Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 January	9 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 13:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. Gaines

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

Player is non-notable via WP:NGRIDIRON. He is a college athlete, which is said in 2. as not being notable in itself, and the article gives no other reason to support he is notable in another way. Jed 20012 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jed 20012 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a simple review of online sources shows that he clearly passes WP:GNG based on volume of coverage that is specific to his collegiate career and NFL prospects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep. He was a first-team All-SEC player. In other words, the best cornerback in the best conference. And there is abundant non-routine coverage of him in mainstream media sources. Examples include ESPN profile, Washington Post, St. Louis Dispatch, Associated Press, Columbia Missourian, nfl.com, KOMU. Article does need some cleanup ("monster season"?) but not deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Best" conference? now that's opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an SEC fan ... but SEC teams did win 7 straight national championships from 2006 to 2012 ... and 4 of the top 7 teams in the final AP Poll this year (Auburn, South Carolina, Missouri & Alabama) were from the SEC. As much as I'd like it to be otherwise, it's pretty hard to argue objectively that the SEC is not the dominant conference in college football. Cbl62 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're top-heavy and bottom-weak.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul McDonald and Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I'm selfish, and I said so. Based on WP:NGRIDIRON principles, besides a handful of 2014 NFL Draft prospects who are notable due to national recognition or winning an award, all other articles should be deleted as well. So, in hindsight, you delete this one, you should delete 90% of them as well. So, how about we cut the conservative approach, and remove this article from the discussion of deletion. Also, you delete my work and I get angry. You won't like it when I'm angry… Canadalovesnd (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2014 (EST)
- Comment Per WP:TIND, those pages do not have to be created right away; they can wait until the players become notable under WP:NGRIDIRON. Perhaps it was just there were things missing from the article when I first saw it, which meant to me at first the article didn't meet WP:BURDEN. So please think of WP:GF; Thanks. Jed 20012 (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However a lot of the copy/paste straight from his Missouri bio needs to be removed.--Yankees10 17:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhol Radio

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 22:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Levdr1lp / talk 09:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an online radio station rather than a licensed broadcast station. I can find no coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination was withdrawn and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gqunukhwebe

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

Article has been unsourced since 2011. Seems to be about an ethnic group of Africa. While I'm nominating it for deletion, I would encourage a long waiting period to encourage participation from editors who might be familiar with this group. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to withdraw my AfD nomination, as I have instead brought the article to the attention of WikiProject Africa with the hope that they might be able to dig up some references and prevent the deletion of this article. Sorry for the hassle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U-8047 Submarine Museum

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

This article is a poster child for why we have NOTNEWS. This canal longboat dummied up to look like a Nazi-era German (and, later, on one side, UK) submarine, with its owner in full German uniform, appeared on the UK canal system and naturally became a darling of the tabloids and other sensational media. The article was created here by the same (admitted, now-blocked) owner and was originally a spamfest until a few editors, including me, cut it back to at least what could be confirmed through those news sources. At the time the article was created, the boat was parked in a prominent position outside a major UK military museum at Clarence Dock, but was subsequently forced to be moved to another more distant mooring at that location and, losing its income from admissions, eventually had to be sold and scrapped (the latter according to an editor who was (again, by his own admission) the brother-in-law of the owner). The article still says that it's at Clarence Dock, but that's only because no RS can be found for the fact that it no longer exists. This so-called museum, actually a rich boy's toy publicly flogged as a museum to bring in some cash, was the kind of flash-in-the pan overnight sensation which has no lasting significance and should not be part of the encyclopedia. TransporterMan (TALK) 21:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC) PS: I had wholly forgotten that I had previously nominated this. The significant change since that time is, of course that this no longer exists. If it's to be kept, some comments would be appreciated about how to document its nonexistence. — TM 21:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local man gets expensive birthday present but fails to secure appropriate development consents and has to have it scrapped. A local story in tabloid papers while it existed but most of those related to a single event - it's creation and then (soon after) removal. Absolutely not what Wikipedia is for. There are dozens of similar "things" in my native Australia - home-made castles, doomsday bunkers, private railways, personal collections of ex-military tanks and planes. Certainly not notable enough to warrant coverage here. Stalwart111 02:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Krijger

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

Fails the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). The closest thing to an actual independent, reliable source is one article in the Kaieteur News. The rest of the footnotes are Ben Krijger's own writing in a college newspaper and various routine listings. The basic criteria are " the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." All we have is one very weak source and not even passing mention of Ben Krijger anywhere else. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the Kaieteur News article, I found nothing at all worth including. Since he appears to be a press-release writer, it's a good bet this is an WP:autobio. Grayfell (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 13:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Ruin

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

Couldn't establish WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. This survived AfD in 2006, but I think that is simply because Wikipedia has increased its standards in the last 8 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has songs available on itunes for a start. Starblind is still active and pretty strict in what he considers encyclopedia-worthy, so I'd tend to agree with him. Is mentioned in detail in independent secondary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wp:NBAND, it's pretty easy for bands to get onto itunes these days. Unless these guys are notable within their genre, it doesn't look like they've received enough coverage to be encyclopedia worthy I feel like a tourist (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group put out two albums on Eulogy, which hurdles WP:MUSIC bullet 5's definition of "one of the more important indie labels", and I've added a couple of new references (and removed a copyright violation of one of those references; Allmusic has covered the group extensively). Google searches bring up several more reviews from the online metal press. Chubbles (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Phillips

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable rugby league player - fails WP:RLN as he only plays in the third tier at club level and has never featured for Wales. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Desert Sands Unified School District. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson Middle School (Indio)

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL guidelines. (Info belongs in Desert Sands Unified School District.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools as per precedent documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Desert Sands Unified School District. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Desert Middle School

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL guidelines. (Info belongs in Desert Sands Unified School District.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools as per precedent documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Desert Sands Unified School District. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Quinta Middle School

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL guidelines. (Info belongs in Desert Sands Unified School District.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools as per precedent documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Desert Sands Unified School District. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Glenn Middle School of International Studies

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL guidelines. (Info belongs in Desert Sands Unified School District.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools as per precedent documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Desert Sands Unified School District. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indio Middle School

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL guidelines. (Info belongs in Desert Sands Unified School District.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools as per precedent documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Desert Sands Unified School District. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Mitchell Paige Middle School

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL guidelines. (Info belongs in Desert Sands Unified School District.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools as per precedent documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sage's Market

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

Does not meet WP:COMPANY guidelines. – S. Rich (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a search I found a few mentions [1] of this defunct 6-store grocery chain, but not enough to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Corona-Norco Unified School District. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Letha Raney Intermediate School

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL guidelines. Simply one middle school in the district. – S. Rich (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Corona-Norco Unified School District per usual procedure for non-notable middle schools. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Rieta

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

There's nothing to show he meets the notability standards for martial artists. His acting career consists of stunts and playing unnamed characters. The only sources seem to be some local coverage of his art show, which doesn't appear to be significant. Fails WP:MANOTE, WP:NACTOR, WP:ARTIST, and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was created with a single purpose account - any one want to bet this is not a self authored advert. Notability is not established.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely autobiography of someone who, as nom points out, does not meet any notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Belingon

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights, so he fails WP:NMMA. A second tier title does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree - he is quite active but in a second tier organization.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not close to meeting the notability standards for MMA fighters. Astudent0 (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soo Chul Kim

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights, so he fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree - he is quite active but in a second tier organization.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not close to meeting WP:NMMA. Astudent0 (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Kimball

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

MMA fighter that fails to meet WP:NMMA and the article's only source is a link to his fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete For the above reasons - but if he is still signed with Bellator perhaps we could hold off for a bit.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Technically doesn't meet WP:NMMA, but he's just one fight away. Might be nice to userfy this article. Astudent0 (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Material

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore, there is already a decent article on raw material as well as other types of material (see material (disambiguation)). Just "material" in general is far too broad of a subject for any single article to add anything other than a dictionary definition or information that is duplicated in other, more specific articles. I feel like a tourist (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much of any substance here. Best to move Material (disambiguation) into the soon-to-be vacant spot. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of it is about raw materials which already have an article (although it's not a very good article, lacking references); it also mentions materials science which is included on the disambiguation page; much of the lead is dictionary definition stuff. Would be better if editors focused on improving raw material. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Alvey

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

MMA fighter that fails to meet WP:NMMA. A second tier title doesn't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Last top tier fight was three years ago - unlikely to make the cut any time soon.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for MMA fighters. Astudent0 (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Purity Myth

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

Notability of the book is not established. Article mentions "Numerous commentators", but the references provided do no support that. damiens.rf 17:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expand Article is bad, but the book may be notable...may just need a re-write with some good refs — Preceding unsigned comment added by I feel like a tourist (talk • contribs) 17:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Magazine Marie Claire interviewed her about the book. Does it counts? Maybe it's a little bit promotional (there's a link at the bottom inviting the reader to buy the book on an specific online library) --damiens.rf 17:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book was widely reported on and reviewed, enough to meet our usual application of WP:GNG to books. Examples:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If these reviews are ok to fullfill Wikipedia:Notability_(books), then the article should be kept (and expanded). --damiens.rf 19:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources above are mostly usable, although the Today article is an excerpt. It did help to refresh my memory a little about the book as it's been a little while since I've read it. In any case, there are reviews and such out there and I've put some of them in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - highly-reviewed book. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By order of the Secret World Government! Sandstein 11:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained boom

