Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 August	16 August >

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 redirect to Glacier National Park (U.S.). -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing Glaciers in Glacier National Park

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

Article is a WP:NOTESSAY, duplicating information from Glacier National Park#Glaciers with the rest referring to global glacial melt rather than in the national park. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We could probably speedy this as a recently created copy of Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)#Glaciers, as I don't really see where it adds anything that isn't already covered there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as a speedy and left a note on the author's page explaining this and directing them to the main page for GNP (US). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.)~~ Glacier National Park (U.S.) per WilyD. De728631 (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. It's an essay and an unnecessary content fork. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. The content does not require its own article. Gccwang (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The topic is best covered in the main article about the national park. I am One of Many (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above to Glacier National Park (U.S.).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. only delete !vote stricken. Concern was the article was adverty and failed GNG. I am One of Many brought the article into scope and consensus is that the article now passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Street Galleries

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

advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a weak argument for notability in the article on the basis of some notable artists being exhibited, but it's not enough. No sources are cited, so right off it fails WP:V. A Google produced a lot of advertising hits and some run of the mill coverage in the form of short announcements about exhibits etc. But again, nothing that rings the notability bell. Ultimately the subject fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. And yeah, it does smell like WP:SPAM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep based on added sources. The article still needs some copy editing to tone down the PR aspects, but it's notable. Hat tip to I am One of Many. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable. I have added six sources from HighBeam and 155 newspaper and magazine articles come up in a HighBeam search that are about the Galleries or about their exhibits. The sources are local, national, and international. I am One of Many (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per am One of Many and it Passes WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 18:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens In Charge Foundation

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

Absence of independent secondary sources, per WP:ORG. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schematica has found a source from the Orange County Register that prominently features CCF. I have no doubt this is a reliable source. However the article is exclusively about CCF's possible violation of IRS rules. Would this be considered "significant coverage?" I don't do a lot of AFD work so I'm not sure. However unless other sources are found I wonder how a balanced article would look in light of WP:BALASPS. Feedback requested from AFD regulars. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schematica found another source, this one from Pacific Standard Magazine, that is about one of CCF's reports. I'm not sure if this counts as significant coverage, but at this point I'm reluctantly leaning toward the keep position. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 11 August 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 ♔ 20:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant reliable source coverage clearly exists as reflected by the large number of recently added sources. Subject passes both GNG and ORG. Hat tip to Schematica. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, did you check the sources themselves? There may be some bombardment going on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fleischman At your suggestion I took a closer look at the sources. Some are not the strongest, but overall I do think there is enough there to ring the notability bell. Thanks for the ping. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A clickthough of applied sources shows this isn't even close. Meets GNG. Wall Street Journal, NPR, Orange County Register? These three sources alone meet standards for diversity and reliability. In concert I'd assert the applied sources also meet the standard of significant coverage. BusterD (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOUR – The World's Best Food Magazine

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

advertising The Banner talk 21:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' The sources provided by the author do not show notability (for media). A number of the sources are Press Releases or appear to be reprinted first-party-provided material.Stesmo (talk) 17:56, 9 August 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 ♔ 20:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is nothing that fails WP:G11 here, so deleting as an "advertisement" isn't a good idea. I initially wasn't pleased by the title, but apparently that's the magazine's actual name. Cleanup should be done instead of deletion, if necessary. The fact that it has won a notable award indicates notability (this is criterion 1 in the relevant section of the essay Stesmo linked to). --Jakob (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that it is strictly seen unrelated but the author started spamming a link in a big number of chef-articles ([1]). The Banner talk 21:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. If you go to the website of the "notable award", you'll see that there is one award (in several classes) per country (meaning dozens of countries), meaning that this award is decidedly minor. And what else is there? --Randykitty (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? A national level award is minor? --Jakob (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at that award page? --Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer Infante

