Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 November	26 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Miss World Málaga. czar ⨹ 15:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Mesa

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

There are a handful of references provided, but none of them give significant coverage as intended in the guidelines for inlcusion - apart from the non-independent missworldspain website. This nomination was requested by a person claiming to be the subject who asked for this article to be deleted. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Miss World Málaga . per WP:BLP1E. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss World Malaga. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per request from subject - I believe if a subject who is marginally or not especially notable requests their article removed, we have to respect this - then recreate page as a redirect to Miss World Malaga as above. Mabalu (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Mabalu: subject request. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 07:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Deadbeef, Mabalu, and Martijn Hoekstra: - Where is the subject's request? NickCT (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was filed at the helpdesk. 15:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect - Virtually 0 coverage in English language sources. NickCT (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see Miss World Málaga has been held since 2013, so it's not very old is it? Málaga is a state of Spain so Miss Málaga would be a regional rather than a national title. Very dubious notability in itself, and a standalone winner with no other reasons for notability wouldn't be eligible for an article simply for being Miss Málaga. If she went on to be Miss Spain, yes, but Miss Málaga? Hmm. Nah. Mabalu (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. (I used to work in radio and can confirm that this is popular software, but also can confirm in final due diligence that it had no meaningful hits in ProQuest and LexisNexis.) czar ⨹ 04:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinitron

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

Almost certainly does not meet notability for software Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community radio radio ain't chopped liver. It's a vital part of their very infrastructure. kencf0618 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinitron is not about software! Spinitron is an organization providing a critical online utility to community and non-commercial radio stations, broadcasters, agents, recording labels and yes, music listeners, enthusiasts and fans.Robmacclanahan (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC) — Robmacclanahan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Whether the article is on the software, the service, or the company, the issue is one of notability, WP:N. Right now, the only significant, possibly independent coverage is the backboneradio.com review. The COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD legal filing is not useful for establishing notability. Articles typically need significant coverage in more than one independent source. This threshold is not currently met for spintron.Dialectric (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd write this off as adspam if the article creator wasn't a longstanding editor with thousands of good edits. Whether this service is a "vital part" of the "very infrastructure" of community radio doesn't matter a hoot, though: it's whether the subject demonstrates enough notability to qualify for a Wikipedia article. With just a handful of passing mentions on news hits, and zero newspaper hits, the answer is "No." Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 08:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zale Newman

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school trustee, which is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL. Although the article is sourced, nothing here is actually outside of the ordinary level of purely local media coverage that all school trustees always get — meaning that none of it provides any actual reason why he would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international audience. This is basically a leftover from a time (2006) when our notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are now, but NPOL has been tightened up considerably over the years and he doesn't pass it as things stand in 2014. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School board members are not automatically notable and his coverage is just the routine reporting of his school board activities--nothing to show encyclopedic notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage seems routine. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Moscoe

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school trustee and an unsuccessful candidate for higher office, neither of which is a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL. Although the article is sourced, nothing here is actually outside of the ordinary level of purely local media coverage that all school trustees always get — meaning that none of it provides any actual reason why he would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international audience. This is basically a leftover from a time (2006) when our notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are now, but NPOL has been tightened up considerably over the years and he doesn't pass it as things stand in 2014. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School board members are not automatically notable and his coverage is just the routine reporting of his school board activities--nothing to show encyclopedic notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low level of coverage, doesn't seem worth keeping. --Cerebellum (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is clear, though I note no mention of its standing against the general notability guideline (the non-subject-specific criteria). czar ⨹ 15:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Moscoe

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school trustee, which is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL. Although the article is sourced, nothing here is actually outside of the ordinary level of purely local media coverage that all school trustees always get — meaning that none of it provides any actual reason why she would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international audience. This is basically a leftover from a time (2006) when our notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are now, but NPOL has been tightened up considerably over the years and she doesn't pass it as things stand in 2014. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School board members are not automatically notable and his coverage is just the routine reporting of his school board activities--nothing to show encyclopedic notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

her activities... Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While, in theory, a school board member could be notable (see Lewis Powell), this is not the case here. Delete. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Marrese

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school trustee and an unsuccessful candidate for higher office, neither of which is a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL. Although the article is sourced, nothing here is actually outside of the ordinary level of purely local media coverage that all school trustees always get — meaning that none of it provides any actual reason why he would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international audience. This is basically a leftover from a time (2006) when our notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are now, but NPOL has been tightened up considerably over the years and he doesn't pass it as things stand in 2014. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School board members are not automatically notable and his coverage is just the routine reporting of his school board activities--nothing to show encyclopedic notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree. No, school board members don't get automatic passes on WP:POLITICIAN. But this is the guy who ran the school board in Metro Toronto. The district has a quarter-million freaking students--- larger than many cities that get passes for mayors and aldermen--- over 500 schools, an annual budget of $3 billion, and it's the 4th largest school district in the hemisphere. We're not talking your small town school committee here. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: repugnant individual based on what I read, but one who acquired, largely through his notoriety, a degree of notability. Quis separabit? 21:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Public figure who appears to meet our GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was the chair of what is now known as the Toronto Catholic District School Board. That article doesn't link to him, and he won't be missed. This article had way too much detail about minor public offices, and way too little about what he was doing, which was advocating for the Catholic schools. The scandal sounds like a routine, small potatoes local politics COI scandal. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on references (out of 25, only 2 are not Toronto Star), this person is shown to be solely of local interest, which is the norm for local offices that do not confer WP:GNG. LaMona (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 04:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Chumak

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school trustee and an unsuccessful candidate for higher office, neither of which is a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL. Although the article is sourced, nothing here is actually outside of the ordinary level of purely local media coverage that all school trustees always get — meaning that none of it provides any actual reason why he would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international audience. This is basically a leftover from a time (2006) when our notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are now, but NPOL has been tightened up considerably over the years and he doesn't pass it as things stand in 2014. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable politician and his coverage is just the usual local reporting that you'd expect.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mentions outside of local newspapers; minor public office. LaMona (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Noting very thin rationales. czar ⨹ 15:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia Kate Jenkins

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

Does not appear to meet the notability requirements for biographies. Pichpich (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No compelling evidence of notability through sources and not encyclopaedic in tone. Libby norman (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

700 Years of Classical Treasures: A Tapestry in Music and Words

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

There just does not seem to be significant reliable coverage of this Reader's Digest set to warrant inclusion. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could be redirected to Reader's Digest or perhaps merged into a bibliography: [1] [2]. James500 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in the article or anywhere else that I can find. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability in what is basically an advert; and per WP:IINFO. --Stfg (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blanca Gómez

The result was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 09:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Michaels

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

GNG, no refs, empty article. EBY (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please I hope you will give me a chance to complete the first draft of the article. Onlydemi (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Onlydemi - In the future, it would be better to write drafts in your sandbox or other non-article space instead of publishing them to the encyclopedia. When you put an article up, it should be complete and meet all Wikipedia article requirements. There are some easy to follow instructions here. EBY (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onlydemi; deletion discussions run for a week, so my advice is to carry on improving the article. You'll need some sources to show that he meets the notability guidelines, so maybe focus on that as much as content. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at the moment. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that would suggest the subject meets the general notability guideline or the more specific guideline for creative professionals. However, it looks like the article is a work-in-progress, so if the editor doing that provides some good sources (possible since Michaels' Movie Madness is from the late 80's so sources may be offline), I could be swayed. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for publishing the page rather than starting it in my sandbox. I am adding references as I get them, you are indeed correct, there isn't much available online due to the time period involved, however there is a significant amount of information that needs to be uploaded to the Commons (I have added some already). Are YouTube videos allowed as clips from Michaels Movie Madness for example? Thanks. Onlydemi (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

to EBY. The article was nominated for deletion 20 minutes after it was created. That's a little eager to delete what was an in progress article. Onlydemi, Youtube videos are not considered independent articles and Reliable Sources and therefore don't help the article pass the wp:GNG. Also you might consider adding the page to a Wikiproject. I'm going to say soft keep based on the cult nature of the series and the fact it was from the late 80s meaning that the sources should exist (thus passing wp:N) even if we don't actually have them. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neonchameleon - The trout's fine, I like it with a little lemon. As Dylanfromthenorth pointed out, the nom gave the editor a week to establish GNG. Plenty of time. Or, you know, the editor could stick one of those handy 'new page' tags at the top to let people know what was going on. If you look at what went up originally, it was basically a pointer to the subject's blog.EBY (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to FIDO Alliance. Rounded to redirect slakr^\ talk / 09:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nok Nok Labs

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

SPA-written promo that uses two RS that quote the founder (Phil Dunkelberger) and mention he has a startup (this company) but both articles are about FIDO Alliance and NOT this company. It is a year-old startup with no notability. EBY (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Any coverage mentioning this recent start-up relates more to the FIDO Alliance and routine announcements. The firm may become notable in future but at present this is WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm equally comfortable with User:MelanieN's alternative suggestion below of a redirect. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Nok Nok Labs is a founding member and driver of the FIDO Alliance and consequently much of the coverage regarding Nok Nok Labs will involve the FIDO Alliance. I modified a press release quote to be from a news source (Pitchbook). Note that news coverage will probably include FIDO Alliance information as that is integral to the ecosystem in which Nok Nok operates. --Cryptodd (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC) To be clear, I object to deleting the Nok Nok Labs article as I believe the page now conforms with Wikipedia guidelines and has been edited to address the above stated concerns. --Cryptodd (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC) (NOTE: User:Cryptodd is the author of the article.)[reply]

Redirect to FIDO Alliance, where it is already mentioned. This will preserve the article history, in case the company becomes notable enough in the future for the redirect to be expanded into an article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To restate my objections to deleting this article, the article has been updated to remove any references to press releases and I have added additional citations to substantiate the article. One issue raised was that the citations referenced the FIDO Alliance more than Nok Nok Labs. Nok Nok Labs is a founding member of the FIDO Alliance (which has 100+ members at this point) and has a business model that leverages the FIDO Alliance ecosystem, so Nok Nok Labs references will probably include FIDO Alliance references. I believe the revised Nok Nok Labs article as it stands now is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. --Cryptodd (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing after recent revisions: I still don't find this company to meet the WP:CORP requirements for a standalone article. The references cited are to things like minor trade journals; I don't find anything from what I would consider a significant Independent Reliable Source. Same with the sources turned up on a search.[3] When we start to see significant coverage from major newspapers, then we can talk about restoring the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added in two additional citations from reputable, major trade publications (Network World and SC Magazine). The Google search on "Nok Nok Labs" provided above supports inclusion of the Nok Nok Labs article with an additional "reputable publication" - an American Banker article. The new citations added to the Nok Nok Labs article are security trade publications, however they are significant industry trade publications read by most enterprise IT security practitioners. If the bar is that one has to wait for coverage from major newspapers (publications that are in decline and reducing newsroom staff) before adding an article to Wikipedia, we had better start deleting a bunch of entries, particularly for startup companies that might eventually go on to do great things. I think the revised Nok Nok Labs article meets the bar with adequate references from significant secondary publications. These citations are not major newspaper references because Nok Nok Labs authentication business is business IT security product, not a consumer product that would frequently make consumer newspaper headlines. --Cryptodd (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not persuaded. Those two new citations? One's a blogpost and the other is about this Dunkelberger chap or about a product, not about the company itself. The answer to there being no good references because the company's business is secret isn't "So the subject doesn't have to meet the GNG." It's "So the subject doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article." Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: I disagree with the previous comments - the Network World article focuses on the company and the CEO. The headline says it: "PGP Corp. co-founder's startup targets cloud authentication: Can Phil Dunkelberger's new venture, Nok Nok Labs, really change authentication for the better?" The SCMagazine UK citation is a blog, but a regular editorial columnist blog. And these are only two of eight citations. I think this passes the Wikipedia article bar, and if the bar is higher, then we probably need to delete a number of other articles. --Cryptodd (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meredian Holdings Group Inc.

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

SPA-written (and published) company article on a privately-held company, article is almost completely from their own website with a single reliable source ref. (the rest blogs, their own PR releases (on trade shows, reorganizations, and patents) quoted from sources, and their own website). This is the only RS: ^[1]. EBY (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.plasticstoday.com/articles/green-matter-invention-driven-innovation-beats-serendipity-says-pha-expert

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ~~would~~ say Keep. ~~if a little bit of work was done~~ There is enough to improve the article and cites. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That work hasn't been done, so I say Delete. Since when do we keep articles without proper references just because somewhere some good references "might" exist? Either they're demonstrated or they're not. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There was also an article in the China Daily, local newspapers (the farmers), local business sites, and a couple of trade industry sites. The article could be slimmed down and made more encyclopedic, but there is enough there. Not top quality but good enough. IMO having the first food-safe biodegradable plastic is significant. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Prison

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

Non notable song, composed nearly 100 years ago, now recorded on a (so far) non notable record. The song hasn't received significant attention from reliable independent sources, only a passing mention. Fram (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the song passes WP:GNG on the basis of existing sources. The fact that it has only just been recorded for the first time is part of the notability, having been unearthed as part of the artistic remembrance in the UK of the 100th Anniversary of the First World War. Compositions by major composers in German POW camps during WWI are few and far between, Messiaens Quatuor pour la fin du temps is the best known example. As far as English songs go, investigation into the songs composed at Ruhleben Camp starts with L. Foreman In Ruhleben Camp Taylor & Francis 2011 - that work discussed Fuchs, Leigh Henry, Frederick Keel and Edward Clark, specifically mentioning this setting of the William Morris poem. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the passing mention I noted. Being rare or unique is not an aspect of notability, every human being is unique, but not all are notable (luckily). The Quatuor by Messiaen is a very notable composition, this song so far isn't. Fram (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't the source you noted, this is a different one. The one you mentioned was Stephen Banfield Sensibility in English Song Cambridge University Press 1985 9780521379441 The First World War p.139 "More worthy of remembrance is Frederick Keel's gentle setting (1921) of William Morris' poem 'In prison' composed in 1915 in the Ruhleben (Berlin) prisoner-of-war camp in which, along with Edgar Bainton and Benjamin Dale, he was interned" In ictu oculi (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Passes GNG" how eaxctly? One or two very passing mentions, one recording on a non notable record. Fram (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say it passes WP:GNG with the sources in the existing article and the one mentioned above by In ictu oculi. Certainly enough to support a stub. Libby norman (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Crissy Criss. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Exit

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

Lots of non-WP:RS sources, are there enough RS to meet GNG? WP:BAND. Not WP:INHERITED from Crissy Criss (which is borderline notable, not that that's too relevant). Needs scrutiny due to:
- creator and all major editors are blocked or as-yet unblocked promo accounts (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Active_sockfarm_linked_to_Morning277 editors User:Iamsammyporter, User:Caribbeanbio, blocked sock User:Klokus of User:Newzealand123 - self-disclosed paid editor) allegedly paid MEATS / sockfarm loose connection to banned User:Morning277) Widefox; talk 14:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the blue linked member, Crissy Criss. Lack independent notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 09:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Brackett's solar system fictional world

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

I marked this and related pages (Venus in the fiction of Leigh Brackett, etc.) as candidates for deletion and it was proposed that they be merged instead. However, I think merging is an unsatisfactory compromise. First, as un-sourced articles describing a subject in an in-universe style, merging does not address the main issues of notability and verifiability. Second, as these pages are primarily the work of one user, the proposed merge is unlikely to be addressed any time soon, so I think it's worth resolving the core issues.

I understand editors sometimes errs on the side of caution with these in-universe articles, but I wanted to raise the discussion one more time. In short, I think these pages fail the notability test, and as in-universe explanations, can only be "verified" by the fiction they come from. Geethree (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Leigh Brackett is considered to be a major figure amongst women sf writers, becoming a Science Fiction Hall of Fame inductee in 2014. As such her work passes any notability test. The question regarding this and associated articles concerns the lack of sufficient references and citations. I have added several today and believe that a small amount of work will further enhance the articles to ensure they meet Wikipedia guidelines. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing Leigh Brackett's notability, but the notability of these specific articles—which do not discuss her work but fictional elements within her work, lowering their notability, see WP:BKD. IMO this basically falls under the problems implied by WP:FANCRUFT. Are there multiple independent sources that discuss these elements in substance? (One of the sources just added to the page references the very articles we're discussing here, which edges pretty close to WP:CIRCULAR, and I do not think the other sources can be said to discuss this topic in substance.)

That said, it's very possible I'm wrong here. However, I don't think we can take for granted that these pages inherit Brackett's notability.Geethree (talk)

I'm not sure how an argument can be run that implies that the fiction of a person who is notable for writing fiction is not itself notable. If the fiction isn't notable then the person isn't either. And also, if the person is notable then the fiction is as well. The point about this encyclopedia entry is that it brings together all the various streams of Brackett's fiction, thereby enhancing her notability rather than reducing it. I look on this piece as being similar to the Known Space article about Larry Niven's fictional universe. Does that diminish Niven's notability by diluting the content? I don't think so. I suspect that much more work has been done on Niven's piece than Brackett's which is why I believe it needs to be added to the Wikipedia Science Fiction Project as a page in need of work.