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

Is this really a necessary article. Booms happen all the time. To me, this article is suggesting something of the supernatural or undercover government work. I question the relevance of the article. United States Man (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason to question the "keep" result at the 2010 AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unexplained booms. The well-sourced list of events is enough to justify keeping the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: indeed real, and perhaps linked to distant artillery practice. Jidanni (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because the news reports that something happened doesn't mean that we have to create an article about it. What's the encyclopedic content here? This is just a collection of news reports saying that something mysterious happened. I don't see any discussion of the phenomena itself that would satisfy WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it is called "unexplained". Jidanni (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many related but "unexplained" phenomena have led to scientific discoveries. Ignoring them is regressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.240.34 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NinjaRobotPirate: it's a List made up of WP:RAWDATA that's trying to be an article about a "phenomenon". Per WP:LISTN, this collection of stuff would need to have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". LuckyLouie (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add comment: A simple search at Google Scholar quickly reveals, among many results: "Strange booms: what's causing noises over the horizon?", New Scientist, Volume 213, Issue 2852, 18 February 2012; Richard K. Cook, "Strange Sounds in the Atmosphere", Sound: Its Uses and Control 1, 12 (1962) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2369552); MF Romig, DL Lamar, Strange sounds from the sky (1964); and a chapter entitled "Strange Booms" in Seymour Simon's Strange Mysteries from Around the World [9] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per Arxiloxos, although referring back to a comment from the 2010 AfD I think List of unexplained booms in the USA would be a more appropriate title. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 20:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As far as I'm aware the main theory on this is that it's to do with fracking (at least the recent ones). If someone were to add information on overarching theories on the phenomena that would probably solve the dilemma. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete A Fortean synthesis festival suggesting that these events have something to do with each other. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of nonnotable events'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This concatenation appears to be original research. The notability requirements of WP:LISTN seem not to have been met. It is possible that a detailed reading and summary of the scholarly articles mentioned above could result in an appropriate article, but this list is not it. --Bejnar (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The sources presented by Arxiloxos show that the topic is notable. There is much detailed study of such phenomena - see 'Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies' and it seems that volcanoes, meteors and other events may be causes. As we have a variety of pages covering such material at list of unexplained sounds and category:unidentified sounds, we should retain this well-sourced material per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, DGG, and Bejnar. This could be fixed, but right now it's just a random list of events with no connections. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete becuase it is redundant to list of unexplained sounds, which in itself is already pushing it in terms of being really vague and only quasi-notable. It looks like Julia (unidentified sound) should also be deleted/merged as has already been voted upon once before. I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is WP:Original research because no secondary source is cited which recognizes the general topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodin Coil

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

No notability shown, no coverage in third party WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure crackpot theory by one guy who sounds like an agitated schizophrenic. The "Rodin Coil" is a simple electromagnet. Nevertheless, on his whacko site, he claims:

Some of the practical implications of this technology are:

Inexhaustible free energy

An end to all disease

Produce unlimited food

Travel anywhere in the universe

Build the ultimate supercomputer

Obsolete all existing technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.128.198 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aivaras Bražinskas

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, has not played in a fully professional league or senior international football. Fenix down (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the top league in Lithuania may not be fully professional, player meets WP:FOOTYN as Žalgiris Vilnius is fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nfitz does not understand WP:NFOOTY, which states that a player must have played in "a fully professional league", not for a fully-professional club. The Lithuanian league is not fully professional, so he fails it. Number 5 7 23:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY JMHamo (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WWE in 2005

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

There doesn't seem to be any other "WWE in [year]" articles and it doesn't seem like something that's entirely needed. Looks more like something belonging on WWE Wikia. Gloss • talk 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing here that is either not already covered or could easily be covered if necessary. We already have an article for the drafts and even if the PPV attendance figures were sourced they would be better served at the articles for the events. There is nothing here that we need.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like there's no tomorrow. Pointless article, and I just had to remove some user's own personal opinions on why it was such a good year. — Richard BB 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's an ongoing debate about whether or not articles like this, which detail a year in wrestling, should exist. While something like this might exist one day, this one is beyond salvation. Best to WP:TNT it and start anew if we get to that point.LM2000 (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Anna Frodesiak per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Kingdom Series

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

No coverage. Google search returns 0 results [10]. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as it's very likely to be a hoax. Otherwise delete, because it fails to meet GNG and WP:NBOOK because of lack coverage. (As I have also failed to find anything on the web.) Alex^{discussion ★} 17:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A first book scheduled for a release date over 12 months away? To me that suggests self-publishing and not yet finished - or maybe not even written... Could be a typo, but even if 2014 it hasn't got the opportunity to be notable. The article is the only ghit for the author's name and 'author', which tells me a lot. I wish good luck, as I do mostly, but way too soon for an article. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paulius Janušauskas

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Unreferenced BLP. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE notability guidelines. Lithuania league is not fully professional according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. While the article is no longer unsourced, the notability concerns remain valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a lot of coverage plus he plays in first fully professional league of a state, so the article does pass WP:NFOOTBALL and GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to play in a fully professional league, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and GNG as there's no significant media coverage. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back any of this up with sources? WP:FPL list the Lithuanian A Lyga as not fully pro, and the one source listed is unreliable, to say nothing of significance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Here are some of the examples of media coverage: [11] [12] [13] [14]. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS There's a citation from the article A Lyga: The A Lyga (English: The A League), currently also known as SMScredit.lt A Lyga for sponsoring purposes, is the top division of professional football in Lithuania. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. There is no evidence that the A Lyga is fully professional, or that this player has received significant media coverage. GiantSnowman 18:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: A Lyga is the highest pro league of Lithuania. [15] [16] FIFA Alex^{discussion ★} 21:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - For starters, these sources don't really confirm anything useful. That the A Lyga is the Lithuanian top flight is not in dispute, but that does not necessarily mean that it is fully pro (hence the "Top level leagues which are not fully professional" section at WP:FPL). Furthermore, for notability purposes professional does not mean the same thing as fully professional. While there are undoubtedly professionals playing in the A Lyga (ergo the league is professional), there are a significant number part-time footballers who also work day jobs playing there (meaning the league is not fully professional). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - issue isn't whether or not A Lyga is fully professional but whether Žalgiris Vilnius is fully professional. And I believe it is. WP:FOOTYN requires team to be professional, not league. Nfitz (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nfitz does not understand WP:NFOOTY, which states that a player must have played in "a fully professional league", not for a fully-professional club. The Lithuanian league is not fully professional, so he fails it. Number 57 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I understend WP:NFOOTY perfectly well. However when I made my comment, WP:FOOTY referenced WP:FOOTYN not WP:NFOOTY. Once again the goalpost has been moved .... Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Serbia

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

I have originally created this article, but I've only quite recently realised that it doesn't meet the following criteria: WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. You can't find anything in the news in English nor even in their language. They merely have coverage on their official web page, and there is no other reliable source that would confirm their significance. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS and we already have their other organisation page Communist Movement of Serbia deleted. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Does not meet notability, and should be deleted or merged with another article either about Serbia or about the Communist Party.Tonywikido (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Famous tomb of Hazrat Pir Syed Muhammad Shah Jillani Baghdadi in Gambat

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

This was dePRODed by the article creator without explanation. I PRODed it because I don't think this article can stay as is. If the topic is notable, this would need to be nuked and started from scratch as it's nearly incomprehensible. I couldn't figure out an appropriate speedy deletion criterion, so I'm bringing it to AFD. freshacconci talk to me 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Right now nuking the article seems like the best choice of action.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as it right now seems as the best option, because, really article needs a huge clean up. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT - most of it is nonsense or word salad. Tombs are rarely notable, and I don't see any reason to keep it. Even if this notable, we'd need a new article, such as at Abdul-Qadir Gilani. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Incomprehensible. If this is notable, the material present here is no basis for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian G. Gilmartin

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brian G. Gilmartin

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

If you came here because you followed the discussion at http://www (dot) love-shy (dot) com/lsbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24171, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I strongly doubt Brian G. Gilmartin, the man behind the recently deleted theory of love-shyness and incelness should be having an article on wikipedia. It is certainly in it's current form unfit to be on here. He is not a notable person and the article links directly to his own website and forum as a form of promotion. His disciples are now, simultaniously, pressuring for the article on incel to be kept, as seen here. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keepThe person above me is, once again, as on the article about incel, spreading malicious lies which he/she cannot back up. Gilmartin was never behind the term incel (not some nonsensical and non-existent "theory of incelness"). He is notable enough to have entire websites devoted to his work. The link to the forum should indeed be deleted as it is promotion. The person above me once again lies that there are his disciples pressuring for an article on incel to be kept - the only person arguing for that at some length am I and there is no evidence I am his "disciple" nor was I against the deletion of the love-shy article. If what this person is saying is to be believed he or she would not only need evidence that I am some kind of disciple but evidence that more than one person that is his disciple is pushing for the article to be kept. This, of course, cannot be proven. This person has a very malicious agenda and uses lies such as these under the guise of scientific truth. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Also, this blog post was acknowledged by MalleusMaleficarum1486. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of biographical sources to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person, small, cult-like following presenting false information in the Wiki. MysteryBug (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— MysteryBug (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In fact, none of these statements are true nor can they be proven. A brief look at Google search results will show that the article definitely fulfills WP:N guidelines. Editor above me has no evidence for a cult-like following and has failed to provide any evidence of the false information in the article. Argumentation by this person is extremely dishonest and lazy, being a clear example of WP:CONFLICT MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am finding some things to justify the article, such as a review by the Library Journal about a book on the love-shy theory named "The Love-Shy Survival Guide" ([17]) and this interview, although I'm not sure if the interview site is usable or not as a RS. Now what I am a little leery of is that I seem to remember this guy achieving some infamy via sites such as Encyclopedia Dramatica, mostly through other people espousing his work. I'm not saying that makes him non-notable, just that we should probably be prepared for some trolling here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is more then a little "internet famous", yes. But this tends to not be ground for someone being included on wikipedia. I dare say if it weren't for Encyclopedia Dramatica, reddit and his own person love-shy site and forums being picked up on in other place, Mr. Gilmartin would hardly be known to a soul. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to denote that Brian Gilmartin doesn't have a personal site on love-shyness. That site is run by people completely unrelated to him and he was never involved with it in any way. But it is another indicator of his notability. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more mentioning it because sometimes we get people from the trolling sites who see this sort of thing and then decide to come over and generally decide to come over here and cause trouble. It's more just to give a forewarning to anyone unfamiliar with AfDs that tend to fall that way. It will hopefully end up being rather uneventful, as sometimes AfDs about subjects that are "internet famous" can be rather tame, such as the ones for Christian Weston [[18]] and his brother. Still, sometimes they can get somewhat troublesome enough to warrant a warning for anyone unaware of the internet fame this man has received. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:PROF and WP:NN- the internet forum has nothing to do with notability on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a mention in this journal entry where he's used as a reference. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gilmartin is allegedly a professor of psychology in Montana. As far as I can tell, he fulfills nothing mentioned at the relevant notability page, WP:NACADEMICS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Scholar lists a publication from 1987 (Peer Group Antecedents of Severe Love‐shyness in Males) that has been cited 137 times and a few other publications with a smattering of citations. The Web of Science lists 4 publications that have been cited 66 (the one mentioned just before), 49, 8, and 0 times. Doing a "cited reference" search (which also counts citations to books/bookchapters) reveals a handful of extra citations, but nothing above 15. (Looking at an h-index is not really appropriate here, given the low number of publications that pop up). This constitutes a clear fail of WP:ACADEMIC#1 and I don't see anything that might indicate that he meets any other of the criteria of that guideline. In the absence of any evidence that he might meet WP:GNG independently, there is no proof of any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are four websites just because of his works on a concept of love-shyness - Love-shy.com, http://www.loveshy.de/index.php?nxu=80853793nx31280, https://web.archive.org/web/20100807040353/http://loveshyproject.com/index.html, http://loveshyness.org/.