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

Autobiography of a subject who does not have the coverage required by the notability guidelines for inclusion. Search for sources finds few which aren't imdb, the author's site or blogs and among the remainder the coverage is nominal (usually a mention of his name in association with a project). Protonk (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. This is an autobiography written by the subject, doesn't meet WP:ACTORBIO. I just removed two sources that don't mention the subject at all. The two that remain consist of a brief cast bio, and a trivial mention. Any claims of notability refer to plays the subject has been in, not the subject himself. In the only filmography item that's notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, his role is uncredited. This looks like a clear candidate for speedy deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NACTOR. The most substantial (and I use that term loosely) thing I could find is an inane twitter exchange of hostilities. A7 doesn't apply since the article's creator obviously believes he is a notable enough actor. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'd support a speedy deletion as well, if someone wanted to go that route. There's a pretty clear lack of notability and I can't find any coverage in places that would be considered a reliable source. (Broadwayworld.com is almost universally considered to not be a reliable source in my past AfD experiences.) Other than trying to gain notice by trying to start arguments with people on Twitter (not really something I'd personally recommend as a career move, FWIW), there's absolutely nothing out there about him- and even then, that wasn't in a place we'd consider reliable since it's a blog. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Provided references establish that he's an actor, but there's nothing there are that establishes notability despite his protestations that he's "up-and-coming". --Finngall ^talk 04:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NACTOR. A Google did not produce anything that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Heberle

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

Non-notable actress. This one appears to have barely made it beyond extra work. Ridernyc (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 August 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 ♔ 20:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NACTOR. No sources are cited, thus also failing WP:V. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable actor per WP:NACTOR, no principal roles in major movies listed on her IMDB page. Gccwang (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Hits/Rock

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

I could not establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY; it has been tagged for notability for over six years and no one else has established its notability in that time either. Its very generic name makes it etra hard to try to provide sources for. Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:CORP. No sources are cited thus also failing WP:V. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell. Honestly this looks like a borderline CSD A-7. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources for several years? How did it take this long for AFD? A reasonable search is handicapped by the name, as mentioned in the nom. No reliable secondary sources. BusterD (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:BusterD, I agree, it's awful, the backlog at CAT:UNREF is almost eight years, and the backlong at CAT:NN is six and a half years. They don't seem to be improving or attracting enough editors, so there are thousands of articles like this. Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lanier

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

Non-notable actress. Ridernyc (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to have had only two supporting roles. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 11 August 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 ♔ 20:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one "source" to IMDB which makes this effectively unsourced. Not seeing a significant claim for notability as an actress. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 2 roles are not large enough to pass notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Steavenson-Payne

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

Non-notable actress. Ridernyc (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet NACTOR requirements, and the cursory cookie-cutter nomination provides no basis for concluding otherwise. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

because there is nothing more to say minor roles, no coverage. Your cookie cutter keep offer no real reason to keep. Ridernyc (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking again there is literally zero coverage I can find on this person besides IMDB. Ridernyc (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I found a mention here, mention here in this book, and a mention here. Her face is here, and the picture emerging is a competent character actor who is in film and who has a name in a technical sense, but doesn't get much attention from the public regarding her off-screen persona, hence not much press, which is heartily unfair perhaps to the hard-working character actors, but such is life. I don't see the sources I found as meeting the WP:GNG but I can change my mind if more sources are found or new arguments presented.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:29, 10 August 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 ♔ 20:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only "reference" is to IMDB which is not reliable. Not verified, therefore notability cannot be established despite the claims in the text. Hasteur (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. No sources are cites thus also failing WP:V. A Google yielded nothing that rings the notability bell. In fact it failed to turn up the WP:RUNOFTHEMILL coverage one would expect for even minor non-notable actors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Scorsese

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

There are a ton of these all created by one account. All of them are about relatives of famous people. Charles appears to have no independent notability, his only claims to notability are his relation to his son and minor bit parts in his sons films. Ridernyc (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 8 August 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 ♔ 20:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has an obituary in The New York Times, but that seems to be more due to his famous son. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Botopedia.org

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

Content seems to be purely commercial and lacking encyclopedic value Ddosguru (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yeah, the sourcing available in the article doesn't seem to justify this, and I can find nothing much else. Reyk _YO! 06:19, 11 August 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 ♔ 20:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:WEBSITE. Nothing came up on a Google that remotely hints at notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Sarcastic

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

Fails all criteria of WP:BAND. Has received only minimal local coverage. Michig (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 8 August 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 ♔ 20:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Found a bunch of listings but thats it. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything here that rings the notability bell. Coverage appears to be local and strictly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. A Google did not find anything that supports retention. Subject appears to fail WP:NBAND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Episode I: The Phantom Menace Adventures