I am aware that some of the articles used as references also mention this Wikipedia article but I attempted to only reference those sections which were new and not self-referential.

As stated earlier, Brackett was a Science Fiction Hall of Fame inductee in 2014. And the only way to be inducted is to be elected by experts and practitioners in the field. So I believe any possibility of WP:FANCRUFT is catered for. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would describe that Larry Niven article as having many of the same problems, including over-described fictional elements and a lack of reputable, secondary sources. However, I agree that Leigh Brackett herself is a significant writer and that does suggest some inherent notability to aspects of her work, so I don't want to discount that perspective completely. Even though I still believe the Leigh Brackett Solar System articles should be deleted (or at least merged and substantially condensed), I would appreciate the input of other editors. Geethree (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the question of notability for in-fiction works, the long and short of it is that you have to look at whether or not the topic itself (in this case the fictional world) has received coverage in reliable sources. You'd need more than just literature reviews of her work, which means that you'd have to show articles that discuss the world and its lore as a whole. You can see this evidenced in this article about Discworld. Mostly this is because at some point we'd need RS to back up the claims in the article, because otherwise it'd just be original research, which is the biggest issue I see with the article as a whole. We can have pages on fictional universes if the work is widely reviewed and there are a lot of books in the series, but mostly people try to avoid doing that because of how easy it is for the entire page to become one large piece of original research. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate and sum up my argument, I do not think Leigh Brackett is so notable an author that articles describing tertiary aspects of her work are inherently notable. So far, this seems to be the key argument in favor of keeping. We are several degrees removed from the author at this point: the author, works by the author, fictional elements within those works. The notability of such articles is clearly called into question per WP:BKD. Obviously, at a certain point, derivative articles are no longer notable even for very notable authors.

There is an apparent lack of multiple, reputable sources that discuss this subject specifically—a key requirement for establishing notability. While it's possible such sources exist, at some point we have to make a decision as to whether it is likely such sources exist. Given the current state of the articles (in-universe summaries), the potential future state of the articles (at best, substantially reduced and very likely merged), the lack of reputable sources, and the issues implied by derivative articles, I think these articles ought to be deleted. Geethree (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Leigh Brackett is a notable author, as evidenced by her induction into the Science Fiction Hall of Fame this year. By my count (possibly out by one or two) there are only 79 such inductees. She was inducted based on her lifetime body of work, which to me implies that her whole written output was important in determining her eligibility for the recognition. That indicates that her sf and fantasy fiction (novels, stories and screenplays) is notable as it and only it comprises her notability. An article about a common feature of her work would therefore appear to be only one degree removed from the author herself. I agree that the article needs a lot of editorial work to ensure that proper and reliable sources are cited and that the article does not constitute original research, but I believe that is still a long way from an automatic delete. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whoa, time out here. So Brackett's notable. No one's disputing that. So many of her works are notable. No one's disputing that either. So when did WP:NOTINHERITED get suspended? This article is a giant, fat WP:OR/WP:SYNTH violation, because it hasn't demonstrated that it, by itself, has been discussed as a subject in multiple reliable sources. Just because Brackett was a notable author doesn't mean that any article with her name in the subject line gets a free pass, and that seems to be what Perry Middlemiss is arguing. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I was attempting to answer the point that this article is "several degrees" removed from the author herself, which I believe is incorrect. That said, I'm coming more to the view that this article should be changed to a straight list of the elements of the author's works rather than a piece specifying the inter-connectedness of it all. So rather than a straight delete, an edit and a renaming to bring it into line with Wikipedia expectations. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point that "several degrees removed" is perhaps not the best way to understand the issues of these pages. That said, to me these recent comments are still an argument in favor of deleting these pages. If a different, more appropriate page is created, or a new section is created on the Leigh Brackett page to describe her solar system, or what have you, then that would be a separate conversation altogether. In addition, "merge, edit, and rename" is 1) not very far from deleting these pages and 2) still does not address the core problem of a lack of sources indicating notability.

I don't want to dog this conversation as I feel like I've explained my position well enough (perhaps too much :)) so I will defer to whatever consensus is reached past this point. Geethree (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wp:TNT at the very least, with all the pages ending up on the main universe page (which could be saved with sufficient extra sources). But this feels like fancruft and no notability of her worlds as distinct from her has been established. Under wp:NOTINHERIT Delete would appear to be the only possible choice. Neonchameleon (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that the consensus will be for Delete, and in its present form the page certainly fails to meet the requirements for WP:NOR in Wikipedia. And I think that is the main issue here, not the issue of notability which was the original reason cited for possible deletion. Also I have a lot of trouble buying an argument that an author can be notable but her works are not. That's like saying that a sportsperson is notable but his or her performances are not.

I've taken a copy of the text and if the page is deleted I'll attempt to change it into more of a list of items with references and move it away from its current implication of original research. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim isn't that Leigh Bracket is notable but her works aren't. Of course some of her works qualify as notable under wp:NBOOK. But not everything she does is notable. wp:NOTINHERIT. Further there's a difference between her works being notable (some are, some aren't) and in-fiction aspects of her work being notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sreevallabhan

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

No proof that notability as a name or a distinct name of the Hindu god. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Agreed, not a distinct name. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of deal of the day services

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

Indiscriminate list article lacking sources that establish notability per WP:LISTN. The article is little more than a spam magnet. - Mr X 13:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deal of the day is apparently a notable topic, so this would pass LISTN even if it didn't pass WP:LISTPURP as an index of articles, and WP:CLN as a list complementary to Category:Deal of the day services. The "spam magnet" argument is nothing but WP:SUSCEPTIBLE and so can be dismissed as irrelevant even if the list weren't presently restricted to blue links. So is there an argument for not classifying these notable sites by this notable characteristics, such that we would also want to delete the category? Otherwise, I see no basis for deletion. Merging to the parent article would certainly seem feasible given how short this list is (presuming there aren't a lot of missing valid entries), but that's obviously not deletion and should have been dealt with outside of AFD. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the subject – deal of the day websites – is most certainly notable. The list is easy to maintain, and only notable entries are presented, as I don't see any "spam" present. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poorly sourced, poorly developed, but an appropriate list on a notable subject (agree with Postdlf/Wikipedical) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Boyd

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

This is a biography of a living person having no references at all. The two possible claims for notability are that he is a professor at Loyola, and he is a musician. As an academic, I can find no indication that he meets WP:ACADEMIC. The external link provided to the his profile at Loyola is dead. As best as I can determine, he is no longer there, and is now teaching at a community college. As a musician, he has worked with notable musicians, but notability is not inherited, and I can find no evidence that WP:MUSICIAN is met. The link to his official site is also dead. Whpq (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence found on notability--Mevagiss (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has released a CD and plays various dates, but not finding any reviews or notable coverage. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gari Glaysher

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The BBC piece is just him talking about himself. classical-crossover is not a reliable source. Despite claims of being world renowned he does not seem to get any coverage outside of Derby local interest pieces. Operetta roles are not in notable productions. Albums are not on an important label. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with duffbeerforme above. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was going to close as delete, but I found too much stuff to put in a close rationale. Bunch of ProQuest hits in the Derby Evening Telegraph, where he is apparently a "Derby favourite". Largest mention was in

Rose, Jamie. "A Man with a Vision." The Kent and Sussex Courier, Nov 09, 2012, Tunbridge Wells ed. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1143919553 ProQuest

"Pavarocky; The former boxer from a rough estate who became an opera star." Sunday Express. (March 30, 2008 Sunday ): 968 words. LexisNexis

but not nearly enough to constitute significant coverage. The second one is actually pretty lengthy, but there is just not enough coverage unless someone finds more sources. Found nothing for albums too, so redirected those to artist. czar ⨹ 01:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 01:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Smith (musician)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC - lack of independent coverage, is not signed to label (major or otherwise), and awards are all regional, minor affairs. Only independent source I could find was this: http://www.nanaimobulletin.com/entertainment/236812311.html Does not satisfy GNG requirements. The Interior (Talk) 22:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looked at the ref found by the nom, it is simply a local piece written in advance of a performance, a review of the performance would have been a better claim to notability, can't find any other significant coverage. Simply not finding enough for GNG and the subject's career achievements do not appear meet the criteria of MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 22:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the subject fails WP:GNG and MUSICBIO. - tucoxn\^talk 02:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, nothing in this article as written gets her over WP:NMUSIC — and I'm having about as much luck as the nominator in finding any evidence of substantive and non-local WP:RS coverage to salvage it with. And while the phrase "Music has always been a part of Smith's life" being right in the article's introduction would not, in and of itself, be enough to trigger my G11-speedy reflex, it does suggest that the core intent here was advertorial/promotional. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of minor planets: 10001–11000#10038_Tanaro. czar ⨹ 03:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10038 Tanaro

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria, but this is an area where notability is debated, so thought best to have proper discussion at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially speedy redirect to List of minor planets: 10001–11000#38 per WP:NASTRO and this minor planet's lack of notability. "Pepper" @ 01:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 10001-11000 per WP:NASTRO; a textbook failure of the guidelines. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above per WP:NASTRO#Examples; the section is instructive here. Deadbeef 02:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 08:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike R. Keller (Martial Arts)

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

Non-notable athlete. No indications of any significant coverage in independent media. References appear to amount to reviews of some videos that he produced and local coverage for an unspecified honor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable martial artist.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant independent coverage and nothing to show he meets any notability criteria as a martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Whelen Engineering Company. No quorum, but not leaning towards keeping. czar ⨹ 01:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whelen Hornet

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

Another NN product from a dubious notability company. All articles around Whelen seem to go towards deletion. This, I guess, will not be an exception. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable in any way. Lemnaminor (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Whelen Engineering Company. Artw (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in the Republic of Macedonia

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

very little content and the only YYYY in the Republic of Macedonia article. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not part of an established series. Happy for it be re-created if someone is going to spend the time to create and expand all the other year articles too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 04:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vrac (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It's been a while. Article is very incomplete. Nobody has come forth to add other series or add more info to the article so serves very little point now. Thanks Marksterdam (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) cyberdog958^Talk 07:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XiVO

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

Software which does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. The only references are primary sources. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2007 in Antigua and Barbuda

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

very little content and the only YYYY in Antigua and Barbuda article. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not part of an established series. Happy for it be re-created if someone is going to spend the time to create and expand all the other year articles too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S. O. Y. Keita

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

Apparently non-notable academic. He has modest, non-negligible, cites on Google scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF and (since the only nontrivial source about him is a speaker bio from a conference) no evidence of passing WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Resumé-type article about a non-notable academic. Citations at Google Scholar fall way short of the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. Pretty much no general coverage at all, so fails WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A1/A3 pick your choice Secret ^account 19:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of chronologies of works of fiction

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

This is a rather random listing of Wikipedia articles. Despite the article title and aims, many of the articles listed are not "chronologies" at all and many are not "works of fiction". It ought to be speedied but doesn't fit any category for doing so. Bikeroo (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no clear definition of "chronology of work of fiction": Potential scope could expand to the unmanageable levels of every article on serial fiction, comic books, film series, etc. Per WP:SALAT, Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, and we already have numerous similar lists, including Outline of fiction (to which List of fiction topics redirects), more specific lists and categories such as List of science fiction films or Category:Lists of horror films‎ and of course List of lists of lists just in case anything was missed. Redundant, poorly-defined lists do not add to the utility of Wikipedia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per major improvements done by those here - Closing early since 6 more sources have been added so thus notability is there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O (gesture)

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

Single source, no evidence of any broader notability. Prod removed, so here we are. —Swpb^talk 14:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article was just created yesterday and there are a number of other reliable sources (a few are mentioned on the talk page) to establish notability a la similar topics Hook 'em Horns and Pitchfork (hand gesture). I plan on working on it this week, so let's give it a chance. --Esprqii (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). See additional sources on talk page plus discussion at WikiProject Oregon. Just let the article snowball. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why the rush? See here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon#The O -Pete (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as there are now three sources and since 'O' is a difficult term to search for, finding more sources may be difficult despite the fact they may exist. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 08:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AP International

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

Not meeting Wikipedia notability Guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. The article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): the topic has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. - tucoxn\^talk 02:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Lack of coverage fails WP:COMPANY, and without coverage, simply distributing DVDs and audio CDs is not a notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Finn

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

Non-notable actor. No evidence of any available significant coverage for this individual. Two reasonably major film roles under his belt, with the rest either being minor roles in major productions, or major roles in minor productions, but none enough to garner any independent coverage. WP:TOOSOON perhaps? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Islington

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

While all the references in this article support that the acts mentioned played there, non go into detail about the bar itself. I can not find any significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As mentioned by the nominator and in the article, there is coverage in lots of sources as many notable bands have played there, therefore it can be included here. It can't be redirected or merged to any one band, so the only option left is to keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article only mention the bar in passing and are mostly about the bands themselves. I don't think any of them provide the significant coverage required for GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but lots and lots and lots of them mention it, really far too many just to be written off as a local pub. Indeed, trying to find a source that talks about the venue has been made extremely difficult due to being drowned out by the number of notable bands playing there. (Incidentally, on my search for sources I discovered SOS Sahel in the same building has several book hits). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rito Silva, Jr.

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

Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. Little depth of coverage. Fairly non-notable small city mayor. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cities of 19K aren't generally deemed to confer notability on their mayors, so he doesn't pass WP:NPOL on that basis, and with only a single article in a local newspaper for referencing he's not well-sourced enough to get over WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a mayor of a small Texas town does not confer automatic notability and there's a lack of sources to show he meets the GNG.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet NPOL as a small town mayor or GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 01:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Octavio Figueroa, Jr.

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

Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. Little depth of coverage. Fairly non-notable mayor of a small city. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cities of 19K aren't generally deemed to confer notability on their mayors, so he doesn't pass WP:NPOL on that basis, and with only a single article in a local community weekly newspaper he's not well-sourced enough to get over WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet GNG and being a small town Texas mayor doesn't make him a notable politician.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly falls below notability requirements for politicians. -LtNOWIS (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Lightning Process. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Parker (author)

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

Alleged to a promotional piece for the man in question, not sure if it should be deleted or rewritten, so its here at afd for the community to weigh in on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting the article. It reads like an advertisement for Parker, and whatever he has done that is notable is more than amply discussed in the Lightning Process article. Many references in the latter article are again used in this one. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any advice on how to improve, amend and rewrite this page - I believe that there is merit in this being included in addition to the Lightning Process page. I do not agree that many of the references are duplicated between the Lightning Process page and this - 28 of the 34 current references are not included on the Lightning Process page. Followthepenguins (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lightning Process article. The reason is that the sources here are about the LP, not about Parker. If there were significant sources about him then it might make sense to have a separate article about him, but many of the articles listed here do not even name him. Some that do are mere directory listings or even advertisements. If there is biographical information that is not in the LP article, it would make sense to include a short section about the inventor of the process in order to include those. LaMona (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lightning Process His notability and independent coverage seems to come solely from this topic.131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Adsyvb, are you aware of out sister project Wikiversity: which, unlike Wikipedia, does allow original research? You might be better off there with what you are trying to do. E-mail me if you want to to retrieve a copy of the article for use elsewhere. SpinningSpark 18:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ButN

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

This article has been recreated in two separate pages and keeps getting csd tagged, however the editor claims the company to be notable. In difference to that fact I'm listing the article here to give the creator a chance to defend the work and make his case to the community about why the article should stay on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article is not well written, but I did find reviews in Fox News, The Marketing Site, Business First Magazine, Sydney Morning Herald, Marketing Mag, Conde Naste Traveller. Despite this, might be a case of too soon. JTdale ^Talk 11:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for lack of notability. This product has been launched by FedEE on ~~November~~ October 4, 2014 [4] and a little more than one month has not been enough to acquire notability. The media campaign that has been launched to advertise the new product has produced an handful of articles dedicated to it.[5][6][7][8][9]

Be aware that these articles are not independent reviews by secondary sources but only news about the launch of the product and, in good part, report the statements of a representative of the company. As a consequence, all the statements attributed to the company representative (quoting him or paraphrasing what he said) are considered a primary source of information. Beside that, I have found also a small citation of ButN, maybe spontaneous, in an article by Fox News dedicated to a different product.[10]

To sum it up, I have not found any evidence of notability because, other than the primary sources and the typical effects of a marketing campaign, no noticeable amount of secondary sources has been found. All the hints lead to a promotional activity and, at best, this is a classical example of WP:TOOSOON. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 11:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of article of butN. As explained earlier as part of research work in the graduate program which required me to look up companies which are competing with LinkedIn and write an article about it on Wikipedia. Whatever I could find about it I have written and kept a neutral point of view. Adsyvb (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did note on Adsyvb's talk page that their course tutor needs to work with Wikipedia norms, rather than against them. (Asking people to write directly promotional articles, supported by the businesspeople involved in the site on the talk page, isn't in this spirit.) I proofread it a bit but on reflection, I agree with JTdale above that this is a bit WP:TOOSOON despite the assertions of significance necessitating an AFD rather than speedy. LS1979 (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lstanley1979 JTdale TomStar81 I have done some editing on the page. Please have a look. Adsyvb (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the problem is not necessarily with the text of the article (long lists of website features written that way still come across as promotional, but I can see that for your project the article needs to be more than 'this website exists', so this is partly where you're on a collision course with Wikipedia editors), but whether the business qualifies for Wikipedia right now. Lack of notability is not something that can be fixed right now; butN simply needs more time in general use to qualify for a WP article.