Also, he and his idea have been mentioned in mainstream news articles - http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/130627/The-hopeless-romantic, http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4626075.Meet_the_man_so_shy_he_s_never_even_kissed_a_woman/, http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/style/living/relationships/article180507.ece. Is there really no ground for WP:GNG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just created a web site for my cat, if I do a few more, should she have an article too? As for the sources, those are just in-passing mentions, none of them are about Gilmartin (or even about his work). --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This comparison is quite odd. Your cat didn't have three books written about it, at least one of which has been peer reviewed, nor has it been in the media. Also, some of the sites I listed have hundreds of members from all over the world taking about Gilmartin's ideas. As for the articles, some do mention titles of his books. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you misstype there? If there are three books independently written *about* Gilmartin (as opposed to *by* Gilmartin) they would be good sources to establish notability. The sites you have listed are self published or forums which do not help us meet the WP:GNG threshold for inclusion. - MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mistype anything but I didn't express what I wanted to say clearly enough. My point was that there are three books on the subject of love-shyness - 2 written by Gilmartin and by Talmer Shockley. That's what I was trying to say.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As written, the article basically asserts notability via 2 books he has written: Shy-man syndrome and Shyness and Love. These books are held respectively by 150 and 228 institutions. For the self-help/counseling sector, this seems borderline. Thoughts? Agricola44 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Even more borderline when considering the age(s) of the publications. There are probably books about Randy's Kitty that are held by more institutions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails criteria for academics. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet the project's standards for notability. The fandom surrounding this faux science "incel" junk doesn't cut it. Tarc (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability, basically just primary sources. Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donald James Parker

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

Self-published author. Notability not established in accordance with the general notability guidelines or guidelines for creative individuals, i.e., authors, actors, directors. Only sourced to IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source. Cindy(talk) 15:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- GreenC 06:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Parker not notable per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. IMDb is the only cited source and it is not reliable. The article is promotional and exaggerates accomplishments. Per IMDb, none of the films where he is listed as actor, producer, screenwriter and/or casting director has actually been released and most are listed as "pre-production". DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 16:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Dalton (Songwriter)

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

Non-notable musician. Some credits, but no significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria and GNG. No reliable sources in the form of independent third-party analysis to confirm notability. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sidi Nemdil

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

No real indication of notability. Only reference leads to a search page. Peridon (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to provide verifyabilty and reliable sources to confirm notability. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. doktorb _words^deeds 19:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 K-Rino. Anyone is free to merge the content from behind the redirect at their discretion. Daniel (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Park Coalition

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

Group fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to K-Rino minus the list of non-notable members. Eric Kaiser (K-Rino) and Rowdy Williams (Ganksta N-I-P) are admitted in the article to be the only notable members of the coalition. The group has not achieved notability independent of its leader, and all WP:RS locatable only mention the group as a project of Kaiser. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 4 January 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge. WP:BAND 6. states "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." However it goes on to say "This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses." I'll assume that 2 (two) rappers in a coalition of 70 (seventy) doesn't really cut it. Not all 70 can work together at once. "As a whole, they have released a total of over 100 albums, and 2 group studio albums." The merge may be the only way to deal with them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miljulneer

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

I cannot find independent and reliable evidence that this is an actual mythological figure. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was just in the process of afd'ing this article when Yngvadottir beat me to it. Unreferenced article with multiples issues since February 2011. I can find no mention of "Miljulneer" on Google Books, and no reliable source for it elsewhere. There is possibly a transliteration problem, but I have not been able to find any mention the "Persian Thor" under any similar name. BabelStone (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name turns up nothing, and without any indication of which religion's angel this is is supposed to be it is impossible to determine what this might be a mistake for, if it isn't simply an invention of the article creator. Without sources or any useful context there is simply no way to fix this article. The Archangel Michael leads the army of God the War in Heaven, anyway. Of course "Persian" isn't necessarily Christianity, or even probably. Zoroastrianism has angels, for example. Uncle G (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing except sites dependent on Wikipedia and something gamesy. But I do think it's being presented as Zoroastrian. However ... the most plausible etymology is an attempt to pronounce Mjọllnir. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A search in Google Books shows the word is mentioned in Gurgānī, Fakhr al-Dīn (1972). Vis and Ramin. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-03408-1. (no preview). Vis and Rāmin is a first century AD Persian story. This could be a reference to an Iranian equivalent of Thor, hence the similarity to Mjölnir. The reference to dissident groups seems plausible. I doubt it is a hoax. But without sources or the Farsi form of the word it is unverifiable. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same hit in my search for book sources, but it appears to be a false positive: Google keeps trying to modify the search to Miljoner or Mjölnir. I also searched for Miljulnir, by the way. But I still cannot get anything to come up except some game site. Do please keep looking, though! Yngvadottir (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google naturally suggest the more common words "Miljoner" and "Mjölnir", but that does not mean anything. If Google says "Miljulneer" (in quotes) is found in the book, I trust it is. Not that it helps, since the page is not visible. I see a Pakistani user on a wargame site called "miljulneer", and Urdu is influenced by Persian, but I think it may be stretching it just a bit to say that this verifies the article. I tried looking for Aryan war gods. There seem to be rather a lot of them, but none with names like this. I give up. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Insurgent_(novel)#Film_adaptation. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgent (film)

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

Completely fails WP:NFF right now, no director is announced, no date is set for filming when and if it will be shoot.--Jockzain (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Insurgent_(novel)#Film_adaptation. Given that this is supposed to be the second film in a series, whether or not this gets made will depend greatly on how well the first film does. It might take off and become as popular as say, the Twilight series, or it could crash and burn like Beautiful Creatures did. Sometimes they get lucky and get a sequel despite lackluster performance like City of Bones, but the point here is that we won't know any of that until the first film releases. Basically, the film company won't start any hard-core production or filming until they know that it will be worth their time and money. They'll do some minor things, but not anything that would really cost a huge amount until they're sure that this will make its money. After all, YA books to films aren't guaranteed a good reception, as evidenced above. This is just far too premature for a separate entry. We can merge any of the pertinent data and just redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:38, 1 January 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Insurgent_(novel)#Film_adaptation I agree with Tokyogirl79, as it's too early for an independent entity. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No compelling, policy-backed arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. Notability has not been established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MLearn

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

Article has one independent reference, however, this is on mobile learning, the subject of these meetings, not about the conferences themselves. No other independent sources, no indication of notability. Until recently, this was a redirect to the article on the organizing "International Association for Mobile Learning", but that article has been deleted after an (unrelated) PROD. Unless significant sources crop up: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, where it is mentioned. I was unable to find RS and the conference doesn't seem to be indexed in selective databases, so it seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NJournals thresholds for notability. Selected papers from the conference are published in the International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, however and the conference is mentioned there. The journal itself appears to be indexed in the ACM Digital Library, INSPEC, and SCOPUS, so seems notable. This is a plausible search term, hence a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The members of the International Association for Mobile Learning are actively working to improve this page.dparsonsnz —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mLearn conference is an event independent from the International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning and should not be directed there. I tried to improve the text with a stronger focus on the actual event rather than mobile learning and the references. Anything else missing? Phish108 (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. From what I can gather (not being willing to pay the access fee) the one source uses the papers from three years of the conference to analyze trends on mobile learning, and in the introductory material describes the conference itself. So it seems to be a good source (if paywalled) but I don't think that a single source of this nature is quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a little note that this survey is published in the official journal of the society that organizes this conference. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not significant independent sources. a13ean (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion: I agree that the page should not include references to the concepts but only information about the event itself. I try adding references to the event, so please define significant independent sources, so I know what I need to bring up. --Phish108 (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the moment, the article has no significant independent sources. "Significant" means that the sources should provide an in-depth coverage of the subject, not just an in-passing mention. "Independent" means that they should, well, be independent of the meeting or its organizers. An interview with an organizer is acceptable, as long as it is published by a source that is independent of the organization and the meeting. "Source" in this context refers to what we call here reliable sources. Note that only policy-based !votes will be taken into account by the closing admin and your above "oppose deletion" is not policy-based at all. I have givne you links to the relevant policies in my answer to your post on my talk page. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antisexualism