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

Nothing more than a child's comic. No indication of notability or reception/influences. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 8 August 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 ♔ 20:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing remotely notable here. Subject fails WP:GNG. A Google yielded the usual promotional hits but little more. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Starling

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

All of the references for the article are for blog posts on message boards (some of which appear to go to YouTube videos). Searches for her name mostly yield Alison Starling, which is a different person. I searched several Broadway databases, and found no results. If someone can find a credible reference establishing notability, I am happy to withdraw. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 10 August 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 ♔ 19:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Frietjes. Not much to merit inclusion based on a search of 10 SERP pages using a fairly open filter.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. One day we may regret deleting this but not today. Working actor on Broadway (and good for her; it's a tough place to get a job). IBDB doesn't have a listing for her, so she hasn't originated any roles, just done pretty satisfactory work. Even replacing another actor as Maureen in the Broadway original run of Rent is pretty impressive, if verifiable. Sans sourcing, delete. BusterD (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Gabel

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

Non-notable "president, chief executive officer, director" of some company. damiens.rf 16:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 8 August 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 ♔ 19:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This stub was first entered in 2006, and has not been expanded to a full article. All of the info I can find online is from social networking sites, not third-party sources. LaMona (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - difficult to find any sources. Therefore not notable for the moment AAA3AAA (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Forbach

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

Curriculum vitae for non-notable psycologist. damiens.rf 16:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage seems mostly confined to a few local CJOnline.com articles about his leadership institute. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:19, 9 August 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 ♔ 19:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has some published articles, but I can find no evidence of notability. Fairly low citation rate in G-scholar. LaMona (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. poorly written but notable, AfD nom withdrawn by nominator, voted keep by others (non-admin closure) » nafSadh did say 19:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central Railway Building

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

Couldn't establish reliable sources to show this is notable Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently notable building from an architectural standpoint, discussed in Mahbabul Haque Chittagong guide: tourist, industrial, shipping & business guide Barnarekha 1981, and Nazimuddin Ahmad Buildings of the British Raj in Bangladesh University Press 1986. JulesH (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:JulesH, do you have a full reference for that that you can add to the article? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, those *are* full references. These books were published in India, and many Indian publishers did not use ISBNs until quite recently. Both are available as limited previews in Google Books, so you can confirm from there that the building is dicussed in them. 87.112.127.183 (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable for its architecture, but also as a key public building. It appears on a government preservation list (item 3.5), is discussed in local newspapers (example), and in the books mentioned above. Unfortunately there are not many sources about Bangladesh online, so some library research might be needed to improve the article. --ELEKHH^T 23:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on what Jules has found, are you willing to withdraw the nomination @Boleyn:? I almost closed as keep, but now I'm on the fence for relisting. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn still a poor article, not fully verified, but near enough that I'm happy to close this. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect per nom. Sandstein 07:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret G. Hays

This appears to be a biography of a female artist but fails abysmally to demonstrate notability. The sources presented do not meet even the minimal standards of WP:RS or the guidelines for WP:V. This article should probably be deleted or at least folded into the Grace Drayton article -- which to be honest is not much better. BaseballChue (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I had originally nominated this for speedy deletion once before (request was declined), so in all fairness this is the second time it has been up for deletion in recent days with no noticeable improvements. BaseballChue (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Note, notices given to non-bot/non-automated editors/contributors to this article. BaseballChue (talk) 17:51, 15 August 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 August 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this AFD from "2nd nom" to "first" as first doesn't exist so assume there was an error somewhere, Apologies if i've screwed anything up. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted above, fails notability policy 50.205.18.53 (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Caterson

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

Does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete he might have had stuff published is but that does not grant automatic notability LibStar (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C. Britt Bousman

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

Does not appear to met WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be notable. AAA3AAA (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. WoS h-index 9. One paper with 35 citations and a few in the 20s. His field is not citation rich, but I think these numbers are still on the delete side of the fence. Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Bobot

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF, and even if this were more borderline the negative content and WP:BLP would push me towards delete — he's a plagiarist, but not a notable plagiarist, and we need to include the plagiarism if we keep the article but better just not to have an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the bad writing and/or self-promotional tone ("post-Ph.D." - a plain postdoc presumably), which also appear to have played a role in the plagiarism episode, there is not enough there. Does not pass any criterion WP:PROF, and the sources state that he has quit academia, so that won't build enough any time soon. Got the usual minor notice in his new homeland following Aliyah, but does not seem to pass WP:GNG altogether. The plagiarism episode is plain, and since he admitted and accepted the retractions that should be the end of that story.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher_Shea