You also need to go back to your tutor and explain Wikipedia is not a free webhost for college projects writing about businesses that currently fail notability guidelines; presumably there are a number of places where you could upload text about butN which aren't open to public scrutiny in order to discuss LinkedIn's potential competition.

I think at this juncture you need to read the guidelines/policies/etc pointed out to you and understand the limitations of Wikipedia's system as regards this assignment, based on what people are saying about butN's notability. LS1979 (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lstanley1979 I have been looking up data / links / articles regarding ButN on a regular basis and whatever I will comes across will be cited in the article. Adsyvb (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone I have found one more article with regards to butN. Not sure if I should cite it in the wikipedia article. Please have a look at it and advise. Here is the link: http://startups.co.uk/butn-robin-chater/ Adsyvb (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No - I'm afraid that's still a self-published source. Interviews with site administrators are still not proof of notability, since anyone can write that as advertising copy; notability and reliable source guidelines need editorial control and oversight, and a third-party discussing the site without just quoting the founders. LS1979 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon.Charles (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 23:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VBR-Belgium

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

This company and its products do not appear to be notable. Three of them have had multiple tags on them for years. The articles were mostly created by an editor with a copyright violation problem. I searched and found only one independent source: [11] However that link goes to a review on a website that's just based on Youtube videos produced by the inventor, and the website itself looks self-published. I won't nominate the template and category for deletion here, as I assume those will be deleted as well if all these are deleted first.

I am also nominating:

Rezin (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on the editor, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ctway Rezin (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...I agree not noteable, delete all of the above...especially the user page, with the backdoor article...not appropriate to say the least--RAF910 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 21:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Goedert

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. He has bounced around the minors for some time and is unlikely to make the show. Spanneraol (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore [12] and restore redirection Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's no longer with that team so that makes no sense. Spanneraol (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that makes absolutely zero sense.--Yankees10 21:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes no sense is removing material from the encyclopedia from the target article and then un-redirecting and then bringing the topic to AfD with the argument that the topic is not notable, when the material could have been moved to a section on former players. Unscintillating (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is for current players not former.--Yankees10 23:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Yankees said; don't throw in comments if you have no clue what you're talking about. Wizardman 00:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've not made a policy-based argument. Yankees has not established him/herself as an authority...you see here a !vote from WP:ATA, the third in 3 AfDs I have seen today. WP:PRESERVE is a policy. I noticed you deleted John Whittleman this weekend, in the 2nd AfD; after you were a participant in the first AfD and !voted to delete. Do you have any comment about that? Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we should add a section on former players? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG not notable.--Yankees10 21:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He has received a fairly significant amount of coverage (lots of it is routine, but still) and his five years at Triple-A seems somewhat notable. Alex (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"lots" of routine coverage doesn't equal passing GNG. Five years in AAA means nothing in regards to notability.--Yankees10 22:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then my vote will be canceled out by votes of opposite conviction, I am but a single person in a sea of Wikipedians. Alex (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing much that suggets he's notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (albeit weak) Coverage appears to be more than just "routine" -- see WP:NOTROUTINE essay for more details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the sources used in the article are routine, sans perhaps the Kansas State one; if there was more on his college career that had strong references that might convince me. Wizardman 04:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serene Branson

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

Previous afd resulten in a redirect. This destination no longer mentions Serene Branson. There no longer is any info left on the subject. CapnZapp (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is AfD, not RfD. I'd say "wrong venue", but the nom has followed neither WP:BEFORE nor WP:SOFIXIT. Unscintillating (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have tried to have an article deleted, so I might have done it wrong. In plain English, I'm trying to say: "This article should be removed since there is no information about its subject on Wikipedia anylonger". While simple to say in English, I find it very difficult to express in Wiki-bureaucrat-speak and/or find the "right" venue. And that even though I am certainly not new to Wikipedia. Shut this down if it isn't "the right venue", but then please point me in the right direction: this was my honest and best shot at doing it by the book! Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have "read and understood" all relevant policies (to the best of my ability) at WP:BEFORE, and I have read through each check at section B. Regarding sections C and D, I have looked through the history of the redirect target (the TV station) and understood that she was only mentioned on that page; then purged from the page as non-notable (she's had a single event where she got a migraine attack live). There is no info on the destination page left to justify the redirect, and there is no hope to expand the article (if for no other reason the previous AfD shunted her info over to the page that now have removed it).

And so I ask of you, Northamerica1000, to consider avoiding jumping to conclusions about the "nom" in the future. Instead, please advice me on how to proceed. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't beat the nom up on WP:BEFORE. Why, did you find any good refs to the subject that the nom should've caught, Unscintillating? I didn't: just a (small) heap of "Soandso told KCBS reporter Serene Branson that his manhood was carried off by dingos" links. There's only a single newspaper hit, which is more of the same. CapnZapp, what you want is WP:RFD. That's the right place to do it. Nha Trang 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. Regarding the above comments, I have not commented herein, I only provided deletion sorting. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My very sincere apologies: for some reason, I attributed that to you when I should've attributed it to Unscintillating. Nha Trang 21:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, apologies. I too mixed up the two of you.

Secondly, I read through RfD and do not believe that is the appropriate venue. Even though the page currently is a redirect. Nothing on that page applies to Serene Branson: I can't find a good WP:RFD#DELETE point, and WP:RFD#HARMFUL would seem to apply. Remember I'm talking about a page that started out as a biographical article, that at some point was made into a redirect as a result of a previous AfD. I want (wanted) to continue that discussion, and close the article entirely, thinking "Serene Branson" has "left" Wikipedia, now that the redirect has stopped making sense. This place is the only place that makes sense to me. But so far we have only discussed formalities and minutiae, which isn't why I decided to spend my time trying to help out. I've spent far too much time on what should have been a one-click delete. Therefore, I am outta here: if anybody wants to bring the issue to a administratively acceptable close, feel exceedingly free to do so yourself.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Zugarramurdi

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

This isn;t my usual area, but I can't see what would make for notability here. But I can see that it's written in a very promotional tone. DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written taking examples of other artist alike pages in wikipedia. The article is merely informative with no intention to promote but inform. Lagasta ( talk ) 09:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references are not independent reliable evidence of notability, nor are multiple searches (Allmusic, Highbeam, Questia, Google) turning up anything better. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hermina Dunz

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

Doesn't seem to meet any aspect of WP:NOTABILITY criteria, although I know people have very different ideas when it comes to the notability of longevity. Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jonas Live

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

Article fails to establish notability for a musical concert tour; has become a stomping ground for fan-dictated fancruft and being treated as a page of a fan site. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a huge tour for one of North America's most popular musicians. The page can always be semi-protected to prevent edit warring by fans. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per Bearian MaranoFan (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of mergers and acquisitions by Google. czar ⨹ 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jambool

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

As I noted in the prod, I believe the coverage is insufficient to pass WP:COMPANY. Some niche coverage of its take over by Google is just a one-event type of coverage; each takeover by Google will generate some interests - enough, likely, to have a list of companies that were bought by Google or such, but not enough, IMHO, to warrant an article about such a company, not by itself. Ping User:SnowFire. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (I was the one who originally removed the prod). It's definitely borderline, but the right side of the line? I agree of course it's only notable as a Google acquisition, but said acquisition did in fact give reasonably significant coverage in the press, so a reliably sourced article can be written. WP:1E is usually something associated with people, not companies to me, and even then it's more a guideline/warning. SnowFire (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Google acquires companies while they are still in a pupa stage, before they have an identity of their own. (At least, that's how it looks to me.) It isn't clear if the company will continue to exist and develop or if Google will absorb its technology as Google tech. If the company continues to develop and thrives, then it may be worthy of an article. So far, though, companies that Google acquires seem to languish. LaMona (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was so busy pontificating that I forgot to give the real reasons for the delete: most of the sources are tech blogs, and many just repeat bits of press releases. Not significant sources of information. LaMona (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of mergers and acquisitions by Google, where it is already mentioned. (Piotr, I think that's the list you were looking for in your nomination; as you suspected, it already exists.) IMO the company fails the WP:GNG requirement for a standalone article; most of the references seem to be about Google or Facebook rather than about Jambool. --MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, SnowFire, and LaMona, thoughts on a merge? czar ⨹ 00:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- *Support merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the alternative is Delete, sure, merge. However I believe that the current structure of List of mergers and acquisitions by Google isn't particularly suited to *actually* merging the content, more like leaving a redirect behind. Perhaps there can be some sort of "Minor acquisitions by Google" article some day that goes into more detail than a mere table entry but less detail than a full article, and the content would be best merged there, but that article doesn't currently exist I believe. SnowFire (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there is a logical merge, definitely merge. And, I presume, re-direct. LaMona (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. AfD's are in essence a PROD discussion and after being relisted twice, there's a weak opposition to the article being deleted. Even being weak, it's the only !vote in the discussion that went either way. We're now at a no-consensus decision and relisting this discussion again doesn't look like it's going to garner any additional responses as we've gone two weeks without discussion. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tobin Armbrust

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

I can't find enough sources to justify general notability of this person. They DO meet some of the criteria for creative professionals, but I cannot find any sources other than the ones provided that provide significant coverage, and that are secondary sources.

As it stands, the references are:

One interview with the Hollywood Reporter (in depth secondary coverage)
One single entry in a list people mentioned in the The 20th Anniversary Gotham Independent Film Award
One profile of business people in Business Week (arguably secondary coverage but I'm not sure as it's part of a company profile, appears self-written)
One biography in a marketing website, which I consider to be a puff-piece (as a PR company is wont to write) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - While it does, as Panyd noted above, struggle mightily with WP:GNG, something seems off or weird to me that an established executive producer on numerous major motion pictures would somehow be unqualified for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. GauchoDude (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IMDB database lists some 200+ articles containing his name, but after lots of scrolling I couldn't find any about him. He is listed as producer on the films the articles are about, often as one of 3-5 producers. I don't see any blockbusters or academy awards in his history. If that's enough for notability, so be it, but other than a list of films there doesn't seem to be much to say about him. LaMona (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess it depends what your definition of "blockbuster" is, not that "blockbusters" are the end all, be all to the discussion. I would say him being a producer on 5 films that earned over $50 million box office, with one over $125 million would certainly qualify as blockbuster status to me. Again, inconsequential, but it just feels off that being influential on movies like those doesn't result in an article. GauchoDude (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It feels incredibly off. I felt very torn about the nomination, but I couldn't find a thing. I have a sneaking suspicion the man likes to keep a low profile. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AnDré Mali

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

Fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the GNG, does not appear to meet GNG. The subject's career achievements do not appear to meet the criteria of MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 23:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some cursory research indicates that Mr. Mali is, as of yet, early in his career and has not been the subject of sufficient coverage to be the basis of a separate article. He's been part of various bands, some of which may themselves merit articles, but Mr. Mali himself... no, not yet. Soon, I'm sure. But not yet. DS (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Looks like this article is solidly in the grey area.Mojo Hand (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Mussatto

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight, of a mayor. The city is large enough that he might qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but at 48K it is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on a mayor — and furthermore, this article as written is edging heavily into résumé style (bullet-point list of committee positions), which is never acceptable in any article regardless of whether it passes our notability rules or not. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage and simply being the mayor of a town of 48K is not enough to grant automatic notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange IP. It seems to log on just to vote in scores of AFDs. I have no idea what to make of it.ShulMaven (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(shrugs) That it's an anon IP who does Wikignome work at AfD, and you gotta admit that 50 more AfD regulars'd be none too many. As long as the IP isn't trolling and makes policy-based arguments instead of "It's useful" or "Does no harm" crap, where's the fuss? Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So, I keep running into this string of AFDs on small-city mayors. ( I tend to skim over the AFDs on musicians and new software) And I think, right, can't be notable. I almost wrote delete after reading argument made by Nom and glancing at the page. But then I thought, no, I really ought to at least run a quick google. so I did, and again realized not only how much coverage small city mayors actually get, but how significant it is to be elected to run a city of 50,000 or so people. There's actually quite a lot of coverage of Mussatto, and it goes far beyond passing references. I mean, there are real issues in a city this size; his opinions and the impact his decisions have get real coverage. May take a swing sourcing this article later. But even a short review of the stuff that comes to the top of any search shows that the material to build a good article is out there.ShulMaven (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did a little sourcing. Turns out the city pop. is growing rapidly (now over 50,000) as an old shipbuilding district becomes a hot area for condo development (Vancouver growing north, I presume) with Mussatto backing the developers and a fair amount of ensuing political contention. Latest election hotly contested. Didn't have time to listen to CBC interview with him on development (added it to article - media section) , or to read the many articles in the Vancouver Sun and more local papers on the fight over development, but there is notability and news coverage. Hot issues political battles are fought by mayors in towns you and I never heard of.ShulMaven (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a quality-of-the-article issue here — even a politician who cleanly passes WP:NPOL still isn't ever under any circumstances whatsoever entitled to keep an article that's written and formatted as a résumé (and no article is ever allowed to contain a "media" section that contains direct offsite links, either; his own primary website may be listed in the "external links" section and the infobox, and any other EL to any other site at all may be present only as a footnoted reference for body text content.) And it's a long-established principle of Wikipedia that interviews with the subject do not confer notability for our purposes — you need sources in which he's the subject to get him over our inclusion rules, not sources in which he's the speaker. For added bonus, the sourcing here is still almost entirely of the primary variety. Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess I missed the part where a population threshold was set down in black-and-white. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't have one. Anyone like to link to it? Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:POLOUTCOMES explains, the established consensus for mayors is that they're only entitled to claim NPOL in cities of "regional prominence" — not everybody draws the "what constitutes regional prominence" line at the same place, with some accepting 50K and others insisting on 100K instead, but there's no consensus to automatically accept mayors of anything below 50K as "automatically notable just because they exist". I said right up front that the article could absolutely be kept if he could be sourced up enough to pass WP:GNG, but that still hasn't been demonstrated at all — and no mayor, not even the mayor of a city in the millions, ever gets to keep an entirely primary sourced résumé on here. Bearcat (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, this minor politician has just enough meaty coverage (CBC, Vancouver Sun) to squeak through. Bearcat disagrees. However, this old industrial town is booming, gentrifying, and people may want to know who he is because there are major development battles going on and Mussatto just got re-elected. I suggest closing to No consensus.ShulMaven (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The only significant source in the article is an article from the Vancouver Sun, a regional paper, about the issues in the election. That's routine coverage, and everything else is either hyper-local coverage or self-referential links. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Vancouver Sun is one of the top newspapers of the province of British Columbia and is a reliable source which helps establish Mussato's WP:GNG. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Vancouver Sun coverage is enough to pass GNG. Vrac (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Darrell Mussatto is a major local political figure with sufficient press coverage to consider him notable as per WP:POLITICIAN. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 00:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Profili

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a mayor of a town with a population of just 3K, and as an unsuccessful federal election candidate. Neither of these constitutes a legitimate claim of notability under WP:NPOL, and I can't see a path to WP:GNG either. This would have qualified for blp prod if it were being created today — but it was created in 2005 (and has been edited just 25 times, 26 if you count me adding the AFD template as a substantive edit, in the entire almost-a-decade since, if that tells you anything.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP with no claims that would pass any notability criteria, even if they had supporting evidence.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator's assessment of the subject not meeting NPOL, a search for significant coverage in reliable sources came up empty, so the page does not meet GNG or ANYBIO either. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Talstra

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, in a city not large enough (11K) to confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL — and the only other claims of notability here involve the winning of awards like the local "Order of Terrace" and the Queen's Jubilee Medal, neither of which would qualify a person for a Wikipedia article in and of themselves. And the volume of sourcing here doesn't get within 100 miles of WP:GNG, either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just like any LinkedIn profile. Also page created by what seems to be a single purpose user - suspiciously like self-publicity, not notable--Mevagiss (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG and WP:NPOL. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 00:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:NPOL. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search reveals some coverage in very small local newspapers, but nothing in a major newspaper or other clearly reliable source. Having a street named after you [13] doesn't contribute much to notability if it's in a town with a population of just 11K. Everymorning talk to me 00:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOL. Like having a street named after you, receiving the "Order of Terrace" doesn't mean much when "Terrace" is a town of 11K people. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @131.118.229.17, just pointing to a policy without an explanation of reasoning is a deletion argument to avoid. czar ⨹ 00:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Alberts

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, citing only one passing namecheck in somebody else's (deadlinked) obituary for sourcing. The municipality in question has a large enough population that its mayors might qualify for properly written and well-sourced articles, but as a relatively rural municipality on the outer edges of a metropolitan area it's not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability for all of its mayors — if this is all you can write and source about him, then it's simply not good enough to qualify him for inclusion. Delete unless the article sees significant improvement. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could only find the odd passing mentions (and the occasional slightly-more-than-passing-mention) on hyperlocal news sites; certainly nothing of the level required by the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for politicians. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the GNG or WP:NPOL. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bearcat. It can be a potential article but not enough information was provided — Comm_Master (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) @ 21:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uładzimir Katkoŭski

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

With all due respect to this now-deceased collegue of ours, what makes him notable? I am afraid this entry fails our policies (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a memorial and Wikipedia:Notability (people)). Ego Hunter (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are references in the article that say that he is a pioneer of Internet usage in the Belarusian language, and that makes him notable. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, inadequate sourcing, and per WP:ANYBIO:
1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
The award is not well known, he was recognized for his blogging, and the other language articles are useless AFA sourcing. Eddymason (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per Amire80. Eddymason is also completely correct the article's currently single source is totally insufficient. I don't know if other sources exist and it seems like we're going to need to have some input from Belarusian speakers to answer that question. Once that input appears, ping me and I'll be happy to reconsider my !vote.