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't read ref 1, but none of the refs listed in the religious section mention the term. The nonreligious are minor news sources mentioning the community. One of the only jounral articles uses the term in a different context completely and nothing comes up on google books. This strikes me as OR with material on celibacy and sexual repression brought in to legitimise the term without supporting sources. Hence it is detracting from scholarly articles and material by being here and should be merged elsewhere to other medical/psychological articles and backed up by reliable secondary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article seems to not be properly sourced and not much warrants a keep vote. Merge and remove. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, require inline citation of improved sources. Let this nomination stay the full 7 days - no "snow" actions, please. At the first nomination, DGG !voted "keep", reasoning Sufficient references have been found; perhaps the nom would have done better to look for them than to complain about their absence; nothing has changed since then, so I couldn't agree more. After that keep result, I expected that the topic of the movement originators would receive serious cited academic coverage. Instead, it appears that the far less organized, but much more widespread notion, or viewpoint has been discussed in the literature. See the plentiful Scholar and Books search results. At this point, the general topic meets WP:GNG, that is, more than enough informed, independent, reliable sources exist (if not currently cited) to support the article, so deletion is not the appropriate remedy, per WP:PRESERVE. Editing to cite better sources is merited, however, and I hope this AfD kicks that process into gear. --Lexein (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is wierd -when you use inverted commas around a single word a whole different bunch of search items come up in google books. Ok, am satisfied, so this can be withdrawn. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a valid topic in the philosophy of sexuality (Kant particularly), although I'm not sure about the title: the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy refers to "Metaphysical Sexual Pessimism".[19] There's a lot of sources on the Christian churches' attitude to sex and abstinence (I'm not sure if that's covered in more depth elsewhere but Sexual_abstinence#Christianity is very brief). There are other areas to cover than just the church and Yuri Leonidovich Nesterenko (it does feel a bit like a coatrack for his ideas). Possibly the topic could be treated better in another way, or is covered elsewhere, but it's a reasonable subject. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily able to find literally hundreds of potential secondary sources among books. — Cirt (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first time I came upon this article, I was tempted to nominate it for deletion. It was terrible (much worse than it is now), and it relied on some really bad sources. After I cleaned up the article a bit and added a few sources, I came to the conclusion that its notability is at least debatable. It needs a rewrite, but I'm simply too lazy and too uninterested in the topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's basically notable, but there have been problems in finding sources that deal with it as a whole (as opposed to sources that deal with various individual historical details, of which there are plenty)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cam McCormick

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played all but a handful of games in the low minors. Ravenswing 06:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Dolovis (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and I wasn't able to turn up any sources to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to 2001–02 NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (37-plus in the last three days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so. What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing. Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to that. Would you like, by the bye, to proffer a reason to Keep? Ravenswing 06:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY and has not received enough coverage to pass GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, retired hockey player. Does not pass GNG, less than 100 total professional games in low minor leagues. Not in favor of a redirect to his last season, that could potentially be a ridiculous number of players, and I would hate to see a trend towards starting the articles and then turning them into minimally helpful redirects. Canada Hky (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Andersen

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played a handful of seasons in the low minors. Ravenswing 06:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and a search for sources to meet GNG has turned up empty. -DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to 1973–74 New York Islanders season#Draft picks. Played two seasons (132 games) with the Fort Worth Wings which at the time was the top farm team of the Detroit Red Wings. Including his play in the WCHL, he played over 200 games in fully professional hockey leagues. Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it clearly met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY for playing over 100 games in fully professional leagues. Recently, however, the NHOCKEY bar has been raised, and this nominator has been on a tear to delete articles which now may fall short of the newly raised bar. The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching pre-Internet sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As you well know, NHOCKEY's criteria have never held "100 pro games" as an acceptable standard, and the CHL was explicitly stated as being at Criterion #4, which requires a player to have achieved "preeminent honors" -- to wit, being a top ten career scorer or making the First All-Star Team. That criterion hasn't changed, even if Wikipedia policy holds that articles would be "grandfathered" when notability criteria were tightened, which is not and never has been the case.
As far as the alleged difficulties involved in finding acceptable BLP sources from the pre-Internet era, I have two thoughts. The first is, nonsense: I've adequately sourced articles from century-old newspaper accounts available on the Internet. The second is, irrelevant: there is a curious school of thought on Wikipedia which claims that if there's some excuse for why adequate sources can't be produced, the requirements of WP:V and the GNG are suspended. This is completely false: as WP:V explicitly holds, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it," and that "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source."
That being said, as many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so. What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing. Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to that. Ravenswing 07:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As you should know if you wish to speak intelligently on the subject, the Central Hockey League (1963-1984) was the top minor league in North America during the era when Denis Andersen played (just as the AHL is today), and that league is not associated in any way with the current CHL which is a lower minor league. The fact that WP:NHOCKEY/LA lists the old CHL as a “Lower-level league” is a serious flaw in the list, which should lead one to question what objective criteria was used to compile such list, if any. Dolovis (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've made that argument before; consensus ran unanimously against you. (Although you're also contradicting your own argument, as you've repeatedly maintained that the current CHL is on a par with the ECHL and the AHL as a "top-level" minor league. Which is your real position, please?) Ravenswing 00:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McLean (ice hockey)

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

Extremely non-notable hockey player, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played only a handful of games in the low minors, fails WP:HOCKEY by a country mile, and I can't imagine for the life of me what notability criteria the article creator thought this fellow could remotely meet. Ravenswing 06:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:NHOCKEY and doing a search for sources has turned up none. As to the rest of the nom's statement. He played in the British National League which used to (arguably) meet NHOCKEY #1 before it was updated. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bonis

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played just a handful of professional games. Ravenswing 06:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and I can find no evidence that he meets GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to 2012 NCAA Division I Men's Ice Hockey Tournament#All-Tournament Team. Meets criteria of WP:NCOLLATH and a quick search for sources demonstrates he likely passes GNG. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four days alone) going straight to AfD, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite Dolovis' assertion, I am not seeing significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources from which to state he meets GNG. I am seeing a few routine mentions as part of game stories, that's about it. Perhaps Dolovis should expand the article with the sources he claims exist rather than simply complaining on this AFD via copy-paste message? It is hard to take his complaints seriously when he seems to have the time to!vote keep on these 45-plus AFDs and to continue editing other articles, yet has thus far shown no desire to address even a single one of the articles in question. Reso lute 15:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin Baldwin

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played just a handful of professional games. Ravenswing 06:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and I could find no sources that show he meets GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to 2013–14 Iowa Wild season. A quick search for sources demonstrates he likely passes GNG. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four days alone) going straight to AfD, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So provide sources if you think he passes GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Cordero Sánchez

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

This article appears to be a hoax. This article purports to be about a 23-year-old man who was appointed as the president of the airline Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela last August. However, sources cited in the article (such as [20]) identify the new president of the airline as José Rafael Cordero Urgelles (note the different matronymic from the subject of this article, Urgelles instead of Sánchez). There are no sources provided which clearly are referring to the same person who is the subject of this article. Two articles about the same person, es:José Ráfael Cordero and es:José Ráfael Cordero Sanchez, were deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia in the last two days, which suggests that information about him is no more sourceable in Spanish than it is in English. I recommend deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: Looks like the nominated article is technically an A10 of yet another article, Jose Rafael Cordero, that Joserafaelcorderosanchez and his sock farm has created, so I include in Metropolitan90's nomination and for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. On Spanish Wikipedia the bio was also created three times in December as es:José Cordero Sánchez and likewise speedy deleted, eventually as vandalism. Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability and for all the reasons given above. Richard Avery (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sam that Jose Rafael Cordero should be deleted as well, as it is yet another article about the same person and containing the same claims, but translated into English less effectively than José Cordero Sánchez has been. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and salt for the following reasons: Communication with an admin on the Spanish Wikipedia made me look further into this BLP. All evidence seems to suggest that we are dealing with an individual who persistently recreates his autobio under multiple, slightly different names and from various accounts made for the purpose. On Spanish Wikipedia the bio has previously been deleted at least 34 times under 9 different article titles. On English Wikipedia I was able to find:

• Jose Rafael Cordero (previously deleted once)

• José Rafael Cordero (twice deleted: A7, A7/G11)

• José Rafael Cordero Sánchez (4 times: 4xA7)

• José Rafael Cordero Sanchez (twice: A7, A10)

• Jose Rafael Cordero Sanchez (5 times: A7, G5)

I suggest these titles, as well as José Cordero Sánchez salted.

On Spanish Wikipedia the bio has also been created under the following article titles, which we might want to consider salting as well:

• es:Jose Cordero Sanchez

• es:José Ráfael Cordero

• es:José Ráfael Cordero Sanchez

This maybe isn't the proper venue, but for completeness I notice that we also have Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/José Rafael Cordero Sánchez which predates several recreations. Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to disagree about the salting of at least some of the article titles. There does appear to be an actual airline president named José Rafael Cordero. However, he isn't the José Rafael Cordero Sánchez that these articles have been written about. So at a minimum, the non-"Sanchez" article titles should be kept un-salted. Also, any consideration of salting titles on Spanish Wikipedia will have to be done on Spanish Wikipedia and accomplished by one of their admins (bibliotecarios) -- we on English Wikipedia wouldn't be involved in that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Coreau

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG beyond routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Sources are exclusively press releases. Has only played 12 professional games, all in the minor leagues. Article falsely asserts that the subject has played in the NHL. Ravenswing 06:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY at the current time. Can be recreated when/if he meets it or otherwise becomes notable. -DJSasso (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to 2012–13 Detroit Red Wings season. Article is verifiable. This goaltender was called up to the NHL and was on the Detroit Red Wings' roster, but did not play in a game; nonetheless, a quick search for sources demonstrates he likely passes GNG. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four days alone) going straight to AfD, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So provide the sources if you think he will meet GNG. The onus is on the creator to prove notability. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Coffman

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played in lower division hockey, only played 40 professional games going into this season. Ravenswing 06:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything that showed he passed GNG and he does not pass NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Dolovis (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Alaska Aces (ECHL). Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY for playing in the Netherlands' top professional league. Recently, however, the NHOCKEY bar has been raised, and this nominator has been on a tear to delete articles which now may fall short of the newly raised bar. The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching non-English sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it isn't hard to do since he has only been nominating a reasonable amount each day. Secondly you don't mention that the bar was raised because of the hundreds of non-notable articles you were creating without doing the research first to make sure they met GNG when you created them. Frankly your mass creation of knowingly non-notable articles was the disruptive action here. Nor are prod's intended to be used before Afd. Prod's are only intended for situations where its unlikely anyone will object, as we can see by your keep vote it was clear that that wasn't the case. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GangDan Pan

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

Doesn't appear notable Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not all accountants are notable. I can't find any sources that talk about him except the Baidu Baike article (潘刚旦). Thats not WP:RS since like wikipedia its a user-edited encyclopedia. He seems like an interesting fellow, the closest he seems to get to notability is publishing a few papers in accounting journals. see WP:BASIC - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 11:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:N. INeverCry 21:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opexa Therapeutics

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable; no actual approved products Might be notable some day. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soft Deletion as the equivalent of an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J Sweeney

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

Fails notability: only one independent reliable source (linux.com article) is present in the article. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources in Google Books, Web Search, or Google News. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:41, 1 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Network for a Culture of Nonviolence and Peace