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

This newer page has no reliable sources, or barely any. No one seems to be adding sources, references, etc, since it has been created. It has no means to stand at this point and shouldn't be on Wikipedia as of now. Notability and Reliable Sources are the main issues. WikiPassionate (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real independent sources here and memory alpha is not WP:RS --Artene50 (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable; no reliable sourcing, as noted by nominating editor. Quis separabit? 23:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. This actor meets criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR (see IMDB listing for list of numerous acting credits). Dolovis (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails #1 of WP:NACTOR, person does not have any significant roles, single non-notable appearance in an episode of a notable show does not meet the criteria--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 19:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, almost weakly. Performer with multiple recurring roles on several network TV shows, sufficient to qualify under WP:ENT/NACTOR. We routinely keep porn performers with scanter reliable independent coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HW, I must check my vitals, its an odd day we end up in this configuration on a BLP at AFD! Adult Video News is not the New York Times, but at least its something!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the New York Times doesn't host press releases on its website, letting them masquerade as editorial content. I take it your comment means that next time we're debating a technical PORNBIO pass without genuine independent coverage, you'll be voting delete. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't vote too often in straight PORNBIOs at AFD, because the recent ones I've seen are like this one where the subject doesn't even have that minimal coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NACTOR. I remember his role in a DS9 episode; "I hate Ferengi" - that still cracks me up, but he just doesn't have substantial enough credits or media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see a single source showing notability, and can't find one.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While it's odd that the only reliably sourced coverage of the company seems to be about its sale, this coverage is enough to make the "keep" arguments appear to be not entirely meritless. Sandstein 07:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shopzilla

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

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

Advertisement for a non-notable webcompany. damiens.rf 20:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assertion of notability includes that it was purchased for $525 million!!!! I personally have seen the "bizrate" more frequently in practice; i think it is still actively used. It would be fine if anyone wanted to improve the article, but there's no assertion that wp:BEFORE has been performed. I think it is notable. Search also on Bizrate, anyone doing research, please. Bizrate is currently a redirect to Shopzilla. --do ncr am 02:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This bizjournals.com article is one which refers to the fact that the company sold for $525m to Scripps. Shopzilla / Bizrate is notable. And its former CEO Chuck Davis is also notable, methinks. There will plenty coverage available about both in reliable sources. --do ncr am 19:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not obviously meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) or WP:GNG. The source provided by doncram above is not about this organization, but only mentions this website. USD $525 million is a lot of money and it is really odd that this much money could move without creating a source which meets WP:RS, but without some good sourcing being identified and presented I say this article should be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, there is plenty of sourcing available on that. What an AFD is about, is not enforcing cleanup, but rather determining notability. The nom does not include any assertion of wp:BEFORE. I have simply pointed that there will exist a lot of sources, of course, given some facts like a $525 million value. --do ncr am 03:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there is no assertion of WP:BEFORE. The advertisement issue, I'm not seeing that problem, either. Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm deletion. I did WP:BEFORE. Here is a great source about the half billion. The selling of this website is news for the buyer, not for the website. This purchase was 10 years ago and there is not newer information being asserted here. Merge any salvageable content to the E. W. Scripps Company. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from association with a notable organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the New York Times reference, i added that to the Shopzilla article where it works fine as a source about the "website". Shopzilla is a company with history, far from merely being a website, and certainly not "inheriting" notability from Scripps. And, it won't work to merge it to Scripps as further news added to the article includes that Shopzilla was sold by Scripps to Symphony Technology Group for $165 million. If you don't like the source about that in the article, fine, but I am rather confident that reliable sources will exist on Shopzilla and the pretty big-sounding story that Scripps lost a ton of money related to it. Confirm my "Keep" vote. --do ncr am 15:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing the deletion problem here. Last I heard, half of a billion dollars means something. Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that this fails WP:V is compelling and has not been refuted. Sandstein 07:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