Until then, I'm going to give this article and its authors the benefit of the doubt. In large part, I do because this nomination was made by an acknowledged WP:SOCK WP:SPA created to nominate biographies of Wikipedians and Wikimedians for deletion. I've detailed some reasons for concern on the nominator's talk page and, after their pattern of editing was recognized, the nominator has defended their campaign and use of a WP:SOCK on their user page. So far, every closed AfDs by this nom have been decisions to keep and several have trivially uncovered reliable sources, major awards, etc. Because I've seen no evidence that this nominator is following WP:BEFORE, this smells me to like WP:POINTy behavior.

~~Bottom line, this AFD is premature and this this article should have been tagged with {{notability}} or similar before it was brought here.~~ —mako ๛ 01:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing to see Mako stoop to casting aspersions on the nominator, instead of addressing the valid points in the nomination. Wikipedians are free to make controversial edits, such as these nominations, using a sock, this is a legitimate case for using a sock. Another example would be to add material to a pornstar bio, or adding material to a bio of a criminal who may soon be freed. Simply because Mr Ego Hunter's other nominations have failed does not mean that this one is not valid, these are considered on a case by case basis, and this case is especially tragic, which makes Hill's arguing for the article even more ghoulish, calling the AFD "premature". From where I stand the nomination is long overdue. I see that I've omitted a rationale above, I will add it now... thanks a lot, Mako. >:( Eddymason (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update — Eddymason pointed out on his talk page that the article has been tagged with {{refimprove}} since 2011 so I've removed my claim about the AfD being premature. Apologies about that.

I also want to clarify that that I didn't intend to imply either that the nominator's use of a sock was illegitimate. Good faith/bad faith aside, I do think the nominators behavior is WP:POINTy and previous noms have revealed little evidence of WP:BEFORE. That's not meant as an ad-hominem argument for keeping (mine is only a weak keep!) but rather a description for why we might give the article it the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry that this wasn't communicated clearly. I'm keeping my !vote the same for now. —mako ๛ 04:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It should not need to be said that this does not preclude editors taking further action such as merging, redirecting, or otherwise via the usual editorial processes such as discussion on the talk page or WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella Ultra Marathon

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

Contested prod with no reason provided for the removal of the notice. The only relevant sources about this event aside from background information are from Facebook and strava, hardly reliable sources. _dk (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep re. contested prod Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting giving a reason is "...encouraged, but not required". Article not beyond saving because of lack of sources. In such instances the thing to do is to tag the article with {{unreliable}} or {{unreferenced}} first and then PROD if no improvements are forthcoming. In any event the marathon was covered by mainstream HK news sources including on television by TVB news, in the local press by SCMP and by the international press agencies, e.g.:-

Taylor, Jerome (October 28, 2014). "Umbrella-shaped ultramarathon to support Hong Kong protests". Agence France-Presse. Retrieved November 9, 2014.
Jaqueline, Rachel (October 29, 2014). "Ultra-runners race 102km umbrella-shaped route across Hong Kong to support Occupy". South China Morning Post. Retrieved November 9, 2014.

Just googling Umbrella Ultra Marathon in news will turn up loads of ghits, as does googling "傘超級馬拉松":-

葉靖斯 (October 29, 2014). "香港澳洲僑民跑超級馬拉松聲援雨傘運動". BBC World Service. Retrieved November 9, 2014.--KTo288 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are also WP:NOTNEWS concerns that I have that I should add now. What notability does this marathon have independent of the protests? _dk (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general I would like to say that individual one off events may have a notability that qualify them for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, even though Wikipedia is not a running chronicle of such instances; however in this case may I suggest a merge into 2014 Hong Kong protests, if greater notoriety accrues to the event it can always be spun back out into its own article.--KTo288 (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding references and extra content now. Some related articles have been linked, included the 2014 Hong Kong protests and the Occupy Central with Love and Peace. One reason I think it should not be merged to 2014 Hong Kong protests is, it cannot be regarded as an illegal event by police which contrast other activities in the Umbrella Movement. Many related running events were triggered after this. --Kaikeung(talk) 15:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If related events were triggered, wouldn;t it be better to do a combination article on them? DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that far too much content has been lumped into 2014 Hong Kong protests already. Current content includes chronology, specifics about locations, artworks etc. It would be better if that article gave an overview, and in-depth content was transferred into separate articles about significant events (eg 26 September Confrontations, Lion Rock Banner, Marathon), locations (Umbrella Square, Mongkok etc), Umbrella Man and so forth. Kaffiend (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge or redirect - As I have stated multiple times, 2014 Hong Kong protests is getting to be a long article. Without looking at all of the references, I feel that many of them are published by reliable sources. For these reasons, I feel that deletion is not a good option, as the article is related to the protests. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are sufficient sources to indicate that this topic is at least borderline notable. It is notable in the context of the Umbrella revolution, as part of the efforts to publicise the quest for democracy in HK, and hasn't been adequately dealt with in the main article about the protests and is unlikely to be, due to space and weight constraints. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:Notability (events) test. STSC (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2014 Hong Kong protests. The content could live better in the context of the protests, though it might be sufficiently notable without regard to the protests, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.81.255.41 (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this meets WP:EVENT, article too long for a proper merge, no substantial news coverage. A one sentence mention is fine. Secret ^account 23:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Helps, no consensus on Williams and Atwell without prejudice to a speedy nomination, Delete the rest. Next time don't do mass nominations as it gets really messy and confusing quickly, especially if one of them, like Helps, meets relevant guidelines.Secret ^account 23:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Helps

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

Mayors of small towns aren't normally notable - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians. No indication that this person would be notable Also nominating the following for the same reason

Gbawden (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Helps: Weak keep I'm inclined to believe she meets GNG based on sources like [14] [15] [16] Also, with a population of 80,000 I'm not entirely sure Victoria is best described as a "small town". Everymorning talk to me 12:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helps and Atwell. Delete the rest. Victoria is the provincial capital and Saanich has a population of 100K, which I believe is the informal cutoff. The rest are mayors-elect for much smaller places. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot per nom - Fails WP:POLITICIANS. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, including Helps and Atwell as not notable enough and most are not notable at all. Kierzek (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria is not a "small town", but is one of the 100 largest cities, and the core city of one of the 15 largest metropolitan areas, in all of Canada — and it's also a provincial capital. So it fully satisfies the "cities of regional prominence" consideration in WP:POLOUTCOMES. Consensus has already established that Victoria's mayors are sufficiently notable: every single mayor that the city has ever had before Helps does already have a Wikipedia article — yes, really, every single one without exception, see List of mayors of Victoria, British Columbia and Category:Mayors of Victoria, British Columbia if you doubt me — and there's no valid reason for Helps to be the first mayor in the city's history to be treated differently from every single one who came before her. And the city's local politics does get substantial enough coverage in reliable sources that even if not all that much of substance can really be written about her now, much more will be able to be added within the month when she actually takes office and starts trying to push through an agenda. In fact, the case for her is so inherently different from any of the others that she shouldn't be bundled with this nomination at all.

There's no hard and fast population cutoff for determining whether a city is large enough to have articles about its mayors or not — the unofficial figure that enters into the calculations is 50K rather than 100K, but that's an operand in the equation, not the overriding factor in and of itself. Larger cities can still have their mayors fail to qualify in some circumstances (e.g. poor sourcing, non-prominent "suburban" status, ceremonial/rotating mayoralty, etc.), and smaller ones can get over the bar if they can be disproportionately well-sourced. So Saanich is teetering on the edge, because it's a suburban municipality which isn't particularly prominent outside of its own local area — unlike Victoria, most of Saanich's mayors prior to Atwell don't have Wikipedia articles — and all of the others fall off the cliff because the cities aren't large or prominent enough to confer automatic notability on a mayor at all.

So keep Helps (I'll personally contribute to improving it), leaning delete on Atwell (I could be convinced to change my vote on him if significant sourcing improvements are forthcoming, but he doesn't get a free NPOL pass just because of Saanich's population if the article doesn't get any better than this), and delete the others. Update: keep Williams as well, as sufficient reliable sourcing has now been added to cover his preexisting notability as a composer — however, since the composing work, not the mayoralty, is the substance of why he qualifies for an article, he should be disambiguated as Ken Williams (composer) rather than as a politician. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Helps. Victoria is the capital of BC, being the mayor is therefore quite notable. Atwell is notable as well, as Saanich is the largest municipality on Vancouver Island, but it needs expanding. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: Why even have a category for British Columbia mayors if only mayoralty in the largest city is notable? Why is Helps not notable when every other mayor in Victoria's 160 year history is? Delete Helps and you must delete dozens more articles with her. DoItForTheLulz (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ken Williams because he is also a world class composer for films such as Sundance and Cannes winner In the Company of Men, and international Emmy Winner and BAFTA winner, The Magician's House. As well as Disney's series So Weird produced by Henry Winkler and starring McKenzie Phillips. imdb.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.45.19 (talk • contribs)

Being a composer isn't a free notability pass either. A composer does not automatically get to keep an article on Wikipedia just because he exists, any more than a politician does — rather, he has to pass WP:MUSICIAN to qualify for an article on that basis, and simply listing his composing credits and sourcing them to IMDb doesn't get him over that bar. You need reliable source coverage of his composing work to get him over MUSICIAN for his composing work. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ken Williams. Mayallamawiki (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I will be working on links, citations and proper format to improve article. There are hundreds of references. I will also be adding Ken Williams to the Canadian composers category where he should be.[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Helps is the Mayor of the capital of British Columbia. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mayor of Victoria seems a priori notable to me; it's a provincial capital, after all. The rest I have not the time to go into, but they need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helps Close the others as no consensus and may be relisted without prejudice. Helps is clearly notable by the consensus above. Atwell's an interesting one - borderline. Ken Williams is apparently notable but under wp:NCOMPOSER. And the others haven't been discussed much - a separate discussion would be necessary as there are too many issues flying about here. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's been well established that mayors of larger state and provincial capitals are usually notable. Victoria, BC, Albany, NY, and the like would probably be notable, although probably not Montpelier, Vermont. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 15:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tejaswi S. Naik

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

He’s a junior level apparatchik of the state of Madhya Pradesh in India and does not have enough references to warrant an article on him. Fails WP:GNG. Also most of the other references are only links to orders allocating his cadre or posting which every officer will have. Uncletomwood (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Uncletomwood (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, possible hoax--Mevagiss (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being he a junior level prentice does not questions notability of Indian Administrative servants, the membership of the elite service of the Indian union itself confers them a badge of extra ordinary notability. In India all the major and minor policies are executed with the unanimous consensus of them. Per me does not being a politician but providing a certificate of victory to them only is sufficient to keep us from asking their executiveness. Although i have not gone through to create articles space for all of them, this subject has earned a fame in between state and central bureaucracy and political galleries in a very short span of time, would not wonder if some one else creates it some day after this discussion ends at its deletion. Thanks. Regards.доктор прагматик 10:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinions doctor pragmatik but they don't change the fact that this article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY or WP:POLITICIAN standards.--Mevagiss (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In general we don't have articles on career bureaucrats, even the most senior ones. He would have to be notable for another reason. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 07:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually we do usually have articles on the most senior career bureaucrats. But not on those at his level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Kapoor

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

An A7 was previously declined, which is why I declined a second one. Being a travel show host may pass A7, but I don't think it passes notability without quite a lot more information. There's one reference so far, and I would regard it as OK for passing blp-prod, but not for showing real notability. Peridon (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore -related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The one source the article gives establishes her as a host on Now Asia which appears to be a show of the Now TV Network. The article also establishes her by saying that "Anita has her own TV shows, is an editor and writer for prestigious magazines and newspapers and has also taken her chance as voiceover artist – all in between hosting high-end events." There is also article by the GMA network that confirms her role in Asian television and other works. She appears to be mentioned in the press [17] for her show. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs improvement, not deletion, but quick research shows she appears to be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a massive amount of sources out there, but the ones in the the article just put her over the bar I think. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Secret ^account 23:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ferenc Csentery

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

And also try: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --doncram

I see no indication the subject might meet WP:ARTIST, WP:BIO, WP:GNG or any other relevant policy. In terms of the sources provided, a one-line mention in a mimeographed circular from 1971 is, well, not evidence of notability. Neither is this (not sure what that is even supposed to prove), nor this, which mentions the subject not at all. In short, there's an utter lack of reliable sources about the subject, and so we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your consideration. I would like to comply with requirements for inclusion under the WP:ARTIST policy; I understand if the currently included sources are not sufficient, and will work over the next weeks to cite sources with improved relevance and reliability.

The first source was to verify that he taught sculpture at Caltech during a critical period of technology development related to space exploration; CalTech is widely regarded as being the most important educational institution associated with the US space program, managing resources like JPL and the Observatory at Mt. Palomar.

The second URL, linking to the Hirshorn Museum collection page, is a searchable index of works in their permanent collection, to meet the requirements for WP:ARTIST item #4. There are two pieces by Ferenc Csentery listed in this major museum's collection:

Ferenc Csentery Aluminum, 14 1/2 x 27 1/4 x 9 1/2 in. (36.9 x 69.2 x 24.1 cm) Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, The Joseph H. Hirshhorn Bequest, 1981; Accession Number: 86.1282 Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden Collection
Ferenc Csentery Brushed aluminum and plexiglass, 30 x 17 x 17 3/4 in. (76.2 x 43.2 x 45.1 cm) BASE: 2 1/4 x 16 x 17 3/4 in. (5.7 x 40.6 x 45.1 cm) Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, The Joseph H. Hirshhorn Bequest, 1981; Accession Number: 86.1281 Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden Collection

While reviewing the final reference, I have realized that the artist's name on this document was cited as Czenze Ference in reference to the Revolution Monument in MacArthur Park. I will provide an updated reference for this shortly (LA Times news article) which correctly lists him as a contributor to this important monument in the largest public park in Los Angeles. AaronFinney (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a new article created about a person who just died. The article creator doesn't need to explain, but my guess is that the creator has some connection and knows about the significance of the person, and could have been prompted by announcement of a funeral or whatever. That is fine. The creator is not very much experienced in Wikipedia (not many contributions) and is working to bring this article into compliance. There can be no Biography of Living Persons (BLP) issues. Also, the subject of the article does strike me as notable, given he has two works in the prestigious Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. Give the relative newbie a break, don't wp:BITE the newbie, and simply close this Keep. Revisit later, possibly, if it is not developed. To AaronFinney: Keep up the good work, glad you are on board. --do ncr am 00:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I realize the article creator is a newcomer, that doesn't mean we shouldn't subject Csentery to scrutiny. In that spirit, let's drill further into the claims of notability.
It would have been one thing if he had been a tenured full professor; Csentery was a part-timer who taught one "generally unsuccessful" Sculpture course that ultimately only five students ended up completing, and was apparently fired after a year. WP:PROF-notable he was not.
Whatever role Csentere may have played in the Los Angeles monument's creation, the fact is that the man credited with its design is not Csentery but Árpád Domján.
The Hirshhorn presence is more intriguing, although that doesn't quite take us to the "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" standard set by WP:ARTIST.
I'm certainly willing to listen to claims made on behalf of Csentery's notability, and this discussion does run for a week, during which time conclusive evidence of notability can be adduced. However, at some point, WP:V will have to be met. It may sound as though Csentery is notable, but per our policies, we do need independent references that make it clear. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your points noted, and i generally agree. I also want to note that since the person just died, it is possible that an obituary will soon appear in the Los Angeles Times or the Pasadena Star-Register(?) or other newspapers, which would go towards establishing notability. Also i am not immediately finding any Los Angeles Times coverage of the person, in the current search at LATimes website or in one newspaper literature search that I have access to. Perhaps i am searching badly. To the article creator, please do add the LATimes reference you mention. To the creator and to the eventual closer of this AFD, if it does turn out that insufficient evidence of notability is provided, perhaps the article could be "userfied" to the creator's space, to be edited there and submitted via wp:AFC process later. To the creator, if the article is deleted, you can definitely get a copy of it provided to you by email or somehow, by requesting that. I do hope references can be provided, but i myself am not immediately finding them. I still vote "Keep" as my best assessment however. --do ncr am 01:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems like the artist was active in the 1960s and 1970s. On sources:

Per this info about a file at Smithsonian for Ferenc Csentery existing, someone could call the Smithsonian and seek info, what is in the file, are there significant news clippings etc. Librarians and museum staff are often very helpful.
this WorldCat item documents an exhibit at Cal Tech in 1970
some evidence of a Long Beach Art Museum exhibit, Seventh Annual Southern California something, in 1969
local newspaper The Vista Press mention of a juror's award in an art show for Ferenc, on page 5, in 1969
Artist's webpage at www.ferenccsentery.com could have been added as an external link to the article, but the website was closed a couple days ago.
Off-line sources are fine, they do NOT need to be internet-accessible. --do ncr am 02:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I greatly appreciate the discussion and help, and I have a new level of respect for the diligence with which the WP maintainers approach this work. Many of Doncram's original assumptions were correct, and I do not mind disclosing some of those details. I am directly associated with the artist, who entrusted me with his portfolio of documents shortly before his death from cancer on November 7th. Ironically, his website went offline two days ago due to its maintainer also being hospitalized with what has been diagnosed as terminal cancer. As Doncram deduced, the creation of the article was prompted by my receiving news of his death - it was originally written in the present tense to give family and friends time to be notified as well, and modified shortly after. The process of writing the Wikipedia article has been incredibly educational and I will spend more time in the coming week learning about references; I do think that Biruitorul is absolutely correct that my inexperience as a contributor should have no bearing on whether Ferenc is determined to have met the WP criteria for inclusion as a notable person. Many of the references I have in my possession are simply newspaper clippings mounted to album pages, so I will need to do additional research to document these properly. I will be perfectly fine with whatever decision the WP maintainers make regarding keeping or deleting the article, especially since I've had the visibility into the thoughtfulness which has already gone into it.