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

Organisation lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article was created by a single purpose account which based on the name, is likely associated with the organisation in some way. Sourced only to a primary source. I cannot find any coverage in my searches to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:29, 1 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete nothing in gbooks. looks like blatant self promotion. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani Special Operations Forces

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

Totally unsourced article that doesn't prove the existence of said Special Operations Forces, let alone any engagements they have taken part in. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:42, 1 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not proved. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unlike a lot of deletions at AfD which are stable, there is a feeling from the 'delete' comments in this debate that there's every chance that, in the future, the level of reliable sources to assert notability may increase, at which point I encourage a review of whether the article can be recreated and fulfil the notability guidelines relevant to his field(s). Daniel (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Grime

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

Academic who I don't think meets the guidelines for inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Nominating this for deletion because of his lack of notability as an academic or lack of notable academic achievement is extremely dishonest. James Grime is an educator, far more than he is an academic - he has been the Enigma Project Officer at the University of Cambridge for the past 6 years (Anyone who nominates this for deletion might want to let us know the name of the institution where they studied mathematics). James Grime is extremely well known for his work in Mathematics education, not just through Numberphile (which currently has 57,174,196 total views) but also public talks which almost all young students of mathematics in the UK have been to (my own college made it compulsory for all A level further maths students to attend a maths inspiration event which James Grime spoke at). — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverBel (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like you are friends of him? LibStar (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm familiar with the Numberphile claim to fame here. Problem is, most of this content is in the form of videos on YouTube. His publications in mathematics have only garnered a handful of citations, and he does not hold any honors or elected positions to prestigious organizations. The best argument I can see under WP:ACADEMIC is #7 (The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity), but I don't think there's enough evidence to show "substantial" impact. WP:GNG fares a bit better. Grime appears to be a writer for The Guardian per [21], and has a few pieces he's written there. Grime has also been interviewed here by the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics, and here on Alan Turing by StatisticsViews.com, a resource for use by professionals in statistics. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not convinced that the subject passes WP:ACADEMIC#C7. As the criterion notes, a few quotes in the media are generally quite common for academics. The interviews he has given don't for me rise to the level of "substantial impact" that is implied by the wording of the guideline. I also don't think a blog at The Guardian is much of an indicator of notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DElete or merge selectiovely to the Maths Project mentioned: for the moment he looks like a junior lecturer. TOOSOON. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 5 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see him meeting WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. contributing to youtube videos is hardly a sign of notability. and a source saying he doesn't speak Danish doesn't add anything. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that it is possible to be notable for popularizing mathematics on youtube: see e.g. the first three sources of Vi Hart and skip lightly over the fact that her fans have blown up the article far beyond what those sources can support. But in the case of Grime, all I can find in sources I consider sufficiently reliable are a Straits Times article that trivially mentions Numberphile but doesn't name-check Grime [22] and an article in the Guardian written by Grime himself about his plans for numberphile [23]. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not in Who's Who or Debrett's (and they are generally quite keen on Oxbridge dons (incidentally it might be better to say what college he is a Fellow of rather than the fact he doesn't speak Danish)). Has authored a few op-ed bits for the Guardian [24] - but no full length popular science book. Generally appears to be too young (I estimate his age to be about 30, and most academics won't meet WP:PROF until they're at least 40 - implying WP:TOOSOON. Willing to reconsider in a few years if he continues his career. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Law & Kenneth Communications

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

No indication of importance and significance. Itsalleasy (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 04:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 04:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am doubtful of the firm's notability, for want of reliable sources, but also due to the word salad in the article. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A firm like many others in the world but not notable.User:Lucifero4
Delete Nothing special. Pointless wiki for a company that has no notable achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.45.209 (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhett Dudley

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, played only a handful of games out of the low minors. Only reference is a jocular blog post, no evidence the subject passes the GNG. Ravenswing 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Northern Michigan Predators where he is mentioned. Played 10 years of pro hockey. A quick Internet search shows that he likely passes GNG. Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY as a player with 100 pro games played. Recently, however, the NHOCKEY bar has been raised, and this nominator has been on a tear to delete articles which now may fall short of the newly raised bar. The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last three days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching pre-Internet sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. A search of Highbeam and Google news archive makes it obvious that Dolovis' cut-and-paste claim that he "likely passes GNG" was made without even attempting a search. It is also amusing that he claims the number of AfDs makes it impossible to research these players, despite claiming to have already researched these players. Reso lute 00:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Johansson (ice hockey, born 1995)

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

Non-notable teenage hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Has played almost exclusively in youth leagues. Another in a string by creator falsely asserting that he's played in the SEL, when he has appeared in only two exhibition games. Ravenswing 03:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Per-Johan Johansson#Family where he is mentioned. This bio article is about a current ice hockey player who has played with Brynäs IF in both the 2012 and 2013 European Trophy, and he won a silver medal with Team Sweden at the 2014 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships. A quick Internet search shows that he likely passes GNG, including Swedish-language sources. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus in the last four days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to fully research this large number of articles is not realistic or fair, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching non-English sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you've found sources that pass the GNG, why haven't you added them to the article? Why would you create an article in the first place without any effort to include valid sources supporting notability, in advance, as WP:BLP enjoins you to do? In any event, as you well know, there is no presumptive notability attached to playing in exhibition games or in junior tournaments.
As far as a redirect goes, while that might seem a plausible redirect where another family member is a great deal more notable, the Per-Johan Johansson article is itself a stub, for a player with a modest pro career. Which article you created earlier today. Given your persistent bad faith where these articles are concerned, this begs the question as to whether you threw this stub up with the sole intent of having a plausible redirect target should this AfD not go your way.
That being said, as many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so. What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing. Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to that. Ravenswing 19:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of a GNG pass in either Highbeam or Google. It is curious that Dolovis claims to have knowledge of sources that exist, but rather than adding them to the article, has chosen instead to complain about how a high number of AFDs has apparently made it impossible him to do what he already claims to have done. Reso lute 00:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Levin (diplomat)

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

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassador of a significant country. Notable by virtue of his position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The highest-level accredited diplomatic and trade representative of one sovereign country to another, and part of the overall diplomatic history of Canada, Colombia and Cuba. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the AfD should not have been raised, please spend more time reviewing the notability guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Hedberg

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

Non-notable teenage hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Has played *exclusively* in youth competitions. Another in a string by creator falsely asserting that he's played in the SEL. Ravenswing 03:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search failed to turn up any sources to meet GNG. Also fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps the least notable player page Dolovis has ever created. A search of Highbeam and Google news archive doesn't even reveal trivial mentions as part of routine coverage, let alone anything resembling a GNG pass. As with many other his articles, the claim that the player appeared in the Swedish Hockey League is false. It is evident that Dolovis is simply going down Eliteprospects.com's lists and creating these sub-stubs without checking that the player has even appeared in a game beforehand, let alone meets Wikipedia's notability thresholds. This is basically gross incompetence. Reso lute 00:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Hertzberg (ice hockey)

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

Non-notable teenage hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Has played almost exclusively in youth competitions. Another in a string by creator falsely asserting that he's played in the SEL, when he has appeared in only a single exhibition game. Ravenswing 03:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually no coverage in either Highbeam or Google news archive. Claim that the player currently is a member of Frolunda is patently false. He played an exhibition game, that's it. Reso lute 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Hynes

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played less than 100 games in the minors. Ravenswing 03:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to List of Anaheim Ducks draft picks where he is mentioned. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four days alone) going straight to AfD, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is no requirement to go to prod first. Especially when something is likely to be contested, and since you routinely object to prods on articles you create, it saves everyone time to take it straight to Afd, especially when all of the articles he has nominated have ended up deleted. There is no evidence that Ravenswing did not use WP:BEFORE prior to making this nomination. There is no clear redirect for this player as redirecting to a list of draft picks would be counter productive. -DJSasso (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn player, nothing in either Highbeam or Google news archive that would indicate a GNG pass. Just the typical trivial mentions in routine coverage of games. Reso lute 23:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Biesenthal

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

Non-notable hockey player, no evidence he meets the GNG. Fails WP:HOCKEY going away; played for a Div. III college hockey team, and played almost all his professional career in the low minors. Ravenswing 03:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search fails to show up any sources to meet GNG. ANd he fails NSPORTS. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To say that "a search fails to show up any sources to meet GNG" us understating things considerably. Highbeam and Google newspaper archive only mention his name a combined three times - all as a simple listing on a small town transaction pages. The only thing that is not routine about this player is the utter lack of even WP:ROUTINE coverage. Reso lute 23:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Evidence of notability has not been established by those asking for this BLP's inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff White (ice hockey)

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

Non-notable hockey player, no evidence he meets the GNG. Has had a long career, but in the low minors without preeminent honors, and therefore fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 03:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to 2009–10 SPHL season where he is mentioned. Played 14 years of pro hockey. A quick Internet search shows that he likely passes GNG. Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY as a player with 100 games played. Recently, however, the NHOCKEY bar has been raised, and this nominator has been on a tear to delete articles which now may fall short of the newly raised bar. The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last three days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair, especially when one considers that many of these AfDs require searching non-English sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As you well know, NHOCKEY's criteria have never held "100 pro games" as an acceptable standard, and the leagues in which the subject played were at Criterion #4, which requires a player to have achieved "preeminent honors" -- to wit, being a top ten career scorer or making the First All-Star Team. That criterion hasn't changed, even if Wikipedia policy holds that articles would be "grandfathered" when notability criteria were tightened, which is not and never has been the case.
Beyond that, if you've found sources that pass the GNG, why haven't you added them to the article? Why did you fail to do such research when you created the article, as anyone creating a BLP must do?
That being said, as many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so. What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing. Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to that. Ravenswing 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. I'm not seeing evidence of non-trivial coverage in either Highbeam or Google newspaper archive. Reso lute 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angelle