California playoff

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

Is this an actual rule? I have never heard of it, and did not find anything referencing it. Natg 19 (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the content. It's probably better merged somewhere—Overtime (gridiron football) would seem a reasonable title to cover this, the Kansas plan, the NFL overtime system, penetration, etc.—but I'm in favor of keeping the content. Further, a dead link in a reference does not mean it's unsourced. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find any sources that discuss this topic either in depth or at all, and I am therefore persuaded that the topic does not satisfy WP:GNG. The two sources that are cited in the article are, in one case, off-line or, in the other case, a dead link. The absence of coverage and sourcing issues raise concern that this might even by a hoax. Another factor that tips the balance toward a "delete" is that the article acknowledges that the purported practice is uncommon and that the common practice is the Kansas Playoff. Since even the common practice -- the Kansas Playoff -- is a redirect to Overtime (sports)#College, high-school, and Canadian football rather than a stand-alone article, the minority practice likewise should not be dealt with in a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable purported American football overtime rules. It's not that I cannot find significant coverage of these purported California overtime rules, I can't find any reference to them at all. Clear failure for lack of notability per WP:GNG. If someone else can find an official rules book that substantiates their existence, a reference can be inserted in the Overtime (sports) article, but not until their existence is verified per WP:V. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. StarM 04:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrass Heritage Museum

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could. It may be a little on the weak side, but it has been covered in enough sources to meet WP:ORG. StarM 19:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some more sources from guidebooks and newspapers. See [2][3][4]. Altamel (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources to be found with WP:BEFORE D1 were not mentioned in the nomination. For example, the ninth snippet on the first page of ten Google books states, "You know a history museum is going to be good when it is housed in a historic building that you can't wait to..." Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per all above. Thanks for your hard work. 04:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biomed 101

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

The page was flagged as unreliable and lacking reliable sources 2 years ago, since that time it hasn't improved and there isn't a clear name or structure to research to improve this as far as I can tell. The chemistds (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It exists [5] and was manufactured by Searle [6] and there is a clinical trial [7]. That's as far as I got. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to cancer.gov.clinical trials,[8] the trials are closed and the results are not posted.[9] According to the glossary at nih.gov[10] there doesn't seem to be much more to say about Biomed 101 except what's on this page already. Check the National Cancer Institute dictonary here[11] Parabolooidal (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has criteria for including topics and this article fails to meet any criteria that I know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bluerasberry and me (above). Parabolooidal (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Brick

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

Completely lacking references since inception in 2007. – S. Rich (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources - no notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, plus group is vague, members were anonymous. Articles says it was part of the 1993 Whitney Biennial but isn't listed in our Wikipedia article: List of Whitney Biennial artists. Parabolooidal (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources. Nor was I able to locate any. If the result of this discussion is a delete can the closing admin please also delete Golden brick a re-direct to the article. AlanS (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with everyone else, I can't even find a shred of evidence that this group ever even existed much less is notable. I am One of Many (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Kuo

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive claims of notability are an unsuccessful candidacy for office, and some political inside baseball that don't get him past WP:NPOL. This might have been acceptable by the standards of 2005, when it was first created, but by the standards of 2014 the sourcing isn't strong enough to put him over WP:GNG, and the claims themselves don't put him over the subject-specific inclusion rules for politicians. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 7 August 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 August 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find significant coverage per WP:GNG. Unless that can be demonstrated I believe this needs to be deleted as he fails WP:NPOL. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the above arguments. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low level party functionary, not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Clark (Canadian politician and actor)

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

WP:BLP, relying almost entirely on primary and namecheck sources with no reliable source coverage provided, of a child actor turned political candidate. Doesn't get past WP:NACTOR for the role if this is the best he can do for sourcing; doesn't get past WP:NPOL for the candidacy under any circumstances (he didn't win). Also likely WP:COI if you check the creator's username. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Full disclosure: I grew up watching Owl TV and Boneapart was my favourite. Unfortunately, I can't find any significant mentions of Clark to justify inclusion per WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qu Lan

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

Just does not feel like this person is notable enough. (I can be wrong, of course, as I am not much involved in the art field.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - The ChampionMan 1234 04:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - The ChampionMan 1234 04:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - The ChampionMan 1234 04:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search fails to yield anything.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment zh:瞿瀾 is also flagged for notability and primary source problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisashiyarouin (talk • contribs) 05:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm tempted to say the best thing to do here is merge with Bandar, which was suggested by a couple of editors, but I don't see enough support for that to declare that a consensus. On the other hand, if somebody wanted to go ahead and do that merge on their own, I don't see any reason they should feel inhibited from doing so. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bandar (port)

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

Article appears to be a dictionary entry. Prior disputed PROD. Dolescum (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page Bandar (port) was made to solve the vast number of disambiguations related to the word Bandar which means port in Persian. Any other way to solve the dab is welcome.