-- AaronFinney (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing more, though you really don't have to, and for your helpful attitude. About the no-longer-posted webpage, i can see at the "Wayback Machine" copies of ferenccsentery.com that the main webpage was titled "Scrapbook 1962-2000" and consisted of 62 image-pages, but i can only see image-pages 1,2,3. Perhaps the album pages you have were made into those image-pages? But, a scrapbook in hard copy or webpage form is not an independently published work itself, and won't go far towards establishing notability probably. Included articles that were published in newspapers would count as published sources though. --do ncr am 05:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The external reference which is included in the article, ferenccsentery.net, contains the core content from the site which is currently offline, including several of the aforementioned articles in image form. These include a review of a 1967 exhibition from noted art critic Arthur Millier in the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, a review of the same exhibition in the LA Times from art critic William Wilson, an LA Times article from a yet-unknown author reviewing his first one-man show, a Pasadena Star News article from art editor Larry Palmer reviewing his 1970 Caltech show, a detailed analysis of the artist and work by David Smith from a book published for the same 1970 Caltech show, and a 1974 article on Csentery in Artweek Magazine. I will attempt to properly document all of these sources in the coming week for the maintainers' consideration. --AaronFinney (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, i see now that the .net webpage works, in that a film covers scrapbook album pages with presumably Hungarian-language dirge sung/chanted presumably by the artist. The film can be started and stopped. Given the context, I accept fully that the articles included are what they appear to be...and note this would be impossible to put together from new research now, as little of it would be available online. It includes:

At time marker 0:54: Los Angeles Times, June 9, 1967, "In the Galleries: First One Man Show for Ferenc Csentery", a favorable review of his show at Comora Gallery, and mentioning purchase of 2 items by Joseph H. Hirshhorn, describes his work as "evocative of space technology" and calls him "one of the most intriguing young sculptural talents on the local scene". This is very favorable, and the local scene is greater Los Angeles, a top market.
At 1:45: Los Angeles Times, "In the Galleries: Campus Exhibition of Miniworks", by William Wilson, mentions one of four purchase prizes for Ferenc Csentery's "mysterious black pyramid screen enclosure".
At 1:50: College Times review of same show, has a bit more about Csentery.
At 2:06 (page 1) and 2:09 (page 2): All California Art Exhibition, 1968, at National Orange Show Grounds Art Gallery, Csentery's depicted piece "A Twist of Cube" wins apparently top prize in modern sculpture, First Prize - Modern Sculpture", selected by jury of notables, seems like a major prize.
At 2:45: "Art Forms Bridge Gap at Caltech", Pasadena Star-News, January 21, 1970, by Larry Palmer, page B-1, positive review of 2 person show with big photo of the two artists, is significant coverage in a regional newspaper; CalTech news article following gives more detail on the opening.
At 2:57: page 42 of album, and following pages 43, 44, 45, apparently a book(?) with useful info, that Csentery works at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL): "Unlike many American artists, Csentery does not gain his livelihood by teaching. A precision welder and machinist of nearly infinite finesse, he works on components for JPL and the space program. He is, in other words, ideally placed to bring together certain aspects of..." various worlds. Byline is David Smith. Seems like major review, unclear what is the publication, but David Smith can probably be identified.
At 3:15: LA Times playful photo of a Csentery work with a young woman, probably a Mount Sac Community College student, for an exhibit of 12 pieces by 12 artists at Mount Sac.
At 3:22: Los Angeles Times, "Art Walk: A Guide to the Galleries", October 30, 1970, by Henry J. Seldis and William Wilson, leads off with favorable review blurb by HJS of Csentery show at Comora Gallery.
At 3:25: Art Week coverage of Csentery exhibit at Brand Library in Glendale, "a show that should not be missed" I don't know what Art Week is, i suppose a regional art weekly magazine?
Then numerous photos, following 4:19: "October 17, 2014 Photo shoot by Aaron and Clay Finney of sculpture lay-out" of works at "Ferenc Csentery Museum" at 26801 Crestview, Idyllwild, California. I like the photo at 4:47 and the work it depicts, and many others.... seems to be hundreds of works. Csentery was prolific. The location is in a residential neighborhood, perhaps is the artist's primary residence. No indication this is a museum open to the public. I am curious what is going to become of the large collection, but that is not for Wikipedia. There have been brilliant artists whose works were almost never sold in their lifetime, perhaps Vincent Van Gogh for one and some eastern European painter whose name I can't recall. If there is public documentation that a museum exists, even if it is a private museum and generally not open to the public, that would add to the article and help establish notability. Have there ever been tours of the museum, has it ever been included in a fundraising weekend tour like the annual tour of beautiful gardens of homes in Pasadena (see [http://hometown-pasadena.com/home-and-garden/open-days-garden-tour-pasadena/25424 this coverage of one year's garden tour)?

I stop watching at 10:00 out of 33 minute film, with film stuck on one image, perhaps i messed up the player somehow or perhaps the film plays out the soundtrack that way, i am not sure. To Aaron Finney, adding coverage information either in this AFD or in the article is fine in helping influence outcome of AFD; info shared here doesn't need already also to be in the article, which can be further developed later. (And also please see off-topic note at your Talk page). I think you have a collection of material that does establish Csentery's notability. I sorta hope the collection is opened somehow and the film is kept published on the internet and that there will be future obituary coverage and/or other retrospective coverage, but for me you've established notability already.
Also I find there is Pasadena Star-Tribune coverage, slightly garbled here: "The McBride Award for Oil, presented by the Pasadena Art Museum, was presented to Walter Askin for "Family". Douglas Bond was given the Past President's Award for his oil, "Dollie". and Ferenc Csentery was presented with the New Member's award for his aluminum sculpture "Unfilled A." Fittingly the museum is placing the padlock on its door with an exhibition by a group of local artists...." at hard to read newspaper archive page for June 10, 1969. Not clear if Pasadena Art Museum was then acquiring a Csentery work, or if it has since acquired any; it is a significant museum and if it or other regional museums did hold a Csentery work, that would help further establish notability.

Overall, I think Wikipedia would keep article on a new artist now, with comparable coverage, like if this artist's exhibitions and coverage were in 2013 rather than around 1970. And, notability is not temporary (wp:NTEMP). Doesn't meet wp:PROF, right, because he was not a professor, but seems to meet wp:ARTIST and/or the gold standard general guideline, wp:GNG. So I do solidly stay with "Keep" opinion. --do ncr am 17:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Hirshhorn is the major American museum for sculpture. I've verified his works are in their collection. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the maintainers consideration, I have updated the article with specific citations and additional revisions/information. --AaronFinney (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would change my !vote but I need to see this article meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which I think it can do. Someone provide 2-3 published sources of information which are about this artist. This could be an announcement that his work is featured, an interview with him, a critique of his style, or anything else with him as the subject and which was published anywhere. I am not seeing these kind of sources right now. If anyone needs more time to look, then ask for it, and perhaps instead of deleting this article, we could WP:USERFY the article for now if those sources are coming soon. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for reviewing the article and afd discussion. There are sources cited in the article which I believe provide the information you're looking for, most notably citation #8, "Smith, David (1970). DRAWINGS AND GRAPHICS BY PAUL DARROW, SCULPTURE BY FERENC CSENTERY. California Institute Of Technology. Baxter Art Gallery". This is a published work from Caltech which contains a detailed profile of the artist - his early personal life, a discussion of his style (including specifics about technique and materials), and the philosophy behind his form - written by the founder of the Baxter Art Gallery at Caltech. Several of the newspaper articles and the Artweek magazine article do highlight his works as featured and/or award-winning within the exhibitions they were a part of. --AaronFinney (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doncram gives a good analysis of the article and there are sufficient reliable sources to establish WP:ARTIST #4. --I am One of Many (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no possible delete closure on the !votes given, although I note Secret's comment. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Nationalist Party (UK)

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

Non notable, defunct party without any notable or important electoral results, no evidence of significant role in English or British politics, nothing to indicate any electoral role in recent elections, and no evidence of credible third party sources proving notability as measured by Wikipedia guidelines. doktorb _words^deeds 09:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's defunct is a stupid argument. So are the vast majority of parties that have articles on Wikipedia including many very famous ones (Whigs, Liberals etc) - it's a non-argument.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that is a repository of knowledge. Researchers and readers that come across New Nationalist Party elsewhere or even in Wikipedia are supposed to find out more.... where?

Nominator says there is "no evidence of credible third party sources". What? BBC News, Searchlight, Birmingham City Council, Electoral Commission - not reliable?!!

Nominator says "nothing to indicate any electoral role in recent elections". Again, same applied to the vast majority of parties that have articles, but the article does make it clear that this party was dissolved in 2009 so what's surprisingh about that. Another non-argument.

No "notable or important electoral results" - well it didn't win that's for sure, but this also applied to the vast majority of parties that have articles, just within UK.

The NNP was a significant though temporary development in the history of far right politics in the UK and an important part in the narrative of the break up of the BNP. Sharon Ebanks and others invovled in it have been major players in all of this.

It should be noted that the nominator has embarked on a crusade to delete a whole series of articles on political parties that he deems non-notable; when an AfD is declined, he returns later and makes another nomination, and another. There does not seem to be any effort to actually assess what significance a party has/had or to consider any of them within a wider context. Emeraude (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emeraude, your first point invalidates the rant which follows. Yes, the Whigs are defunct, but they are demonstrably notable and made quite an impact on British political history. Can you answer the direct question - "Is the New Nationalist Party making an impact on British political history"?

As for the wider point about being on some kind of crusade against Wikipedia articles; again, you are wrong. I am aware that there are very well regarded Wikipedia policies against this site being a collection of indiscriminate material. I am merely keeping up that policy brief: Wikipedia is not a dump for every single piece of human knowledge. doktorb _words^deeds 15:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case. If the first reason you give for deleting this article is that the party is defunct, then it's entirely logical that other defunct parties should also go. You're not suggesting that - and neither am I - but is's a spurious argument to put up as your main rationale. I noticed that in the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination) you stated that "The Whigs are self evidently notable"; "demonstrably notable" is a bit of an improvement, but neither is a counter to me saying that being defunct is not a rationale for deletion. As for your crusade, it certainly seems that way. It is true that there a number of so-called parties that really are just one person having a bit of fun and, by and large, these could be deleted, but in this case (and Libertarian Party) we are dealing with genuine parties that have had some part, however small, in the deveopment of (right wing) politics in the UK and to delete them leaves readers in total ignorance when they come across their names in other Wikipedia articles, or in the real world and they want Wikipedia to give some information. It's minor role, compared to the Whigs, is amply reflected in the minimal ampount of space that the article occupies. Emeraude (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that User:Keresaspa, a long time and respected editor with considerable expertise on right wing extremism, has added detail to the article, including more references to add to those which you earlier falsely described as having "no evidence of credible third party sources". Emeraude (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emeraude, you are focusing on one element of my nomination without looking at the whole. This party is a) not notable, and b) defunct. The latter would not be worth much as a reason to delete the article *on its own* were it not for the first factor. As I have said, and you have ignored, defunct parties such as the Whigs are clearly notable, their history speaks for themselves. I ask again, as you have ignored, can you answer the direct question "Is this party notable?" doktorb _words^deeds 18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, being defunct is of no relevance whatsoever and it does not strengthen your first assertion that the party is not notable. It is worth looking at Wikipedia:Notability here which states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Emeraude (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 21:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no idea of why doktorbuk keep nominating an AfD on the basis of importance (which may not be a valid criteria for an AfD nomination), ignoring the fact that a subject is notable, if it has received significant coverages in reliable sources. Wikipedia keep articles on the basis of notability not on the basis of achievement alone. Wikicology (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. For me some of these nominations do have merit but this one clearly has the requisite multiple reliable third party sources. Keresaspa (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secret ^account 23:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's note I really don't see where it meets WP:GNG, all the sources at a quick glance reads like passing mentions. I relisted it in order to evaluate the sources further and I'm strongly against any non-admin closure here . Secret ^account 23:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free England Party

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

Whilst there are many citations here, I cannot find any notability or importance for this party. No credible role in English politics, no notable results or personalities, nothing that I can see which justifies a page in Wikipedia when measured by notability guidelines. doktorb _words^deeds 09:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being defunct is not a reason to delete (or half of Wikipedia will be going). Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The word 'defunct' does not exist in this deletion proposal User:Emeraude doktorb _words^deeds 21:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand WP:GNG. Subject of an article don't have to achieve a notable result alone to merit a page on wikipedia. All that is required are coverages in reliable sources as clearly stated by WP:GNG.
Keep: Subject of the article meet WP:GNG. It is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, that subject of an article must achieve a notable result alone to merit a page on wikipedia and it may not provide valid criteria for an AfD nomination. However, reliable sourcing is the most important and critical factor for an AfD nomination. Wikicology (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established. Far exceeds what i would suggest for a general notability standard for political parties. --do ncr am 05:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Countryside Party (UK)

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

Nothing to indicate importance, defunct organisation without any notable political results that I can find, barely any indication of credible third party coverage, no role in any recent by-elections and no significant role in any UK general election. Nothing to show that they should have a Wikipedia article when measured by Wikipedia notability guidelines doktorb _words^deeds 09:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being defunct is not a reason to delete (or half of Wikipedia will be going). Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of a number of UK political party AFDs opened by same nominator. All party articles targeted seem to have been about registered political parties. This one may or may not have less references immediately available. But as with all the others, where referencing meeting wp:GNG has been shown by other editors once they get around to responding, I believe the only reasonable outcome is keep. No complaint about this nominator meant at all, but I have seen other deletion campaigns--series of related AFDs--put forward by other persons which have turned out to be not-well-thought-out, and this, like those other campaigns, seems wasteful of community attention. When/if a number of the AFDs in a campaign are clearly failing, I think the appropriate thing for the nominator to do is to withdraw all the others. --do ncr am 21:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Great Britain Party

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

Defunct organisation which has no lasting notability or cultural significance, no evidence of electoral success, no evidence of credible third party sources, no role in any political debate that I can find, and certainly nothing at or since the general election in 2010. Nothing to indicate importance, and no reason to have page on Wikipedia. doktorb _words^deeds 09:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 20:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being defunct is not a reason to delete (or half of Wikipedia will be going). Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Emeraude, as the coverage (so called) shows that the party achieved nothing of anything important, your point is invalid. doktorb _words^deeds 17:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire - the general notability guideline, which I have quoted in full, make no mention of achievement. Emeraude (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject of the article obviously meet WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 20:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 03:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Beckham Catch

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

This catch does not have lasting notability. It was a great catch and maybe the catch of the 2014 season, but it did not change the outcome of the game or season. It does not have the notability of a play like Helmet Catch or The Catch (American football). Natg 19 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly unremarkable doktorb _words^deeds 08:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Time for the immaculate deletion. Great catch, but of no real significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing this early-game catch ended up saving was a few viewers from switching over to The Good Wife in the end since the Giants ended up losing. Great catch, but otherwise an otherwise unremarkable score. Nate • (chatter) 22:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hell of catch, but not worth an article. If it would of happened towards the end of the game and was a game winning/tying touchdown, then yes keep. Overall lack of notability.--Rockchalk717 01:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of continuing coverage of subject play; the proper place for a mention is the team season article. As noted by Clarityfiend above, this was no "Immaculate Reception." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to be sure, it was a great catch that generated a lot of buzz. However, I doubt that this will have any lasting notability. If it does, the article can be recreated. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Secondary sources can't exist yet (it just happened a few days ago), so it's not notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Networked swarming warfare

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

Basically represents a book summary. No coverage from independent reliable sources. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 10:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is not sufficient for deletion. It's not a book summary but an important military theory of the Chinese Army. There are more independent reliable sources in the Chinese version. Some are listed as follows.