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

This is not a notable musician; she had one self-funded single which only charted in a low position for one week H6PAYH (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rich British guy spends ₤2 million trying to buy his wannabe popstar girlfriend (Angelle) her first hit. Fails. Various British newspapers snicker. So what? WP:NOTNEWS. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Though I feel somewhat absurd for saying this, Angelle just about scrapes the guidelines for inclusion. WP:NMUSIC states that an artist may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria, and Angelle arguably meets #2 ("Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" - her one and only single charted at a lofty number 43 on the UK Singles Chart [25]) and #11 ("Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" - she was placed in constant rotation by Vibe TV [26]). Of course, the single only charted for one week, and the station didn't so much "place" her in rotation as they were paid handsomely by her rich boyfriend to do so, but ~~I don't think these things matter~~ - she just about meets NMUSIC #2 & #12. — sparklism ^hey! 10:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you do not think that the subject is actually notable, but that you feel compelled to keep it because two of the NMUSIC criteria are technically met, if just barely and under unusual circumstances. But NMUSIC is very clear on this point: "...meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb". Having reviewed the article and the available sources, what is your own view? Is this a flash-in-the-pan news story, or a subject worthy of permanent inclusion in this encyclopedia? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a fair challenge. On reflection this has something of a whiff of WP:15M about it, and I have struck my WK !vote. Note that the charting single still meets NMUSIC, but I am now not convinced that there is enough to warrant an article in this instance. — sparklism ^hey! 16:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't agree. Although charts are listed down to position 100, the generally accepted threshold for charting is 40. This artist did not make the top 40. And the coverage on rotation on a major music television network is also not met because Vibe TV was not a music television network - it was a TV channel created purely as an advertisement for this artist by her boyfriend. The channel shut did not function as a music channel either before or after the 4 week slot that the artist's boyfriend bought. The channel did not rate high enough to record any viewership figures - it was just a vanity project by a rich person. — H6PAYH (talk • contribs) 04:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I eventually managed to make sense of this discussion and understand the 'FOOTYN' and 'NFOOTY' references that were thrown around in abundance! Daniel (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaquille McDonald

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article just about makes it through on notability: he's played one match for Chester, who are currently in Conference National, and new reference says he's playing a league match at York City in a week. For starters, Conference National is not a fully pro league and therefore playing in that league does not confer notability. Second, the claim that he would play for York within a week is not grounds for notability per WP:CRYSTAL, and also turned out to be incorrect since he has not played in the following the publication of that article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above as has not played in fully professional league or senior international team. Fenix down (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:FOOTYN requires player to have played on fully professional team - not a in a fully professional league. Nfitz (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently WP:FOOTYN has been superceded, but no one could be arsed to fix WP:FOOTY to point to the correct guideline until today. Still, there's no point deleting an article, that will mostly likely be recreated in days to weeks, given he's now a bench regular on a fully-professional team.Nfitz (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Nfitz:, please re-read WP:NFOOTY as it most categorically does not say what you claim. It states that a player must have played in a fully professional league to have passed NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Fenix down: please re-read WP:FOOTYN as it most categorically does say that! It says "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure." Also, aren't we just wasting our time trying to delete articles like this? The guy was recently traded, and as recently as yesterday sat on the bench during a League 2 game [27]. I'm not invoking that as notability, but I just don't see the point in going to the trouble of deleting an article that would most likely simply be reinstated in a matter of days or weeks. I'd think common sense would dictate that we simply ignore these articles for a few weeks, until suddenly they are notable without debate, or they get run over by a bus. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Nfitz: You would do well to re-read WP:FOOTYN as well. In addition to what you pointed out, it also says The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with. As such, what it says on player notability doesn't carry much weight, and as Fenix down already pointed out, the guideline that superseded it, specifically contradicts your assertion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nfitz does not understand that WP:NFOOTY is the guideline, not WP:FOOTYN, which is an essay. The guideline states that a player must have played in "a fully professional league", not for a fully-professional club. The Conference is not fully professional, so he fails it. Number 5 7

If WP:NFOOTY has indeed been superceded by WP:NFOOTY (not sure when that happened), you'd think that someone would have changed WP:FOOTY by now to reference WP:FOOTYN instead of WP:NFOOTY ... given all the time that people seem to be willing to waste deleting perfectly useful articles that may be borderline, based on arbitrary (and apparently everchanging) criteria. Nfitz (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz:, you seem to be tying yourself in knots here. The relevant guideline for player notability is WP:NFOOTY. The essay at WP:FOOTY that has been superceded is WP:FOOTYN. NFOOTY took priority back in April 2012. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the no one could be arsed to change WP:FOOTY to point to the correct guideline. Ironic that so many can waste so much time with these idiotic borderline article destructions, but can't instead do something useful. #WikiFail Nfitz (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to the correct guideline right at the top of the section. It's pretty clear, which is why you are the only person to have made this error in the two years since the essay was superceded by a formal guideline. Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is now, there wasn't 3 days ago. Nfitz (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY... JMHamo (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Evidence of notability has not been established by those asking for this BLP's inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Benson

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

Another in a string of articles on non-notable teenage hockey players who fail to meet WP:NHOCKEY, made by the creator. Except for two games of junior hockey (which isn't remotely notable), the subject's career has been in bantam youth hockey. Fails the GNG by a country mile, all sources being routine sports coverage failing under WP:ROUTINE, WP:GEOSCOPE. Ravenswing 03:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to WHL Bantam Draft where he is mentioned. This 15-year-old hockey phenom, who was the 1st overall pick in the 2013 WHL Bantam Draft, meets GNG. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four days alone) going straight to AfD, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives, including redirects, have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to you both in guidelines and through many redirects you have had deleted. If there is a potential for someone to become notable in the future (as you are implying in your comment) then the preferred situation is to leave the link red instead of creating a redirect. And if you think he already meets GNG then proove it with sources. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Faryna

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

Non-notable hockey player, has played less than 100 games in the low minors, which does not qualify under WP:NHOCKEY. No evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 03:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Stridsberg

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

Another in a string of non-notable teenage hockey players who fail to meet WP:NHOCKEY, with no evidence of passing the GNG, and where the article incorrectly asserts that the subject has played in the SHL. Subject, like the others recently AfDed, played only in exhibition games, which does not qualify for NHOCKEY's Criterion #1. Ravenswing 02:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Glen Waverley, Victoria. Daniel (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount View Primary School – Glen Waverley

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

Accepted from AfC on the basis "creating article. Since the subject of the article is a recognized school.) " That of course does not apply to primary schools, and there's nothing special about this one. I'm, glad we're finally about to do something about the quality of AfC reviewing. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked two world class athletes (Vicky Na / Sally Peers) back to their original school and also made an amendment (deleted a duplicate etc) to the re relevant suburb (Glen Waverley). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FroggyPeterson (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. primary schools are not inherently notable. looks like a lot of sources but the first 7 merely confirm existence. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its locationt per usual procedure for non-notable primary schools as per precedent documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glen Waverley, Victoria per common practice.Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Evidence of notability has not been established by those asking for this BLP's inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Dautović

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the grounds that he has received significant coverage (see his comment on my talk page for more detail). However, almost all of the coverage he has received is transfer speculation and announcements relating to his trial at Manchester United and his signing for Chelsea F.C., which is routine sports journalism and therefore does not amount to significant coverage within the meaning of the general notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It was actually Manchester City, though it doesn't really matter. 99% this article reappears within months (if it gets deleted) as the player will make a fully pro league debut by the end of the season. Anyway, I have made my comment regarding Dautovic's personal interviews with various sports media, transfer speculation and what not, on Sir Sputnik's talk page and provided sources to back those claims (plenty of others to find in case they are needed). Regards, Ratipok (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The player gained wide media coverage in 2012 and was a star player for Slovenia U17 at the 2012 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship (fully pro continental competition, making him notable per GNG:Sports) and is still regarded as the most promising youth defender in Slovenia, and there are many players like him without fully pro appearances, for example Lewis Baker (footballer), he has 0 appearances in the Premier League (apperance in the FA Cup does not make him notable according to GNG), so his article should be deleted too, and I could not care less if he plays for Chelsea and is English, the rules are same for everyone then. Matej1234 (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - where is the evidence of this "wide media coverage"? I cannot see any that shows notability; what is there violates WP:BLP1E and WP:ROUTINE. Overall, this player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL and is non-notable. Giant Snowman 12:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, a case of WP:TOOSOON by the looks of things as has not played in fully professional league or senior international team. Agree with GS regarding routine coverage, but happy to change if in depth interviews / discussions with / of the player can be sourced, not just transfer speculation. Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you bothered to look into the Sir Sputnik's talk page? There are sourced interviews with the player from different sources/media[28][29]. Havent provided any sources to this page before as its clear form Sir Sputnik's nomination that a discussion has taken place on his talk page as well and link to his talk page was provided in the lead. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes I did thank you, please could you remember to assume good faith in future. I do not consider one video interview and a brief written interview that could not have taken more than a couple of minutes to conduct amidst all the routine transfer speculation amounts to significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or WP:USERFY for now, recreate if and when he does make his pro league debut. Anything else is WP:CRYSTAL (especially because of his injury). — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:Kinston eagle is reminded to separately nominate articles of this nature in the future, as mass nominations like this prevent the process from working as intended. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boland (baseball)

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

This article does not pass WP:GNG. A very similar article to Smith (baseball) which was recently deleted due to this discussion Kinston eagle (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are very similar in subject and content:

