishing its notability. Simply give me the three most significant ones, the three ones that in your opinion undoubtedly show that it is a notable subject. Again pointing to the same very minor passing mentions only undermines your own position though. Fram (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, they are all passing mentions. But I thought the page in the Räuber book was pretty interesting, and the author needed all of the sources in the footnotes to arrive at the picture he paints. Take some other examples that I didn't list, the New Testament scholars. Say the phrase "breaks through the door" occurs in the NT. It's a metaphor comparing a spiritual event to something in the real world. You read the English and think you understand it, but what did it mean in the original Greek? Here is a real world example, with no need to worry about scribal errors or what it may have meant in later times because it's the original, from the very time when the Greek NT was being written. We can tell that this was quite a violent event, involving a battering ram. To a translator or scholar studying the text, this is priceless. I think the same goes for all of them. They are significant because they are so old and so rare. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jat Sikh clans of the Lahore Division

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

This is just a transcription of primary sources, being various Raj census returns. Since those censuses were themselves unreliable, there seems to be little point in retaining the article itself except perhaps as a historical curiosity. Sitush (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These statistics are outdated. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep encyclopedia should cover topics of historical value even if they are outdated or even incorrect (such as the earth is flat concept?). If the nom feels a clean up is needed to reflect that the censuses were not reliable (backed by a source), the right thing to do would be to move the article to a name like "xyz censuses of British Raj". The article may discuss the factual correctness of the information for NPOV. The census itself is notable; correctness and notability are not mutually inclusive. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have articles for the Indian census but this doesn't "fit". Really, what is the point in keeping a list that is effectively a transcription of a primary source? This one is no different to the seven or eight others that have been deleted over the last 18 months. Some boilerplate from past AfD noms is "Just useless. Several identically sourced/formatted articles have recently been deleted at AfD, eg: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jat_clans_of_Multan_Division, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Jat_clans_of_Lahore_Division and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Rajput_clans_of_Rawalpindi_Division. As I said then, what is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Rajput in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Rajput or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Rajput." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. One past AfD was contested at WP:DRV but the outcome remained the same." The census year and the community that the creator is listing may change but the problem remains the same: the numbers are poor, based on scientific racism etc and not necessarily related to the purported community, then or now. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know that they are poorly created articles, what I mean is they could be put under a new title to discuss their historical incorrectness that you claim. A good idea would be to ask an admin to get all the deleted articles and merge into one under a blanket neutral name.. the fact that the census happened makes it a widely noted event of its time and makes it notable and of historical value. If another article covers the topic, I can also support a merge & redirect. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:18, 5 December 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 00:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Friedmutter

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

Subject was a day player on a couple of series. EBY (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:19, 20 November 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 19:39, 27 November 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 00:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stephen Christian. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Orphaned Anything's

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

Non-notable book by a person who himself is barely notable (and is up at AfD right now). The book is self-published, and seems to have made no waves at all. The article is all plot summary and original research. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/redirect to Stephen Christian. I have no opinion at this point in time as to whether or not the artist himself is notable, but it's fairly clear that this book fails notability guidelines overall. The only halfway decent source I've seen has been a review on Absolutepunk, which appears to have been written by a random user and had no editorial oversight overall. Even if we were to consider that usable, that's only one source and we can't keep an article on just one source- at least not that type of source. If Christian's article survives AfD, a redirect would be reasonable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a much shortened summary into the "Publishing history" section of Stephen Christian. Perhaps rename the section after the title of this book, since it doesn't list anything else. Also we could move the book cover illustration over, since we have it. After that, I would support converting this article into a redirect. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 21 November 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 19:41, 27 November 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 00:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 22:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dal LaMagna

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

The page already went through an AfD discussion and it was determined that the page need be deleted yet the page was never deleted. Snood1205 (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Alright folks, this afd originates form the recreated page which is essentially a reborn version of the previously deleted copy, however there are a few changes to it and the article as such is not a strict, word-for-word recreation of previous material. That makes both the afd and csd templates plausible for the article. I've fixed this page, and will let the afd run until the article completes its run through here or ends up deleted on csd grounds, which ever happens first. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 21 November 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 20:32, 27 November 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 00:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything here that supports notability. I think that the opening of the article rather sums it up: here's a guy. In the article you find that he started a business, made some money, wrote a book (a memoir, of all things, with two ghostish-writers). Then he runs for office (on his own money) and loses. It's made worse by the promotional tone of most of the article. Please let's get rid of this one. LaMona (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madhupur Sonbhadra

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

Promo and content fork of Sonbhadra district The Banner talk 10:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 21 November 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 20:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is in poor shape, but I don't see that is promotional, and as a village, a separate article is appropriate. I agree with Gene93k that moving it to the standard title makes sense. --- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 3 December 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 00:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I removed the one sentence about cave paintings. Perhaps this is what the nom thought to be promotional. I agree, it is definitely unsourced and poorly written, but we hold inhabited places to be notable, so in the absence of red flags this is a clear keep. A move per Gene93k makes good sense. BethNaught (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not impressed by the number of single-purpose accounts, but I am by their sourcing—the argument for passing the general notability guideline is clearly the strongest in this discussion. czar ⨹ 16:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lore