网络化集群作战,解放军报,2004.01.20.
网络化集群作战透析,解放军报,2006.04.11.
霍大军：《网络化集群作战》，军事科学出版社，2009.
霍大军：《网络化集群作战研究》，国防大学出版社，2013.
《科学发展观与新世纪新阶段国防和军队建设》，国防大学出版社，2007.
张著军：《金戈铁马:军事学分册》，中国言实出版社，2008— Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinzWilhelmGuderian (talk • contribs) 12:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HeinzWilhelmGuderian: could you please provide the URL of the Chinese version of this article? It is not linked to this one through wikidata. This would help with the improvement of the article being discussed here. Thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 03:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tucoxn:I'm sorry to see your message so late. I have a complete Chinese electronic version of the Networked Swarming Warfare. I can send you if you need. My email address is fhzsmatrix@126.com.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy There is an article on Network-centric warfare that could be a good model for this article should enough reliable sources be found. However, I do not see reliable sources on NSW, which, if this is a new model, should appear in military-related sources. If no English-language sources are available, then I would suggest holding off until they become available, so that there is something here for users of the English-language WP. LaMona (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While network-centric warfare is similar as an article, networked swarming warfare should not be merged into it; they are vary different concepts. I also have a difficult time finding sources for this theory but a few are available in addition to the one cited in the article:

-Huo Dajun: "Network warfare research clusters," National Defense University Press, 2013.

-Huo Dajun: "Network cluster operations", Military Science Press, 2009.

-Staff written: "Networked cluster operations dialysis", China Network, April 11, 2006.

In conclusion, it's difficult to say whether this subject is notable or not but currently no consensus exists to delete it. - tucoxn\^talk 02:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no requirement that sources be available conveniently (on-line, in English); the existence of Chinese language off-line sources suffice. I "assume good faith" that User:HeinzWilhelmGuderian's evaluation and reading of Chinese sources is correct. Further reason to Keep from User:Tucoxn's assessment that it is different from Network-centric warfare (which i added as a "See also" link in the article). It's a relatively new article; tag it for development but Keep is best, IMHO. --do ncr am 03:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram, maybe in the future someone can look at the sources at see if it should be merged to Swarming (military), but for now I'm trusting HeinzWilhelmGuderian's assessment. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 23:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelled Moon (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Looking at the sources: Allmusic ref is just a listing. MTV listing is not independent. (Uploading your promotional bio to MTV is not an indication of notability.) 3 is the frontman talking about the band, not independent. Next 3 are mostly about other bands and is there to verify membership of other bands. 7 does not have significant coverage. 8 is not a reliable source. 9 is not a reliable source and the coverage is not significant. 10 is their label, not independent. A search found nothing better. Closest to WP:BAND they come is by having 3 bluelinked members but looking at them shows the band falls short. Johansson is not notable independent of Yngwie Malmsteen. Chuck Wrights notability is dependent on the bands he has been a member of. Rieckermann redirects to his band, he is not independently notable. Last afd closed no consensus due to no competent participation after nomination. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is written in such a promotional way that the reader gets the impression that Spelled Moon is a mega band; however, they have only released one EP containing three singles, while promising that a full-length album will be released soon. If an album is released, and it performs well, then the band might become notable, but at this point in time I cannot establish notability. Looking at the criteria listed at WP:BAND, only two deserve to be examined:

1. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself."

6. "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles."

I don't see how criterion #1 is met. Apart from studying the sources provided in the article, I performed a lengthy and fruitless Google search, both in English and in Spanish (the band leader was born in Argentina, so there is some coverage from that country, but not reliable, and it's typically copy-pasted). The Rock N Roll Industries magazine seems like a reliable source to me, with nearly 90,000 likes on their Facebook page, but it's just an interview, so no independent facts about the band are provided. And the sources go downhill after that. The Patrick Johansson biography by Zildjian does not even mention the band, even though he's allegedly a member. The article by Schenectady Gazette does not mention the band. In the Chuck Wright interview (a YouTube video), Chuck Wright does not mention the band. The Radio Rock Concierto para Ell@s feature has minimal coverage and very questionable reliability. The two Power Metal USA features have significant coverage, although one of them is a mere interview, and Power Metal USA's Facebook page has fewer than 500 likes, and it's just two years old, so it cannot be deemed reliable. The other sources have minimal coverage, and they lack reliability and/or independence.

Criterion #6 is definitely not met despite an apparent effort made by the creator of the article for that purpose. The band is mentioned in Patrick Johansson's article only because of this edit. Likewise, the band is mentioned in Chuck Wright's article only because of this edit. Dontreader (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~Consensus to delete~~ The majority of participants made strong policy based arguments for deletion. Chillum 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned by No Consensus upon review -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Hess

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

This article is about a woman who started a business in Portland, Oregon, USA where she hugs people for $60/hour. This article does not meet notability guidelines. A proper thing to do would either be deletion or redirect to Cuddling. All the references are about the novelty of cuddling, not Samantha Harris. There is not much depth in coverage and no coverage about her biography, such as if she has a Ph.D. in Cuddle Science from the University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cuddling (no such department or degree), or how she is a pioneer in the field of skin research. If the user's name creating the article was SamanthaHess, this user would have been blocked and the article deleted. That shows that the article should be deleted. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Redirect to Cuddling. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination is implication that you want the article deleted, so I've struck through this duplicate !vote. Note though, that a redirect doesn't necessitate deleting the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should paid cuddling become a "thing", rather than a novelty, then there should be a page for it, and a possible redirect from Samantha Hess. As it is, this is almost a "single event", and definitely a novelty item. Time will tell. LaMona (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:BLP1E - not quite as bad as Jasmine Tridevil but still something which only has a brief amount of news coverage, and not really enough long term sources to justify an article. I don't support a redirect to cuddling as she is not specifically and highly notable for that topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is pretty much a WP:BLP1E case - most, if not quite all, of the sources come from the same period in late 2013/early 2014, indicative of the type of business that gets a good PR agent and some coverage and then fades away into the background again. No lasting notability, and therefore doesn't get over the bar of WP:GNG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on. First of all no one messaged me about it and second I talked to @OccultZone: I think (or was it @Randykitty:), and he said that it was fairly notable.--Mishae (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit it sounds odd but: First of all, BLP1E is irrelevant; someone having a profession is not an "event"--she does it on a continuing basis. It would be a single event if the coverage was based on a report of her having done one publicized session. Second, with respect to the academic degrees, academic degrees are nor required for an occupation to be notable, or for a person in an occupation to be notable., certainly not a personal services occupation. Anything can be made ridiculous by making it sound pretentious--I consider the nomination as in that respect prejudicial. Third, the nom has been blocked repeatedly as "clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia." Fourth, the refs seem to hold up: the CBC one is definitely about her. I do not even think the refs are just PR--a press agent may have called them to the attention of the reporters, but the reporters wrote their stories because they thought it would be of interest. Fifth, the requirement for inclusion in wikipedia isn notability, not lasting notability; once something is notable it remains notable for our purposes, we're a publication of record not a news digest. sixth, thinking about the service it actually makes a certain amount of sense. The article does need a little rewriting, but that doesn't require deletion. Incidentally, there 's an article for Cuddle party, not apparently related but a similar idea. DGG ( talk ) 11:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator has been permanently blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Deadbeef 07:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note Nominator is currently unblocked to request a change of username - they were blocked for their username not for their behaviour on the wiki. 11:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  - @Deadbeef: and @Neonchameleon: The nominator was in fact blocked for an inappropriate username, however his nomination shows that he is not here to contribute. I will forgive him though (read me statement on the bottom), but if he will continue to make such unwise nominations and covering it up with WP:1EVENT, I am sorry but his block for fake nomination wont be too far off. So far I assume good faith in the editor and am hoping that he is here to do as great amount of work not just randomly nominating articles for deletion in an attempt to punish admins who forced him to change his name. Plus, it is April fools day to randomly nominate articles for deletions either. :) I personally wont laugh if someone will nominate Samantha Hess for deletion on April fools day!--Mishae (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient wp:RS to pass the GNG. wp:BLP1E isn't relevant here as it's not a single event. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I also need to point out that the nominator thought that this article should be deleted because someone wrote an article on Samantha Harris no to long ago. I need to assume that it was an honest mistake by a nominator, however he still needs to nominate articles carefully and not assuming that if the previous article had the same first and/or last name it should be nominated without a hassle.--Mishae (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From the sources it looks like this woman had 15 minutes of fame in the earlier part of this year. It's true that WP:BLP1E is a little hard to apply here because technically this isn't an "event" per se. That said, it seems pretty obvious that the spirit of BLP1E applies. NickCT (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Difference? I personally see WP:1EVENT rule being applied only to events, besides, I have added Business Insider refs and will probably find more. I should also point out that this AfD nomination was the nominators attempt on trolling since he was blocked for it and apparently left the project on November 30 of this year. If I would have been an admin I would have closed this AfD right now as keep per nominator's former trolling history.--Mishae (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Silvey

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

Silvey spent a long time in baseball, but he never did anything that was inherently notable. Minor league player? No. Scout? No. Minor league manager? No. Low-to-mid level executive? No. I could see him having a 'hybrid' case, but a perfunctory review of Google doesn't reveal too many strong references. His article seems like it tries to make him notable through association: He worked under Bing Devine, Bob Howsam and Stan Musial. He worked alongside Eddie Stanky. The teams he was associated with had Steve Carlton and Tim McCarver ... and so forth. Alex (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing that pushes him past the GNG barrier. Wizardman 03:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:N and fails GNG as Wiz has stated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. czar ⨹ 00:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Southworth (baseball, born 1917)

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

Standard minor league baseball player, so he fails WP:BASE/N. Article references are sparse. His death was untimely and tragic, but I'm not sure he merits an article. I'm not an expert on military decorations, so the honors he won in that regard may be his saving grace here. Alex (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is actually a reasonable amount written about him, e.g. this New York Times article, 7-8 pages in this book, some pages in another book. He definitely doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER or WP:BASEBALL/N, but may squeak by via WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the article on his dad, Billy Southworth. The information on him can be added to a "family" section in that article like has been done with other second generation ballplayers. Spanneraol (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Change to keep based on Rlendog's sources below. Spanneraol (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although he died half a century before the internet, I am finding a good deal of coverage. Besides the article referenced in "External Links" there is a New York Times article about him and his father, another full article about him. several articles covering his death including this, a brief article here which also notes he won a minor league MVP award, and a brief mention here which nonetheless reports on a particualr distinction he apparently had of being the first player in organized baseball to enlist. With Carity's book references, he easily passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by GB fan (talk · contribs) under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Premila

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

One event BLP, doesn't meet notability. EBY (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wan Amran Wan Hussin

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

One event BLP, doesn't meet notability. EBY (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been speedied like all the other articles created by this user regarding the Ukraine air crash. As EBY says on the creater's talk page: "Dying in a plane crash, while lamentable, does not give a person notability for a Wikipedia article"...Bikeroo (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:1E. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:A7. No indication of the significance at all. Shirt58 (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watson pablov

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

Doesn't meet GNG. EBY (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy A7: A WP:SPA article by User:Watsonventura, indicating likely conflict of interest. It is also an unsourced WP:BLP and makes no claim of significance. Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are also turning up no evidence of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:SPA and WP:COI are not reasons to delete. I will be deleting the article itself very shortly. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by GB fan (talk · contribs) under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siti Amirah

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

Doesn't meet GNG. EBY (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted (A7) by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lavoie(Art Director)

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

None of these art director credits create notability Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7. No indication of notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the Equality of the Sexes

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

Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain text, as described in Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. This is not an encyclopedia article as is, say, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, but a copy/paste of primary source with a cursory introduction. It would need a complete re-write and/ deletion of all but assertion of existence to meet quality standards. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I deleted the copy/paste of the actual text of the essay from the article, which took me only a couple of minutes, even using a smart phone. The essay is notable as one of the earliest expressions of feminist thought, and significant coverage can be found in this biography of its author. We really shouldn't delete poorly written articles about clearly notable topics. Instead, we should improve them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also finding quite a bit about this, to the point where it seems to be one of her most important works since it sets up the structure for her later works. It's referenced quite frequently from what I can see and republished extremely frequently in various textbooks and readers (by mainstream academic publishers and the like). ([18], [19], [20], [21]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This needs some serious work from someone familiar with the subject matter, but from what I can see this is one of Murray's most important works and it's been discussed in a ton of academic sources and cited with regularity in many scholarly works on the topic of feminism. ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26]) I'll drop a note on WP:FEMINISM and see if anyone there can work on the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, this will need to be moved to remove the quotation marks, since we typically do not put those on article titles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied the raw source text has been removed, and agree it is a notable subject. I no longer support deletion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough to warrant inclusion, weak analyses. See Politics_and_the_English_Language for an example of a notable and sufficiently studied essay. 107.15.41.141 (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is notable, but it does need a lot more work before it'll look as well laid out as that essay's article does. Just because an article isn't large or contain goo-gobs of sourcing currently on the page does not mean that it's automatically non-notable, although I will say that the current sourcing on the article is enough to assert notability, especially since many of them assert that it's the author's most notable work and laid the groundwork for her later essays on the same topic. In any case, we shouldn't throw out a perfectly notable topic just because it will need a lot of work to get to the level that other articles about essays are at. That's sort of the converse of how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS usually works: just because another article is more fully fleshed out doesn't mean that disposing of another article is the right course of action. It just means that this article hasn't gotten enough TLC yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a synopsis of the essay to the article, so anyone coming in will have something to work with as opposed to having to write out something themselves. I want to again stress that this essay is notable and that there are multiple sources that refer to it as Murray's most notable work, as well as at least one article in a peer-reviewed journal that focuses solely on this essay and an article in the Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review that focuses heavily on it as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tokyogirl79, for writing a good synopsis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 28 November 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 November 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Haven't found a lot of pieces solely about the work (though there's this), but I'm not sure that matters after looking at the way the first page of GBooks treat the essay. This is how they introduced the work: "pioneering two-part essay", "landmark essay", "now famous essay", and so on. Since these reliable, published books consider it notable, deletion is out of the question. The question of whether it should be redirected is a matter of how many sources can be found on the topic, which is a discussion for the talk page. czar ⨹ 17:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been cleaned up and appears to pass WP:GNG. Kaldari (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wp:HEY at the very least. Probably a keep when it was nominated but certainly passes the GNG by now. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79 and czar. - tucoxn\^talk 14:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant discussion among numerous secondary sources over a sustained period of time. — Cirt (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AABSyS Information Technology

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

Contested speedy deletion. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The single source cited appears to be a trivial mention. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company for which multiple searches turn up nothing beyond routine and primary listings. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the speedy-deletion was removed as the sole contribution by another WP:SPA, which raises puppetry concerns. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - All promo created by an SPA, All belongs far away from the 'pedia as humanely possible! –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sam ^Sing! 23:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale given; not notable. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to American Academy of Pediatrics. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Safety Camp

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

Zero references, and I'm not sure the fact that Jim Pirri is in it is a valid assertion of notability, the rest of the cast is red linked. I think a mention at Jim's article would be sufficient. Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF. It's verifiable as a teaching aid and not something for wide for-profit distribution.[27][28] It might be mentioned within the article on American Academy of Pediatrics as one of their programs, but it lacks the level of notability required by guideline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Schmidt. Peterborough Street (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with merging relevant information into American Academy of Pediatrics. Peterborough Street (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Academy of Pediatrics - could potentially warrant a mention there, particularly if a short section describing TIPP can be created. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me... Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice.