By creating an article identical to Bandar, which the article Bandar (disambiguation) redirects to? Dolescum (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Words-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NAD provides the exception: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject". This seems to be one of those cases, though it does seem odd to be a disambiguation page, an article and a dictionary definition all rolled into one. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know of the exception.

I had added the places that derive their names from the word Bandar so that the scope of the article expands. All of them are port cities. 7Sidz (talk) 18:20, 1 August 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 03:41, 8 August 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 ♔ 15:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like a dab or list page. However, it fails WP:Partial title match for the former and WP:SALAT for the latter. Just because there are ports with "Bandar" in their names doesn't mean they should be grouped together. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made a major overhaul of Bandar. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I like the idea of a list of city names derived from the term, but some sourcing to show this is a notable topic would be helpful. I looked to see if we have a similar list of cities founded by Alexander the Great, all I see is a list at Alexandria (disambiguation).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The content of this page seems more detailed than the content on the Bandar page, but they are effectively the same entry, and it removes the need for the disambiguation page (per Dolescum). AdventurousMe (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 15:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Priest West

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

Non-notable kickboxer does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a source to the article showing he fought for a WMC world title, which is enough to demonstrate he meets WP:KICK. No doubt the article could use some work. Papaursa (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:KICK. Jakejr (talk) 00:39, 4 August 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 03:37, 8 August 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 ♔ 15:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could use more and better sources, but he does meet WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Price to Pay

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. From Joseph Fadelle seems it's only sold 50k copies since it was published. Also seems to be true story. Article is abysmal. 2 sources out of 3 are 404's and the other one is Amazon page. No other newspaper book sections contain it. scope_creep 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator I think it's fairly obvious by now that the book and the author are notable. You can't have one without the the other, they are so intrinsically linked. scope_creep talk 20:35 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is indeed, an autobiography. I found four short reviews here, in-depth reviews here, here, here, and here,along with a podcast, though what I was really searching for was any major literary award it might have won (satisfying Criteria #2, but it does not appear to have done so. ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far I'm undecided. It helps that the podcast mentioned was part of the RNW and is currently hosted on the station's website, so I'd consider that to be a reliable source. I found a review from the New Oxford Review, which also looks to be usable. I'm kind of undecided about CatholicCulture.org and TFP. CC.org does have an editorial board and it's written by the site's president and founder, so it has that going for it. Books-reviews.co.uk looks like it'd be considered a blog-type SPS, so I wouldn't really count that towards notability. Porphyra Books doesn't look to be usable- I can't quite figure it out, but the website seems to suggest that the book is something that they are selling along with other works. (In other words, I think it's a merchant site of sorts.) In any case, the review looks like it's mostly cobbled together quotes and I can't verify that the site has any editorial oversight to speak of. As far as the reviews on the official publisher site goes, those look to be the run of the mill book blurbs that get used to drum up publicity. It's very common for publishers to seek blurbs from various respected persons, so without anything to show that these are snippets of longer reviews in various RS, we have to assume that they're just routine book blurbs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite tell if this would be a RS or not: [12] It looks like it has an editorial oversight, but I'm not familiar with the site. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 2 August 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, NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:46, 8 August 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 ♔ 14:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some reviews in French that combined with the one's Tokyogirl79 noted above push this one over the line for me: La Revue de Teheran, Valeurs Actuelles and L'Express. The citations are at French Wiki's article: fr:Le Prix à payer (livre), so I don't know whether we should/need to copy them over. Something could also be said for merging this article about the author's autobiography with the article about the author: Joseph Fadelle, inasmuch as most of the sources discuss both the book and his life together. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this book was translated into at least 6 languages; there are various references in French media and probably also in other countries. Peter17 (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Easley