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

BLP of non-notable person. There is no proper reference, just one statement ascribed to an unspecified issue ("In 2000") of a newspaper (Sunday Times) behind a paywall. A Google search for "Marc Lore" and "Sunday Times" finds just 13 results, all of them either clones of this article, or PR by Lore himself. This is effectively a totally unreferenced BLP, though my attempt to speedy this was rejected on the grounds that it "does have a reference". RolandR (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against deletion: This is a BLP of a notable person. Lore is referenced in a number of press articles in Forbes, Inc, TechCrunch, Fortune, and other notable publications regarding the success of Quidsi, Inc., and regarding his current venture, Jet. Some public references to Lore are:

He is also referenced in an existing Wikipedia page about Diapers.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.199.157 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BLP of a notable person. Lore is discussed in dozens of business articles published over the last 6 years in the most renowned magazines and newspapers, fully satisfying Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Here are several articles about Lore from a variety of sources:

  1. Businessweek printed a cover story in October 2010 about Diapers.com, opening the article with discussion of its CEO and founder, Marc Lore: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_42/b4199062749187.htm
  2. Business Insider included Lore's new venture, Jet, as #2 on a list of the best-funded startups yet to launch: http://www.businessinsider.com/best-funded-stealth-startups-2014-10#jetcom-80-million-11
  3. Fortune Magazine reported on Lore's plans for his new startup: http://fortune.com/2014/05/13/diapers-com-co-founder-quietly-working-on-new-startup-called-jet/
  4. Inc Magazine's feature on Lore includes personal details, imploring us to "meet the man" behind Diapers.com: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090901/the-way-i-work-marc-lore-of-diaperscom.html
  5. Venturebeat reported on Lore's announcement of raising $55m for his new venture: http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/29/ceo-behind-diapers-com-raises-55m-for-a-mystery-ecommerce-venture/
  6. Forbes celebrated Lore's success building Diapers.com: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0426/entrepreneurs-baby-diapers-e-commerce-retail-mother-lode.html
  7. CNBC: Lore has appeared on CNBC to discuss online commerce in the health and beauty space: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000072774#.
  8. American Express featured Lore in a print ad: http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/american_express_start_booming_marc_lore
  9. The New York Times quoted Lore in the context of his former venture: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/technology/04ecom.html?_r=0
  10. NPR's "From Scratch" features an interview with Lore: http://www.fromscratchradio.com/show/vinnie-bharara-and-marc-lore
  11. Betabeat published an article with commentary by Lore after the sale of his former company to Amazon: http://betabeat.com/2011/09/quidsi-co-founder-marc-lore-on-what-happens-after-amazon-buys-your-company-and-his-new-site-yoyo-com/
  12. Crain's New York published an article when Lore raised $55M for Jet: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140730/TECHNOLOGY/140739994/diapers-com-founder-nabs-55m-for-his-startup
  13. TechCrunch has reported multiple times on Lore's fundraising this year: http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/16/quidsi-co-founder-raises-an-additional-20m-for-a-new-e-commerce-biz/

Lore is clearly a person of interest in the world of e-commerce, with significant coverage by major outlets of both his former venture, Quidsi/Diapers.com and his current, Jet.

Please sign your comments by typing four tilde's at the end of your message. LaMona (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note 71.187.199.157 (talk contribs) is an SPA that is responsible for most of the content on the Marc Lore page. And, dear 71.187.199.157, not signing your comments will not fool anyone. Please play fair. LaMona (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lore appeared in the news this week again as a 'challenger' to Amazon - given the conversation in the business world around his company and Amazon, a very relevant organization, I would argue that this is notable. http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/blog/techflash/2014/11/whats-it-take-to-challenge-amazon-for-jet-com.html?page=2 66.108.234.192 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 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 21:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lore is definitely a very well-known person in the tech startup space. His most recent startup has attracted a lot of funding interest and is generating a lot of buzz. His success with Quidsi overall and specifically with Diapers.com is notable, and is relevant subject matter in business schools and for anyone interested in e-commerce. Given the recent interest and speculation around Jet, I would argue that this is a BLP. 38.105.136.251 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lore has been the subject of articles and interviews regarding his current and previous entrepreneurial ventures in major independent media outlets including NPR[1], Bloomberg[2], and Inc Magazine[3]. The secondary sources cover not only his current venture but also prior endeavors dating to at least 2005, indicating not merely a short-term interest. Given the presence of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, Lore meets Wikipedia's guideline for notability. 209.49.221.202 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Harris, Jessica. "Vinnie Bharara and Marc Lore, Co-Founders Of Diapers.com". NPR. Retrieved 30 November 2014.
  2. ^ "Marc Lore". Bloomberg. Retrieved 30 November 2014.
  3. ^ "The Way I Work: Marc Lore of Diapers.com". Inc. Retrieved 30 November 2014.

Keep: Lore satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements and the page is now sufficiently referenced. Based on policy, this page should be kept. 38.108.203.163 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 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 00:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_December_5&oldid=1142629403"