Merge to American Academy of Pediatrics as per AdventurousSquirrel--Cailil ^talk 13:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Fitzgerald

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

Promotional article lacking in 3rd party sources fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG .The article is Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet AUTHOR or GNG. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tong Ren (alternative medicine technique)

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

promotionalism for a remarkably unlikely alternative medicine technique,. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of good sources. Most sources I see matches partial name to the (legitimately notable) TCM company Tongrentang. Some YouTube videos claim the technique was featured on Fox News and NBC News but I am not much convince it is substantial coverage. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 07:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term is mentioned briefly in a few books but there is nothing significant in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFRINGE. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 23:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 03:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Cargill

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

Single credible reference. Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines. Onel5969 (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found plenty of sources with a Google search. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - How can one say Found plenty of sources with a Google search yet not list one single source here ... WP:ILIKEIT ins't a valid reason to keep an article, Anyway I on the other hand haven't found anything except Facebook crap so per nom fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of the article obviously fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages to Reliable sources that established the subject notability. Wikicology (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to be more notable as a dancer than a football player. And here is a source. http://www.toeandheel.com/profile.php?id=16 --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye, that is not a reliable source by any stretch of the definition... czar ⨹ 03:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, either as a footballer or a dancer. Fails GNG. Giant Snowman 16:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neteller

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

Originally prodded by me under the following rationale, which I think is still valid: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." Deprodded by anon with the following edit summary: "Opposed deletion, suggested redirecting and possibly merging this to Optimal Payments". I don't think that much can be merged there, however, as that company is about as unnotable as this - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal Payments. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - they actually sponsor English Premier League side Crystal Palace FC, their name is emblazoned on their shirts and hence are on TV every week. Online ticket purchases for matches go through them. They are obviously pretty noteworthy. Tris2000 (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When the founders are charged with facilitating "the transfer of billions of dollars of illegal gambling proceeds from United States citizens to the owners of various internet gambling companies located overseas" by the United States Attorney, Southern District of New York,[29], we're talking big business. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 14:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight, of a mayor. The city is large enough that she might qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but at 44K it is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on a mayor, and even the most notable mayor on earth wouldn't be entitled to keep an exclusively primary-sourced article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage and being a small town mayor doesn't grant automatic notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange IP. It seems to log on just to vote in scores of AFDs. I have no idea what to make of it.ShulMaven (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep West Vancouver is not a small town. It is not even a town! -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it has "town" or "city" status, a municipality with a population of 44K cannot confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL — for a place of this size, it's WP:GNG or bust. And even the mayor of the largest city in the world would not get to claim an entitlement to keep an unsourced article. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG as far as I can tell, per [30], [31], [32]. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Delete, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nils Jensen. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a lot more than three sources to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many would it take in this case? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not about having a particular number of sources actually in the article. It is about GNG notability. Notability depends on the existence of notable aspects of the topic, notable aspects for which sources exist - even though they are not presently actually in the article at present. The test is - more or less - what turns up on a google search. Not the # of sources presently in the article. ShulMaven (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Googling her instantly brings up this long magazine profile [33].ShulMaven (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if she wins the seat in parliament she's running for, she is notable as soon as the outcome is announced. Perhaps more to the point, articles get built during contested elections, so there is little point in deleting this now since someone or orhter is almost certain to start it again. That , however, is not my argument for keep, which is that subject meets GNG. ShulMaven (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL confers notability on people who win election to parliament, not on people who merely run for election to parliament — merely being a candidate in an election that the subject hasn't won is not accepted on Wikipedia as a claim of notability. If they don't have sufficient notability to get an article under a different inclusion guideline independently of the candidacy, then coverage of the candidacy just constitutes WP:ROUTINE coverage of a WP:BLP1E, which is not the route to coverage in Wikipedia — because while it's true that they might win, it's also true that they might not win.

And deletion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article, either — people whose articles have been deleted in the past can and do become eligible for articles again if and when their substantive claim to notability changes. So the fact that a person might win a future election that they're running in does not have any bearing on the discussion; they can have an article if and when they do win, but articles about unelected candidates virtually always end up getting turned into campaign brochures (or ideological battlegrounds in which the candidate's campaign staff whitewashes the article and then an opposing candidate's campaign staff dirtwashes it) during the election. Which is precisely why we don't allow articles about unelected candidates: Wikipedia's policies around the notability of politicians are specifically designed to prevent those things from happening, since we're not an advertising, public relations or campaign venue. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable and in-depth sources have been found and added to this stub. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every mayor of every place on earth always gets media coverage somewhere — so if this amount of sourcing were enough to get a mayor included in Wikipedia then every mayor of any place at all would always qualify for an article without exception, and our standard policy that some mayors are notable and others are not would be eviscerated. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm seeing 5+ reliable local sources that have articles focused primarily on her. That seems like it would pass the bar for notability. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than five sources to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, please cease making up your own numerical rules and standards, as discussed here: [34].ShulMaven (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "rule" in question is an established precedent, duly created by a broad consensus of users on a myriad of past AFD discussions on comparable topics. I am making up exactly nothing of my own, and I will not tolerate being accused of anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take 5 sources to pass GNG, it takes two non-routine, in-depth pieces in reliable sources. Three at most. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. If that were all it took, we'd have to keep an article about every person who ever got into a newspaper twice, e.g. as a coordinator of a church bake sale or head of a local PTA. And that would also vitiate the existing standards for the notability of city councillors and unelected candidates for office, too, because they're also always the subject of at least two or three sources too. One or two sources is all it takes to get over a subject-specific inclusion standard that includes specific "subject is automatically notable if they've accomplished X" options, absolutely — but if you're claiming a generic "doesn't get over any specific standard but is notable anyway because sources" pass under GNG, then it takes considerably more sources than it takes to get over a criterion that grants automatic notability. Bearcat (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, please read comments carefully because you are all too frequently misquoting people (including me on other pages). What User:Lukeno94 wrote was: "it takes two non-routine, in-depth pieces in reliable sources. Three at most."ShulMaven (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which I "misquoted" how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between: "non-routine, in-depth pieces" and "coordinator of a church bake sale".ShulMaven (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think coordinators of church bake sales are never the subjects of non-routine, in-depth pieces in their local media? They are, and more than often enough that they would qualify for Wikipedia articles if two sources were all it took to satisfy GNG — Wikipedia articles about church bake sale coordinators (and smalltown fire chiefs, and winners of high school talent competitions, and on and so forth) really have been attempted in the past on the basis of 2-3 distinct sources. Hell, even I would qualify for a Wikipedia article if GNG were that easy to satisfy. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's tweak that slightly then. "It takes two non-routine, in-depth pieces in reliable sources that have a wide circulation, such as national newspapers. Three at most." Now THAT is an incontrovertible fact, and if you're denying that, then you frankly need to go and look at any AfD and read GNG properly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you're missing is that "reliable sources that have a wide circulation, such as national newspapers" isn't the standard of sourcing that's been put up for sale here. What we've got in this particular instance is a claim that this particular subject passes GNG on the basis of two articles in limited circulation local interest publications — making my "church bake sale coordinator" example a completely valid analogue to the matter at hand. Sure, two substantive articles in major national newspapers might very well be enough sourcing to get someone over GNG in many cases — but if you're relying on non-major media of purely local distribution, it still takes way more than two articles. Bearcat (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't commenting on the merits of this AfD. I was commenting on the fact that you indeed were making up policy to suit yourself, and yet accused others of spreading untruths. Your interpretation of GNG wasn't remotely similar to how it actually should be used. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not "making up policy to suit myself" — in over ten years of contributing to Wikipedia I've never once done anything of the sort. You're correct that two sources can sometimes be enough to pass GNG if those two sources are of the top-calibre The Globe and Mail/The New York Times/The Times of London class of sourcing, and I'm also correct that two sources aren't enough to pass GNG if those two sources are of the limited distribution, local interest variety that describes the two sources that have been offered here. We're not in contradiction at all, nor is either of us wrong about what the GNG policy is — we're simply talking about two different classes of sourcing that don't have equivalent status to each other under GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there isn't any number of local sources that can generate notability, which was what you must've been talking about. Only wide-circulation ones count towards notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian. There are two reliable, in-depth profiles of her, which are considerably more interesting than simply a list of biographical facts and offices held. If she wins the MP election someone will have to write this article again, so what's the point in deleting it now? – Margin1522 (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point in deleting it now is that she doesn't pass an inclusion guideline now. If she passes one in the future (which she also may not), then we'll deal with that when the time comes — but the fact that someone might win a future election is not a valid reason to keep an article about them if they haven't already satisfied an inclusion standard. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian and two good in-depth references so she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there aren't two good in-depth references that meet the WP:GNG. There are two limited circulation local interest references which don't satisfy GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Jones (Degrassi: The Next Generation)

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

Tagged for notability concerns for four years now. Sources don't exist to expand this article, but expanding would first require an established notability, which this character doesn't seem to have. Gloss 01:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. If there isn't enough content for a standalone article then merge into List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not. There is also not enough sources, unless you've found some? Gloss 06:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Television characters do not automatically qualify for separate standalone articles just because they exist — if you cannot add reliable sources which provide real-world context for why the character is a notable topic in an encyclopedia, then all they really warrant is inclusion in a list of characters. But that's not what this is — it's just an in-universe summary of plots she was involved in, which provides no demonstration whatsoever of why this belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a Degrassi fansite. Delete or merge into a character list unless real sources demonstrating real notability can actually be added. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable outside the series. The article as is is definitely just fansite material. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 20:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters like other Degrassi character articles. Not enough sources for a standalone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. SpinningSpark 16:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Harvey

AfDs for this article:

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

(Note that the original AFD was about a different person of the same name, and is irrelevant to this discussion.) WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor. The municipality in question is not large enough (pop. 40K) to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors, so he has to pass WP:GNG to get an article — but with only two sources being cited (one of them deadlinked, for bonus points), GNG hasn't been fulfilled here. Further, those two sources are supporting a criminal conviction — but given his failure to pass WP:NPOL in the first place, that just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than a topic of sustained or enduring encyclopedic interest. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Notoriety falls under WP:BLP1E. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange IP. It seems to log on just to vote in scores of AFDs. I have no idea what to make of it. 3rd time I've seen it tonight in one of these AFDs about a mayor.ShulMaven (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sean Harvey was an elected mayor of a Canadian municipality for 6 years. He passes WP:POLITICIAN. He committed fraud while in office. I have added more working citations. He is listed in the List of the youngest mayors in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scruples98 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors are not automatically notable under WP:POLITICIAN just because they exist(ed). With a few isolated and specific exceptions for places which are provincial or territorial capitals, and thus have "regional prominence" that's extremely disproportionate to the place's actual size, a place is not even eligible to claim a presumption of notability for its mayors under NPOL until the population is at least 50,000 — and even then a mayor can still be vulnerable to deletion, if the article isn't sourced to the rafters, until the population exceeds 100,000. Get the number of distinct sources here into the double digits, and then maybe we'll talk — but "was a mayor" is not a notability freebie. If the place he was a mayor of isn't one of Canada's 100 largest cities, then you've got exactly two other options: (a) the place is Charlottetown, Yellowknife, Whitehorse or Iqaluit, or (b) WP:GNG it with enough footnotes to choke a small animal. Bearcat (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, should cease making up his own numerical rules and standards, as discussed here: [35]. and here [36], where he asserts that ">3" or ">5" published articles are some sort of official standard for inclusion of an article on Wikipedia.ShulMaven (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "rule" in question is an established precedent, duly created by a broad consensus of users on a myriad of past AFD discussions on comparable topics. I am making up exactly nothing of my own, and I will not tolerate being accused of anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mayor of a city of 40,000 is not automatically notable, but it isn't exactly nothing either. More to the point, his administration of the city and his financial crimes were widely covered , google: "Sean harvey" + Vernon. And there was more than one financial fraud, not in our article at present is this [37] article about Harvey's involvement in the illicit land deals that brought down solicitor general John Les.ShulMaven (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PERP. The argument that he meets WP:POLITICIAN goes beyond precedent for how that policy gets applied, and so I reject it. The argument that WP:BLP1E applies would require me to find Harvey to be a low-profile individual, which strikes me as a dubious claim for an elected politician, and I reject that argument as well. BIO1E might apply but wouldn't necessary recommend deletion. Given that he's not notable except for his crime, PERP would be the most specific and best choice of our guidelines, and nothing above makes a claim that Harvey meets either test of that notability guideline. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Joe's spot on: WP:PERP and WP:BIO1E; at best coverage of the person should be on the event/scandal page (if it were notable), but it does not exist. --slakr^\ talk / 09:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 02:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

L. Peat O'Neil

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

Fails WP:BIO. This autobiographical contains many references but the author/subject is a writer. It is not notable that they are published, notability is when sources write about the subject. Ifnord (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all the references currently in the article are primary. There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and no indication it meets WP:Author. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think she meets WP:Author, but I can't prove it. To meet it, she would need at least two reviews of her book Travel Writing. The book is found in 373 U.S. libraries, and libraries buy on the basis of reviews, so they must have read reviews of it somewhere. However, I only found one review, in Booklist, so I can't show that she is notable. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like pretty flagrant self promotion. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting the article with no prejudice towards an early recreation with additional sources Wifione ^Message 14:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Jensen

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor. The place has a population of just 18K, which is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on a mayor under WP:NPOL, and with just two citations the volume of sourcing is nowhere near enough to claim a WP:GNG pass either. The only other claim of notability here is his unsuccessful candidacy for the leadership of a political party, but Wikipedia no longer accepts that as a notability claim in its own right — under the standards that apply in 2014, if a person isn't already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article for other things, then an unsuccessful candidacy for the party leadership doesn't get them an article either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only accomplishment appears to be having been a small town mayor in Canada. Fails to meet the GNG and WP:NPOL. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange IP. It seems to log on just to vote in scores of AFDs. I have no idea what to make of it. 4th time I've seen it tonight in an AFD on a Mayor.ShulMaven (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, as far as I can tell he meets the GNG per the Times Colonist (Oak Bay: Nils Jensen convincingly re-elected as mayor), Focus Magazine (seems like an RS, but I'm not sure; Mayor Jensen's flip-flop, and the BC Local News piece cited in the article. Am I missing something? --Cerebellum (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Delete, see below. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All mayors of all places always get coverage in the local media, so the fact that two or three media citations can be located is not enough in and of itself to get a mayor over the inclusion bar — that's just WP:ROUTINE, not substantive, coverage. Mayors are not even really granted potential notability on Wikipedia until the place they're mayor of has a population of at least 50,000 people (or just slightly short of three times the size of Oak Bay) — and even at 50K they're still not necessarily safe, because if the article isn't particularly well-sourced the consensus can still land on a delete. So it takes about three times as many people as this place has before you can even begin to claim that Jensen maybe passes NPOL, and four or five times as many people before the case becomes airtight enough to withstand this little sourcing — and it takes at least five or six times as many distinct sources as this article has before you can even begin to claim that he maybe passes GNG instead of NPOL. That's what you're missing. Bearcat (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, and seems to be consensus per Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2013#Small town mayors. Striking my !vote. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per Nom Bearcat. Willing to reconsider if someone can show notability as an attorney, he seems to be well-established with a large law firm, and to have something of a profile within the legal profession in his region. ShulMaven (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Bearcat: - re "notability on Wikipedia until the place they're mayor of has a population of at least 50,000 people" - Can you point to the policy page that calls this out? NickCT (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I assumed that this was a policy. If it is not, I will reconsider. Running a county seat with 20- 40,000 or so thousand inhabitants is a significant job.ShulMaven (talk)

Bearcat, should cease making up his own numerical rules and standards, as discussed here: [38]. and here [39], where he asserts that ">3" or ">5" published articles are some sort of official standard for inclusion of an article on Wikipedia.ShulMaven (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "rule" in question is an established precedent, duly created by a broad consensus of users on a myriad of past AFD discussions on comparable topics. I am making up exactly nothing of my own, and I will not tolerate being accused of anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Coverage even among local sources seems pretty limited. NickCT (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Being elected Mayor is notable. Jensen is clearly a locally notable member of the bar. And many more news articles and other sources on Jensen exist than are represented on this page.ShulMaven (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the subject passes WP:GNG. The subject does not have WP:ROUTINE coverage. This article in the Times Colonist is about the subject's role he plays as Mayor of a Fox TV series Gracepoint. He also received some coverage of his work as a solicitor. It may be a week keep, but a keep nontheless. --Enos733 (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny.ShulMaven (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small town mayor. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NPOL, at least not according to the sources. The filming of the TV episode made it sound like a really small town. The city council unaminously approved the closing of 3 blocks of Oak Bay Avenue, they touched up the windows of the local bar and grill... Not a very notable story. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knez (singer)

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

No significant independent coverage. Jacona (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Is it that hard to google:Nenad Knežević Knez? Or verify that he's going to represent his country on Eurosong, which makes him pretty much automatically notable. Yes, the article is way too under-sourced, but Afd is not cleanup. No such user (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed otherwise we wouldn't be here, Also as NSU notes he's representing Eurovision next year so it's simply nonsensical to delete the article or even nominate it tbh...... –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This was noted once before at another AfD regarding a Eurovision 2015 participant for Belgium Loïc Nottet, and that resulted in a keep consensus. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - a eurovision participation is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected. Secret ^account 02:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Anthony

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

The topic of the article, Hurricane Anthony, is a fictitious tropical cyclone that serves as a backdrop for an episode of CSI: Miami. The subject fails to have any significant coverage, and aside from IMDB, CSI: Miami-specific pages, and streaming links, there are no substantive resources that would lend Hurricane Anthony any notability. Should a merge occur, the most relevant article is at CSI: Miami (season 2), but aside from unverifiable 'meteorological' data on this fictitious storm, there is nothing relevant and new that could be merged. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 01:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)