~~Delete~~ – ~~Agreed with nominator.~~ United States Man (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I commented before the other nominations, I want to clarify that I !vote to delete all. United States Man (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my stance to a redirect for all except Lewis (baseball). United States Man (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but did you perform source searches about each of these subjects to qualify the deletion of each respective article? Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Procedural keep as it is difficult to evaluate these people individually when they are bundled like this. Some of them may have more coverage than others. Spanneraol (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and renominate separately after performing WP:BEFORE source searches to better-qualify deletion. No offense, but it's unlikely that preliminary source searches occurred in the time the first nomination was posted and the following additional ones were. Therefore, also keep per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a good faith source search for each and found nothing except the minimal stats these players had. As a general rule of thumb: if even baseball historians cant find a given name its SUPER unlikely there is coverage. Beerest 2 talk 22:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source searches have been ongoing for over 120 years. The good people at SABR have intensified this research over the past forty years with specific committees tasked with finding biographical info on these players. The fact that none of these experienced researchers have even found their first names in all that time, would seem to indicate that no significant coverage exists for these particular people. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Major League Baseball experience gives automatic WP:N--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball) Secret ^account 15:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and recent AFD consensus that showed that those players aren't notable and fails WP:V Secret ^account 15:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all subject to possible merge into a collective article about such players, as was discussed and widely supported at the "Smith" AfD. The players here may have enough information to support individual bio articles, but the information itself is encyclopedic and should not be lost. Simple deletion greatly inhibits editors' ability to create such an article and is the wrong way to go. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Deletion of any sets an unhealthy precedent. Alex (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What unhealthy precedent if the deletion only covers those nameless guys? Secret ^account 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well we must have already set a unhealthy precedent with the close of Smith (baseball). Beerest 2 talk 22:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and then redirect to List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names (which still must be expanded). Per the closure of Smith (baseball)'s AFD. I am on Wikibreak right now but I saw this, and as the Smith AFD nominator I feel I have to comment. These all fail GNG, and we cant really know for sure if these even are players, as commenters sayed in the other nomination pseudonyms were very frequent in early days of baseball. Beerest 2 talk 22:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If redirecting all of these is the correct result, I am not sure why you feel it is necessary to delete the articles first. Why not just redirect via editing the existing article, leaving the information in the article history as a possible starting point for a standalone article if reliable sources are found for any of these? Rlendog (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with all of these articles being redirected to List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. I was pushing for this at the Smith afd but it seemed like people were focused on all or nothing. Kinston eagle (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep or merge into collective article per Arxiloxos. I supported the deletion of "Smith" and suspect that most of these "last-name-only" entries should be deleted. However, like others have said above, I do not favor a mass deletion without considering individual merits or merging into collective article. Cbl62 (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also a substantive keep as to Lewis which demonstrates why en masse treatment doesn't work. Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all minus Lewis (baseball), who has had some coverage in books and newspapers. Seattle (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all mass noms for deletion are often a mess, and this one is certainly a mess. Please list these couple of dozens people separately so that they can be evaluated individually. Cavarrone 08:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. There are some, surprisingly enough, that do technically pass GNG, such as Lewis, so a bulk nom doesn't work. Wizardman 16:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I agree with Wizardman above, I think with a little more digging, some others can pass GNG. These need to be discussed individually.Neonblak ^talk - 16:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lewis, per the sources already included. Just because there is no given name doesn't inherently mean there are no reliable sources using the last name. And in Lewis' case there clearly are some. Procedural keep of the rest - I don't necessarily have a problem with redirecting them to the list article until more sources are found, but that should be done via editing without requiring the use of tools. Rlendog (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nice rescue work, Hockeyben. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Fiala

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. The article's incorrect assertion notwithstanding, the player's action has been exclusively in youth leagues, save for a single exhibition game (which does not count against the requirements). Ravenswing 01:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree that it fails WP:NHOCKEY and the player is not notable. United States Man (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – per Hockeyben. United States Man (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NHOCKEY, no sign of a GNG pass. He did play with an SHL team, but only in an exhibition tournament. Unsurprisingly, article creator couldn't even get the team he currently plays for right. Reso lute 02:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Hockeyben's efforts. Reso lute 15:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep ~~fails NHOCKEY and GNG~~ ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 16:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing to a Keep based on the info given by User:Hockeyben - but this article needs to be expanded badly. ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 02:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – The above editors need to take another look[30]. This player specifically meets Criteria #1 of WP:NHOCKEY for having played one or more games in the Swedish Hockey League (not youth/not exhibition), which is explicitly designated as a “Top Level League” pursuant to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Dolovis (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll grant you that he appears to have made a couple SHL appearances subsequent to the filing of this AfD. So yes, he meets criteria 1 of NHOCKEY. But as always, that only presumes notability. Please show the reliable sources that equate to a GNG pass that shows the presumption remains warranted. Reso lute 21:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused ... didn't you consider NHOCKEY/LA erroneous and illegitimate? Why would you now be citing it in support of your actions? Ravenswing 00:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Explicity meets NHOCKEY #1. Sportspeople who have participated in leagues identified as being among the best worldwide in their respective sport have always been considered suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. This case is no different. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 23:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they can still pass GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some sources which should demonstrate Fiala's passing the GNG: A (presumably) in-depth article written in French, mostly hidden behind a pay wall, a brief mention in a Detroit Free Press article previewing the 2013 WJC, a lengthy article centered around Fiala, an article in German discussing him at length, and finally a Swedish article discussing Fiala's SHL debut.--Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 02:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing what Dolovis is too lazy to. Now, if you would care to add most of those into the article and turn it into something useful, I'll be happy to retract my delete !vote. (Hockey's Future is not a RS, however.) Reso lute 04:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you. Reso lute 15:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still maintain my delete - just noting that he does pass NHOCKEY at this point, but I can still find no coverage of him to warrant a GNG pass. ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 00:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hockeyben's sources. The Steve 11:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Romfors

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:HOCKEY, no evidence of meeting the GNG. The article incorrectly states that the player has played in the Swedish Hockey League; he appeared with his team in only a single exhibition game, which does not count. Ravenswing 01:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable and fails WP:NHOCKEY. United States Man (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. The false claim that he played in the SHL is unimpressive to say the least. Reso lute 01:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable, has not played in SHL can be recreated if that happens. Based on the sheer number of these that we are nominating and voting on, does WP:DISRUPT ever come into play? ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 17:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My take on it -- shared by a number of the hockey project editors -- is that the editor who's responsible for almost all of these is openly defiant of consensus on appropriate notability criteria, when he isn't making false assertions outright about what the guidelines state. Views on his motivations vary, but he's already under a topic and page move ban regarding articles with diacritics, in which area similar antics went on. He's capable of (and has done) a lot of useful wikignome work, but I'd look favorably on a ban on new article creation.
And the sheer number you're seeing? Only a fraction. I'm a sixth through his new article list, so far, and that doesn't count his habit of creating implausible redirects, of which I've RfDed a bunch. Ravenswing 19:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer amount of editor time and resources he has wasted is quite frustrating. And all because he is too lazy to actually find and add sources before creating these pages. He simply goes down roster lists and creates these worthless one or two sentence sub-stubs then casts them off to the ether. An overwhelming number will never be expanded or touched in any significant fashion again. And god knows how many of his older creations are now out of date and claim the player is a member of a team they no longer play for (assuming the right team at the time was given in the first place). Reso lute 23:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability has been established through this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Tennant

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

Reason for deletion: kindness, basically.

As the article now stands, the man is not notable. His publications are either self-owned or else not notable (not clear which is which), and there's no stories about him.

But there are these news notices: ^[1] and ^[2] and ^[2] and ^[3] and ^[4]. And that's before you even get into this whole deal. So what we have is a person whose only fame is doing, or being accused of doing, unpleasant things, so if we're going to have an article on him, will just be full of unpleasantness and essentially an attack article. It was all a long time go, is small beer, is not of long lasting historical importance, is not a helpful addition to the corpus of human knowledge, and so let's not go there.

If I was convinced that Tennant himself had written the article or had it written, I'd not feel all that sympathetic. But for all I know it was written by a clueless admirer who didn't realize what he was getting this guy in for. Or maybe it's a false flag operation by an enemy, expressly designed to force us to be the executioners, on the assumption that our due diligence would find what I found. If that's it, well, I don't like to be played that way, so let's don't.

Note that it's a BLP. It cannot continue to exist in its current form as it's not properly referenced. So Delete on those grounds. There's nothing about the guy -- an interview, a brief bio in a neutral and notable source, so we can't really write a proper article about the guy so Delete on those grounds. If someone wants to write a proper article about this person someday, let them write a new article from scratch. Herostratus (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete – fails notability. United States Man (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
Neutral – Not a very notable person, but could be notable enough for an article. United States Man (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Easily notable; current sources in article are worthless but that's not a valid reason to propose deletion (quoting from WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.") Tennet is described in dozens of books and hundreds of articles as a leading expert on addiction and drug abuse, rather frequently as the "foremost" in the nation or a similar superlative. He was involved in a lot of research, was drug advisor to the NFL, ran a large chain of addiction treatment clinics, and seemed to be the go-to expert on drug addiction for many journalists during the 1980s. After the bulk of his scandels, he was involved in well publicized dietary research, and ran a chain of related clinics. While I didn't see any biographical articles about him, the extent of his high profile professional career easily establishes notability. Quoting from WP:BIO, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." --Agyle (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A check of Google Books shows evidence in support of Agyle's comment. Would be good to have more sources in the article. -- GreenC 06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although a weak keep. Herostratus, thank you for your compassion and consideration of the subject. I leaned toward agreement but checking further, he definitely meets criterion 7 of WP:ACADEMIC. The article in its current state doesn't belong in main space; it is neither neutral nor anywhere near complete. It is unbalanced since the recent negative aspects aren't included. That said, although Tennant's books don't meet notability standards for separate articles, they are often referenced in the writings of researchers and other writers. Google scholar finds over 200 articles where he is author or coauthor of articles in peer reviewed journals. We need to watch this article and ensure it is balanced with due emphasis on past positives as well as recent negatives. I added the article to my watch list and will do my best to ensure it never becomes an attack article. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 18:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Schauberger

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

Does not satisfy the basic criteria given in WP:BIO, as no reliable biographies appear to have been published about him. Does not satisfy any of the additional criteria in WP:SCHOLAR. None of the sources given in the article can qualify as reliable. The article has been tagged with WP:VERIFY since 2008, but no reliable sources have been found. --Daniel Dunér (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No biographies? How about reference 4, which is a whole book written about this person's ideas (according to WorldCat the book is in many academic libraries in the US, Australia, and other places)? --Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another book, not yet used in the article: Living energies: an exposition of concepts related to the theories of Viktor Schauberger. Coats, C. 1996 pp. viii 311 pp. ISBN 0-946551-97-9. --Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable biographies, as far as I know. The biography policy WP:BASIC states that we need "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I have only found unreliable biographies that fall under WP:FRINGE, with claims ranging from nazi UFO conspiracies to Schauberger managing to "violate laws of nature". Since Schauberger appears to have been involved in pseudo-science it would be reasonable for a reliable biography to document this. But the biographies in question actually maintain that Schauberger did all of these things, making them unreliable by Wikipedia standards and disqualifying them as sources for other information as well (the information found in these sources can't be trusted, if they get the most important things wrong). The talk page contains a discussion of a number of these biographies: Talk:Viktor_Schauberger#Removed_claims_based_on_unreliable_sources. This includes the book Living Energies, which makes the fringe-claim that Schauberger "demonstrated how Nature's abundance is the result of a complex interaction of energies that actually create matter, not the other way around as orthodox science believes". --Daniel Dunér (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have usually been rather skeptical about the use of material that seems to emanate from the same very fringy group or cult, and have usually wanted some degree of attention from outside it. However, in this case there appear to be quite a number of related books, and they have been purchased, not by the 1 or 2 libraries one often finds in such cases, but , to my very considerable surprise, in many more ^[5] :

Olof Alexandersson, Living water : Viktor Schauberger and the secrets of natural energy 1st ed. Wellingborough : Turnstone, 1982. 2nd ed. Wellow : Gateway, 1990 ISBN 9780946551576, a translation from the German Levande vattnet. is in 104 WorldCat libraries, including Princeton and Harvard

Kronberger, Hans, Siegbert Lattacher, and Lois Lammerhuber. On the Track of Water's Secret: From Viktor Schauberger to Johann Grander. Scottsdale, Ariz: Wishland Pub, 1995. is in 12.