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

The leagues this player has played in include the following: The 1. Regionalliga of Germany (then 3rd tier, but that was even before the introduction of the ProA and ProB leagues, so I'd consider even the 2nd tier only semi-professional), the World Basketball Association, the American Basketball Association, the State Basketball League and the Queensland Basketball League. If you see anything there that would meet WP:NHOOPS, tell me, 'cause I don't. He didn't stand out in any way individually on college level, therefore failing WP:NCOLLATH, and I can't find anything that would make him pass WP:GNG either. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:00, 8 August 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 ♔ 14:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable basketball player and only routine sports coverage. Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable minor league basketball player. Never played in a top-tier league, therefore not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NBASKETBALL, and clearly fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Joel Osteen. I agree that it's, ahem, unusual to have a user's first edit be an AfD (and a snarky one at that), but be that as it may, there seems to be a pretty clear consensus here that this upcoming show has not yet gathered the coverage required to demonstrate notability. If, as some people predict, it does get that coverage in the future, there's no reason somebody can't come along and recreate this article, with the proper citations For now, I don't think a merge is justified because the WP:CRYSTAL factor speaks against adding this material to another article no less strongly than it speaks against this article existing at the current time.. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Osteen Radio

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

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball future stations should not be included unless they have some notability which in this case it does not and besides that who is Joel Osteen? Nobody that's who. XaiverHuntman (talk) 19:05, 8 August 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 August 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Joel Osteen is an extremely prominent televangelist and there are plenty of news sources about this recently announced Sirius XM channel that will feature "live call-in shows hosted by Osteen and his wife, fellow Lakewood pastor Victoria Osteen, along with rebroadcasts of his past sermons." E.g. [13][14][15]. Nevertheless, at this point it's not obvious that we need a new article for this, or whether this content should simply be included in the existing bio article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm gonna be lenient and say Keep till 2015 - If after that there's no improvement in sources I suggest Renomming, I personally see no point in merging or deleting as it'll no doubt be created again and again. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As was stated by User:Arxiloxos Joel Osteen is a prominent televangelist and preacher. He is also Senior Pastor of one of the largest churches in the United States, further SiriusXM Satellite Radio is a major radio network that is available throughout North America, so its not like this is a little dinky radio station. I also have to question the nominator whose account is just 12 hours old and came out of the gate with their first edit being an AfD which seems suspicious. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – without a definite launch date this is just WP:CRYSTAL, and the many sources stating the guy will have a show are more appropriate for his biography itself. However, I sympathise somewhat with the argument of Davey2010, which is not technically correct but is something I have espoused before.

As to ~~Gene93k~~ TheGoofyGolfer: there's no need to question the nominator's integrity. He has made other edits which appear to be in good faith. My 20th ever edit was an AfD nom (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Only Exception: The Musical) made within 2 hours of my first edit. Indeed, to be able to make it was one of the reasons I registered, after having contributed in a minor cleanup / anti vandalism capacity as an IP. Would you have thought me suspicious? BethNaught (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-sign to correct the ping. Sorry Gene93k! BethNaught (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. While Joel Osteen's notability is unquestioned, notability is not inherited and that's especially true for subjects that do not yet exist. Without significant coverage by reliable third-party sources, there's no way for this article to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 14:59, 12 August 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, TheGoofyGolfer TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - Upcoming? Let it come first and let's see the public reaction. If it earns notability we will make an article then. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Joel Osteen. Put it right under the section on books. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, so Joel Osteen's notability as a person does not automatically transfer to every individual thing he puts his name on — and WP:NMEDIA does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on a satellite radio station (and especially not on one that hasn't actually launched yet — things can change, so just because this is planned doesn't mean it's actually going to happen.) Rather, a Wikipedia article about a satellite radio station lives and dies on the quality of sources that can be added which are specifically about the satellite radio station in its own right. Redirect to Joel Osteen's main article for now; if and when the station actually launches and actual reliable sources about it can be added to get it past NMEDIA on its own steam, then it will warrant its own separate article. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically speaking SiriusXM has already launched the channel, they're just running a looped promo audio message right now but the station is there. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nerilie Abram