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

No longer functioning party (search for that evidence here - https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/EntitySearch.aspx). No notable electoral result, no credible third party coverage, no evidence of notability during their brief existence, and now they are removed from the electoral register, there is no chance of them performing anything important enough to justify their continued existence on Wikipedia. Cannot find anything notable enough within London politics, let alone English politics. doktorb _words^deeds 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being defunct is not a reason to delete (or half of Wikipedia will be going). But the assertion above that the Electoral Commission says this party is no longer functioning is simply untrue. The Electoral Commission gives the date of registration as 10/10/2012 and does not say that the party has deregistered. Searching registered parties' annual returns shows the party made a return in 2013. And seeing as it contested this year's European Parliament elections it is false to say that they had no evidence of notability "during their brief existence". Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of a number--about 10?-- of UK political party AFDs simultaneously running, opened by same nominator. All seem to be about registered political parties; all or most have fielded candidates in elections and received votes; all have received coverage. This one may or may not have less references immediately available. But as with all the others, where referencing meeting wp:GNG is shown if/when editors respond, I believe the only reasonable outcome is keep. No complaint about this nominator meant at all, but I have seen other series of related AFDs put forward by other persons which have turned out to be not-well-thought-out, and this, like those other campaigns, seems wasteful of community attention. When/if a number of the AFDs are clearly failing, I think the appropriate thing for the nominator to do is to withdraw all the others, including this one. --do ncr am 21:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not withdraw any nomination.
This "party" is not notable, fact. They are no longer active, fact. They did not achieve anything in the few months they existed, fact. They may not form again, so we must judge them on what the "achieved". The evidence is nothing of any notable record, whatever. Being written about does not equal being notable. Not being notable is against Wikipedia policy. Being against Wikipedia policy means they must be deleted. It really is that simple. doktorb _words^deeds 22:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, per WP:GNG being written about is practically the definition of notability. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Party

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

A curiosity of a party, yes, but not notable. Only present as an also-ran in one specific kind of elections, no cultural importance, no notability, almost no credible third party coverage. Nothing to indicate importance, and nothing to suggest is should remain on Wikipedia. doktorb _words^deeds 01:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has also ran in council elections in Reading, as the article says with a source. He ran in two European elections, the £5,000 to run making it a notable repeat feat. With the range of far-right/left parties featured on this encyclopedia without even running in any large-scale elections, I don't really see the harm in keeping the Roman Party here '''tAD''' (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete this and anyone later looking at the articles on the constituencies contested by the party will be left in total ignorance about what the results show. If you can't look up Roman Party in Wikipedia, where can you? Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of a number of UK political party AFDs opened by same nominator. All seem to have been registered political parties. This one fielded a candidate in at least one election, received thousands of votes, and has received coverage. As with all the others, where referencing meeting wp:GNG has been shown when editors responded, I believe the only reasonable outcome is keep. No complaint about this nominator meant at all, but I have seen other series of related AFDs put forward by other persons which have turned out to be not-well-thought-out, and this, like those other campaigns, seems wasteful of community attention. When/if a number of the AFDs in a campaign are clearly failing, I think the appropriate thing for the nominator to do is to withdraw all the others. --do ncr am 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, as judged by significant coverage in reliable sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, all sources are passing mentions, with the exception of one in-depth source in the local newspaper, which isn't enough. Secret ^account 23:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No opposition or changes in two weeks. czar ⨹ 23:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Harris (author/musician)

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

Recreated BLP - no reliable sources to establish notability, and possibly none to be found. —Swpb^talk 14:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will add them. Please don't delete until I do. I think being on a major record label, touring for 16 years, being on a hit album, and being an author is notable. Will add supporting references today. JoeBeertap (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article will not be deleted today. AfD discussions typically run at least seven days. Removing the discussion notice on the article is NEVER appropriate and will get you blocked, for good reason. We can't rely on your promise to fix the article as reason to keep it. —Swpb^talk 14:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added significant additional references and information as requested. Thank you for allowing me to further update the article. If there are any other concerns please let me know and I'll address them. I spent significant time in the New York music scene and am volunteering my time to add details of the New York music scene in the late '80s that is noticeably missing in Wikipedia. Thanks again. JoeBeertap (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no mainstream references, just reviews of their work. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Billboard isn't a mainstream reference, and it should be, then what do you define a mainstream reference to be? Happy to add a few. JoeBeertap (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Dirty Looks achieved success on the Billboard 200 chart" .. you're giving evidence that the band was on the Billboard 200. There are no references in reputable journals/newspapers/whatever that the band member is of significance. Note: James Harris is one of 60-odd people who was a member of the band (apparently the only band member that has an own article) - in the case of James Harris 2-3 years out of 18 years of active existence of the band, and that band, not the member had a mention in a billboard list (I can not access billboard from here - is that mention actually at the same time that James Harris was active?). Now tell me if that is even worth a significant mention in the page of a band member. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the band thinks so. There is a page devoted exclusively to him on their website. I'll work on adding references from "reputable journals/newspapers/whatever" on him. By your definition, what is reputable and what is not reputable? Thanks for the help. JoeBeertap (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Apparently the band thinks so." - I forgot to mention that the reference had to be independent of the source - You've got thát right for Billboard at least. With reputable I mean that the source should not be an independent blog with no fact checking, or an independent forum post - Anything from the abovementioned 'newspapers' search? (adapeted newspapers search on the name only - does not seem to give anything that belongs to the person that is the subject of this discussion). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources, or any other indications of notability as either a musician or as an author. A two year stint as drummer in a heavy metal band known for its "revolving door" membership is unpersuasive. A profile on the band's page is not independent, and the assortment of low quality references now in the article do not convince me of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kubura (currency)

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

This is about a made-up currency. The article lacks the notability. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. There are two sources cited, but one of them is a dead link, and the other one is the web page of the authority that issues those banknotes (not reliable source). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića. There is insufficient RS coverage for a stand alone article, however the one source is probably acceptable for the purpose of establishing certain facts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (or just plain redirect) to Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića, as suggested above; there doesn't seem to be enough coverage in independent reliable sources to support a stand-alone article. Sideways713 (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Degrassi characters. Merge rather than redirect so the list can be structured à la List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. czar ⨹ 15:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Kaye

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

Non notable character and article has only one reference. Does not meet GNG. Also per recent AfDs for similar characters in the series: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all which were closed as delete/redirect. Gloss 18:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The fact that the article needs improvement is not a criteria for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that it doesn't properly demonstrate or source any notability in the first place is a criterion for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An in-world bio with no indication of real-world significance or notability. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No RS coverage to demonstrate any real-world notability — all this contains is an in-universe biography of her, more suited for a Degrassi fansite than an encyclopedia. Delete and redirect per the other recent discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Degrassi characters, which should be restructured to include more information, something like List of Left Behind characters. There are a few google books results for this character, but not enough for a standalone article. Still merits inclusion in a list though.--Cerebellum (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Degrassi characters as per above no evidence of notability to warrant its own article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 07:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 Thibault Square

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

I had nominated this article for deletion via WP:PROD, but it was removed via the creator. Some of the sources supplied[40][41] look suspiciously like press releases, and the only other source with much content, from iol.co.za, doesn't seem enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. I couldn't find any other likely-looking sources online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Second tallest building in one of Africa's major cities. Looks notable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This building appears to be architecturally interesting, especially the "34-degree diagonal twist". However, the building has changed names a number of times so it is difficult to find articles on it. The link to the architectural firm is dead, which doesn't help. I can't find anything of significance. LaMona (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 09:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Degrassi characters. Merge rather than redirect so the list can be structured à la List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. czar ⨹ 14:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Wheeler

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

Non notable character and article is unreferenced. Does not meet GNG. Also per recent AfDs for similar characters in the series: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all which were closed as delete/redirect. Gloss 18:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a non-notable character as the nominator suggests. It's a major character in a culturally-significant program. See the following: 1, 2, 3, [42], 4, 5. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Degrassi characters, which should be restructured. The sources provided by User:Tchaliburton are mostly about the actor, who already has his own article. I couldn't find enough information on the character to merit a standalone article, but inclusion as part of a list makes sense. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Cerebellum. This is just an unreferenced in-universe bio of him, written entirely in the style of a Degrassi fansite and containing no real world context to properly demonstrate his suitability as a standalone topic in an encyclopedia. Tchaliburton's sources, further, are not about this character in his own right, but about the actor who played him — so they're legitimate sourcing for our article on Neil Hope, absolutely, but they do not transfer notability onto the character if the character himself isn't their subject. All any of them can actually add to this article is sourcing for the introduction — they do not add any contextual value to the body of the article, or demonstrate any reason why the character would warrant a standalone article instead of inclusion in a character list. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Degrassi characters as per above no evidence of notability to warrant its own article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Degrassi characters. Merge rather than redirect so the list can be structured à la List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. czar ⨹ 15:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Mead

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

Non notable character and article has IMDB references with tons of plot detail. Does not meet GNG. Also per recent AfDs for similar characters in the series: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all which were closed as delete/redirect. Gloss 18:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The fact that the article needs improvement is not a criteria for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that it doesn't properly demonstrate or source any notability in the first place is a criterion for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No RS coverage to demonstrate any real-world notability — all this contains is an in-universe biography of her, more suited for a Degrassi fansite than an encyclopedia. Delete and redirect per the other recent discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Degrassi characters, I couldn't find enough RS coverage to merit a standalone article. See Google books results. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Degrassi characters as per above no evidence of notability to warrant its own article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Degrassi characters. Merge rather than redirect so the list can be structured à la List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. czar ⨹ 15:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Farrell

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

Non notable character and article is unreferenced. Does not meet GNG. Also per recent AfDs for similar characters in the series: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all which were closed as delete/redirect. Gloss 18:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The fact that the article needs improvement is not a criteria for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that it doesn't properly demonstrate or source any notability in the first place is a criterion for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No RS coverage to demonstrate any real-world notability — all this contains is an in-universe biography of her, more suited for a Degrassi fansite than an encyclopedia. Delete and redirect per the other recent discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Degrassi characters, which should be restructured to include more information, something like List of Left Behind characters. Hardly any RS coverage of this character. this book on abortion is the best I could find. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Degrassi characters as per above no evidence of notability to warrant its own article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Degrassi characters. Merge rather than redirect so the list can be structured à la List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. czar ⨹ 15:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Fernandez

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

Non notable character and article is unreferenced. Tagged for no references since Feb 08, for in universe writing since Oct 09, and for original research since Sept 07. Does not meet GNG. Also per recent AfDs for similar characters in the series: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all which were closed as delete/redirect. Gloss 18:24, 17 November 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 November 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:V. This should have been deleted a long time ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. This is a major character featured in two prominent series. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a criterion that gets a character into Wikipedia as an article topic — if reliable source coverage isn't present to properly demonstrate real world context for why the character is notable, then they get included in a merged character list rather than standing alone as an independent article. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No RS coverage to demonstrate any real-world notability — all this contains is an in-universe biography of her, more suited for a Degrassi fansite than an encyclopedia. Delete and redirect per the other recent discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Degrassi characters, which should be restructured to include more information, something like List of Left Behind characters. There is RS coverage of this character, but it is just one sentence in the Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 2nd Ed, and an unknown amount of coverage in the Reviewing Journal of Canadian Materials for Young People, the first edition of the Encyclopedia of Television Shows, and Canadian Children's Books (these are only available in snippet view so I don't know how extensive the coverage is. I don't think there's enough on these characters for a standalone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Degrassi characters as per above no evidence of notability to warrant its own article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Degrassi characters. Wifione ^Message 09:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Brodie

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

Non notable character and article has only three poor references all with broken links. Does not meet GNG. Also per recent AfDs for similar characters in the series: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all which were closed as delete/redirect. Gloss 18:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The fact that the article needs improvement is not a criteria for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that it doesn't properly demonstrate or source any notability in the first place is a criterion for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No RS coverage to demonstrate any real-world notability — all this contains is an in-universe biography of her, more suited for a Degrassi fansite than an encyclopedia. Delete and redirect per the other recent discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Degrassi characters, I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Teen Choice Awards#Music. (Not sure how useful this redirect will be since it's so specialized and there's nothing at the target. I'll also preemptively remind that the rest of the awards in this category might be better candidates for bold redirect than AfD, given this precedent.) czar ⨹ 00:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Choice Award for Choice Music - Electronic Dance Music Artist

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

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Swpb^talk 01:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's one of the awards that Teen Choice currently gives out in the summer each year. In its third year since its inception, an award titled "Choice Music - EDM Song" was introduced to be alongside it along with the rest of the genre awards. I've already provided articles for the Country awards that Teen Choice has in its Music category and it would be very useful for it to have another one compared to the Movie and TV categories. DepressedPer (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Teen Choice Awards#Music Yes, it's awarded, but usually in the 'awards presented before the show' section which gets a ticker boilerplate before a commercial break; not notable beyond this as the ceremony is based on ballot stuffing where biggest name wins no matter the talent in the category. Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teen Choice Awards. The awards and its winners gets coverage and have articles but to detail every winner and nominee for each category is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in line with the others. It's relatively common for us to have a list or table of award winners and potentially nominees of all types on the entry for the awards themselves. To dive into a separate entry for only one award at a time is a slap in the face to WP:IINFO and by further expression and extension within WP:DISCRIMINATE as an "indiscriminate list". ♪ Tstorm (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I state redirect under the assumption that structure exists within the Teen Choice Awards article to add it. Even an article on the music awards on the whole might be suitable as a matter of organization to keep the lengthy histories from cluttering up other articles, but the extreme level of detail for this specific nominated article is unreasonable. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted by User:Chillum per CSD G10, "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will.i.am and Danny O'Donoghue

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

Inappropriate detailed BLP fork, even for popular music performers. Whatever is appropriate belongs in the artists' biographies. twitter is not an acceptable source for gossip. Snow delete requested; I dont think it quite qualifies for speedy, but I'd have no objection/.� DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since when do we have articles on relationships? Also, poorly sourced. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This looks like it's a pretty serious BLP issue, in that we have someone using Wikipedia as a gossip page to spread what looks like it's a rumor at best. I can't find anything to suggest that this has any legitimacy in the slightest and even if it did, we don't make tabloid-esque pages on this sort of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the page creator a pretty stern warning to not create any further pages like this in the future. However given that this page (and its draftspace copy) are the only pages they created, I am mildly tempted to just outright block them for making these BLP violations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Idea (marketing)

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

No indication of the significance of this expression as a specific term of art. Prod removed without comment. —Swpb^talk 01:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pretty hard to argue against a cite from Ogilvy. Artw (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, if stupid, idea. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we dig a little deeper with this one? I can AGF that those sources are valid, at least for now, but they're being used to substantiate a claim that those authors used the phrase "big idea". Maybe that shows that it's in use, but I wouldn't call that sourcing for the GNG, no? @Artw and Bearian. Also, I think List of marketing terms would be a better location for this content if it were more of a glossary. czar ⨹ 00:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's very much a term of art rather than a random phrase. [43][44][45] - possibly the article should make that clearer? Anyway, that would be content improvement rather than deletion. Artw (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're in agreement that it shouldn't be deleted, but I don't see where the sourcing is to write an article about "big idea" as a topic. It makes more sense as a sentence in some glossary or list unless you can find in-depth discussions of the "big idea" idea. The blogs you linked would not be considered reliable sources for this purpose czar ⨹ 02:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 09:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @Rms125a@hotmail.com and Kierzek, "just not notable" is a deletion argument to avoid. This said, consensus is to delete. czar ⨹ 00:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ah Quin

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

Delete: non-notable (WP:NMUSIC) Quis separabit? 15:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable; maybe someday but not at this time. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough coverage to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waconia marching band

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

Not sure why this marching band is notable. I did a quick Google search and I was not able to find any reliable sources about the band. Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 23:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This could be a fairly easy "keep" if there were references to back up the 225 awards the band has won. Anyone? LaMona (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -After doing a search I can find a few scant references but nothing that meets the WP:GNG guidelines. Maybe this band could be merged into and article about the school but I don't feel it merits an article on its own feet.Canyouhearmenow 13:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spylacopa

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

No reliable sources found through Google. No sources in article at all. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greg Puciato; this is not notable independently of him but has been covered in a few independent RS's. [46] [47] If there were a few more I would vote keep but I'm not sure this is enough to make them notable enough for a stand alone article. Everymorning talk to me 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. Fails GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 00:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there aren't any reliable sources, it fails to meet WP:NMUSIC (as nom stated), and there isn't any evidence of notability. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISPA Belgium

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

All sources are not independent. Reads like an advert. Fails ~~WP:WEB~~ WP:NORG. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nothing to with WP:WEB. The ISPA is an organisation, not a website and therefore we'd use WP:ORG. It is the peak Belgian association of internet providers, but indepth references appear a bit hard to find for two reasons 1. Belgium doesn't speek English and I have no clue of this organisations name in Flemish, French or German and 2) The UK's peak ISP organisation has the same acronym in English. Did find this in a book; 1, mentions here [48] and here. JT_dale^Talk~ 05:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable Organization that meet WP:ORG. There are plenty of reliable sources with a quick google search. In addition to the sources cited by JTdale above, I found this one, [49], [50]. There are more sources but not in English language. Meanwhile, the fact that sources are not in English is not a suggestion that the subject is not notable. Wikicology (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 00:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.plasticstoday.com/articles/green-matter-invention-driven-innovation-beats-serendipity-says-pha-expert

[1]