Coats, Callum. Living Energies: An Exposition of Concepts Related to the Theories of Viktor Schauberger. Bath, UK: Gateway Books, 1996. is in 85

Bartholomew, Alick. Hidden Nature: The Startling Insights of Viktor Schauberger. Edinburgh: Floris, 2003 is in 96 libraries

Cobbald, Jane. Viktor Schauberger: A Life of Learning from Nature. 1st ed. 2006, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Floris, 2009. is in 53, including NYU and Princeton & Yale

And a collection of his own publications:

Schauberger, Viktor, and Callum Coats. The Water Wizard: The Extraordinary Power of Natural Water. Bath, UK: Gateway Books, 1998. "The first of four volumes in the Eco-Technolgy series, which makes available for the first time Viktor Schauberger's original writings and passionate debates." is in 73 (v.2 is Nature as teacher : how I discovered new principles in the working of nature , v.3 is The fertile Earth : nature's energies in agriculture, soil fertilization and forestry v.4, The energy evolution : harnessing free energy from nature

Furthermore, there does appear to be attention from outside the immediate circle:

Freund, René Land der Träumer : zwischen Grösse und Grössenwahn, verkannte Österreicher und ihre Utopien : mit Porträts von Jakob Lorber, Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, Rosa Mayreder und Marie Lang, "Sir Galahad" alias Bertha Diener-Eckstein, Florian Berndl, Eugenie Schwarzwald, Paul Kammerer, Otto Gross, Wilhelm Reich, Carl Schappeller, Viktor Schauberger, Nikola Tesla ("Land of the Dreamers: between importance and megalomania, unrecognized Austrians and their utopias: with portraits of Jakob Lorber, Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, Mayreder and Marie Lang, "Sir Galahad" aka Bertha Diener-Eckstein, Florian Berndl, Eugenie Schwarzwald, Paul Kammerer, Otto Gross, Wilhelm Reich, Carl Schappeller, Viktor Schauberger, Nikola Tesla") Wien: Picus, 1996.

Stevens, Henry. Hitler's Flying Saucers: A Guide to German Flying Discs of the Second World War. Kempton, Ill: Adventures Unlimited Press, 2003. (the connection is "Learn details of the work of Karl Schappeller and Viktor Schauberger. Learn how their ideas figure in the quest to build field propulsion flying discs. "

Satish Kumar, and Freddie Whitefield. Visionaries: The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Gree Publishing, 2007.[here's a list of the 100 people

Most of these have corresponding German versions, which are usually the original ; some have Swedish translations also. A few also in Dutch, Czech, French, Spanish, Japanese

There are also some other books in German only; there's a Bosnian novel based on his life.

What is even more surprising, there's an academic thesis from Nürtingen-Geislingen University of Applied Science: "Fließgewässerregulierung nach Viktor Schauberger"; and there's actually an article on it & similar eccentric ideas on water in the German mainstream chemistry magazine" "H₂O - Jo mei! : vitalisiert, verwirbelt, levitiert, energetisiert, informiert und anti-entropisch" Chemie in unserer Zeit, v47 n2 (April 2013): 108-121 and an article in a mainstream German technical magazine published by Elsevier: ""Instream River Training -Bachgestaltung in Öhringen nach Prinzipien Viktor Schaubergers". WasserWirtschaft. 103, no. 12: 47-48. (2013)

I think that this clearly meets the requirement for "notable fringe". DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of fringe books, yes, but this is not enough for notability as per Basic Notability Requirements for Biographies. The fact that the books are owned by real institutions doesn't change the fact that they are fringe, disqualifying them when trying to establish notability. WP:BASIC requires several reliable and independent biographies to be published about him. The books Land der Träumer and Visionaries could possibly satisfy this criteria, but they only seem to mention him in passing and you would need to establish that they don't make fringe claims about him.

Many people (including me) have tried to find reliable sources in order to fix the article for years. But since all sources are unreliable fringe-stuff, which is disqualified for use on Wikipedia, this hasn't been possible. So even if there is lots of fringe-stuff to be found it's still impossible to write anything with proper citations, which (as far as I understand Wikipedia policy) means we can't have an article on him. No reliable biographies/sources = no article.

Or am I missing something? --Daniel Dunér (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you should have found the Chemie in unserer Zeit and WasserWirtschaft. articles, had you looked even in WorldCat. The very first thing to try for anything where books may have been published, weird or otherwise, is WorldCat. It's very easy to use and free, but if you prefer, any time you're looking for something oddball, ask me or any other librarian. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per thorough analysis of DGG. --Randykitty (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, coverage goes beyond the fringe and library holdings indicate significance beyond the fringe. Dloh cierekim 15:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Library holdings indicate significance beyond fringe" you say? But this seems to directly contradict WP:FRINGE that states that:

For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter.

So could you please point me to the relevant Wikipedia policy that says that fringe sources are acceptable when owned by libraries? --Daniel Dunér (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again you misunderstand. They would be unreliable for an article about water. The person is not "a mainstream idea." As for owned by libraries, you have to look at which and how many libraries and use some common sense. And again, did you notice the thesis and the journal articles even when I pointed them\n out?. All 3 are mainstream. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's a biography so we have different rules for notability. But the standard rules for reliability with regard to source still apply, right? If we are to write a biography we need a reliable source of biographical information. Which we don't have, as far as I can tell. The mentioned biographies are all fringe and therefore not reliable sources. The thesis-stuff isn't biographical.

So how can we possibly have a biographical article on someone without a source of biographical information? We won't be able to write anything about him with proper citations. --Daniel Dunér (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable because of his (fringe) ideas, not for which actress he married and such. So an article has to concentrate on that. The fringe books can certainly use as sources for uncontroversial biographical data (why would they misreport, for example, his birth date or birth place). Things like the thesis and mainstream articles can serve as basis for a discussion of his ideas and their influence. Enough stuff to get this up to Start or even C-class. --Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ {{cite web {{subst:!}}url=http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-31/sports/sp-264_1_gordon-griffith {{subst:!}}title=Tennant's Former Employee Found Not Guilty {{subst:!}}author=Julie Cart {{subst:!}}date=March 31, 1990 {{subst:!}}work=LA Times {{subst:!}}accessdate=January 7, 2014}}
^ ^a ^b {{cite web {{subst:!}}url=http://articles.latimes.com/1990-09-06/sports/sp-1176_1_clarence-kay {{subst:!}}title= NFL Questioned on Drugs Again: Testing: Report says Rozelle was concerned about the handling of Clarence Kay's result. Later, the league allegedly kept the Bronco player quiet with a deal. {{subst:!}}author=Elliott Almond {{subst:!}}date=September 6, 1990 {{subst:!}}work=LA Times {{subst:!}}accessdate=January 7, 2014}}
^ {{cite web {{subst:!}}url=http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-21/sports/sp-1130_1_drug-test {{subst:!}}title=Family Says Drug Test Falsified : Motor racing: Richmond's parents charge that NASCAR officials and their former drug adviser, Forest Tennant, used false tests to ban driver. {{subst:!}}author=Elliott Almond {{subst:!}}date=February 21, 1990 {{subst:!}}work=LA Times {{subst:!}}accessdate=January 7, 2014}}
^ {{cite web {{subst:!}}url=http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-23/sports/sp-1295_1_drug-test {{subst:!}}title=Tennant No Longer NASCAR's Drug Adviser {{subst:!}}author=NEWSWIRE {{subst:!}}date=February 23, 1990 {{subst:!}}work=LA Times {{subst:!}}accessdate=January 7, 2014}}
^ WorldCat name search

[1] {{cite web {{subst:!}}url=http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-31/sports/sp-264_1_gordon-griffith {{subst:!}}title=Tennant's Former Employee Found Not Guilty {{subst:!}}author=Julie Cart {{subst:!}}date=March 31, 1990 {{subst:!}}work=LA Times {{subst:!}}accessdate=January 7, 2014}}

[Almond-2] {{cite web {{subst:!}}url=http://articles.latimes.com/1990-09-06/sports/sp-1176_1_clarence-kay {{subst:!}}title= NFL Questioned on Drugs Again: Testing: Report says Rozelle was concerned about the handling of Clarence Kay's result. Later, the league allegedly kept the Bronco player quiet with a deal. {{subst:!}}author=Elliott Almond {{subst:!}}date=September 6, 1990 {{subst:!}}work=LA Times {{subst:!}}accessdate=January 7, 2014}}

[almond2-3] {{cite web {{subst:!}}url=http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-21/sports/sp-1130_1_drug-test {{subst:!}}title=Family Says Drug Test Falsified : Motor racing: Richmond's parents charge that NASCAR officials and their former drug adviser, Forest Tennant, used false tests to ban driver. {{subst:!}}author=Elliott Almond {{subst:!}}date=February 21, 1990 {{subst:!}}work=LA Times {{subst:!}}accessdate=January 7, 2014}}

[4] {{cite web {{subst:!}}url=http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-23/sports/sp-1295_1_drug-test {{subst:!}}title=Tennant No Longer NASCAR's Drug Adviser {{subst:!}}author=NEWSWIRE {{subst:!}}date=February 23, 1990 {{subst:!}}work=LA Times {{subst:!}}accessdate=January 7, 2014}}

[wc-5] WorldCat name search

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]