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

I prodded this but the prod tag was removed without any reason given. My concern is that I don't believe that she meets WP:NACADEMICS. She doesn't seem to have made a impact as required by #1, she has always been part of a team doing research Gbawden (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the prod after expanding the article, adding additional sourcing from the Canberra Times, on her involvemnt with Climate change which the article states her research is in direct conflict with the Australian Prime Minister. Additional source http://www.sostariffe.it/news/lantartide-ruba-le-piogge-australiane-116737/ in an Italian newspaper also about climate change in Antarctica show she meets WP:Notability.. Gnan garra 15:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I can understand why this article was nominated because it read like a short CV of a junior academic. However, Abram's recent research has been reported in multiple news sources, which suggests she's having a wider impact. Sionk (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMICS. However, a number of news sources do name her as a lead researcher in a study into climate change. That established Notability. AlanS (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An untenured junior academic not yet passing WP:PROF, with an h-index of 15. There is very limited news coverage -- not enough for WP:GNG. And she does not seem to be a "lead researcher" -- being "lead author" on a few papers is not quite the same thing. -- 101.117.90.101 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first author on some very highly cited papers. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep various additional information and sources added to profile, demonstrating suitability for article to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icytimes (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Blaize

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

Non notable martial artist. Article's only source is not independent and my search found no significant independent reliable coverage. Also found nothing that supports a claim he meets WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep AlanS PROD'd the article but this was declined because the entries under Media covered the references. I agree with that. It remains weak because I believe there should be more references in the article. High rank itself does not make one notable but being the first non-Japanese 7th Dan in Aikido would. Now I will admit to being a bit soft on Aikido so take my opinion as you would.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added three further references but they are not inline.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to see some good independent coverage from a source different than the Aikido Journal. It would also help if the claim of being the first non-Japanese 7th dan was documented. Papaursa (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Article lacks enough good sources and the only claim of notability (first non-Japanese 7th dan) has no support.Mdtemp (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Being interviewed in the Aikido Journal and a brief listing giving his rank are not enough to convince me he meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Most promising claim of notability is not supported. I have no objection to this article being userfied and brought back when a better case for notability can be made. Papaursa (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Michig (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Richards

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Article about a young footballer who fails the football-specific notability guideline because he's never played senior international football or appeared in a fully professional league (note that the Conference Premier isn't fully pro), and I can't find evidence of enough media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. This remains valid. Struway2 (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which also concern young players who have never played at fully professional or senior international level, and appear to fail the general notability guideline:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - none have played at a fully-professional level thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. No significant media coverage to pass WP:GNG either. 13:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete all - every single one fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The Conference isn't a fully professional league. IJA (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see comments above. AAA3AAA (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SuperConsciousness Magazine

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

Fails WP:PERIODICAL. jps (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Subject is utterly non-notable. Article is little more than a piece of PROFRINGE SPAM. Sources fail RS. A Google yielded nothing but promotional hits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this could be a CSD:A7 candidate since the article gives absolutely zero indication of the notability of this subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of note here. Sailmfhadley: Magazines are not eligible under A7 (unfortunately...). --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fringy spam, should been cleaned up years ago. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nonsense. --Seduisant (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Flatly fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 19:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above me - Not one ounce of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Speedy Close per WP:SNOWBALL. Normally I am not a fan of short-cutting due process in AfD, but this would seem to be a case where the verdict is in and it's not going to change. I think there is a clear, probably unanimous, consensus that in a sane world this article should have been a speedy delete. No need to drag things out just to see how many more Delete !votes we can rack up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously fails to meet WP:GNG. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced and unsourceable fringe spam. Nothing worth saving or merging. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin close) --Finngall ^talk 15:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Christian College

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG due to a lack significant coverage independent of the subject. Suggest redirect to Kingston, Tasmania. AlanS (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wait a moment would you? The article was only just made and you've already nominated it for deletion. I've already expanded it and further referenced since you made this nomination, references you could've found with a quick google. JTdale ^Talk 12:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see those references when I googled. I'll withdraw my nomination. AlanS (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per last comment. AlanS (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being understanding and giving me a chance to improve. Going to keep expanding it as I can. Sorry if I sounded rude. JTdale ^Talk 12:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I don't know why those links didn't come up when I did a search. AlanS (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Mason Scott

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

Subject is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Subject Fails WP:BLPNOTE Cult of Green (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. Has not had significant roles in "multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Further more there is a distinct lack of any in depth significant "multiple published secondary sources" about the subject. AlanS (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage to show that he is notable enough for an article at this point in time. None of the roles seems to have been substantial enough to have garnered him coverage and his upcoming film is equally non-notable at this point in time. As I have a very strong suspicion that this was made by a friend of Scott's, I'd like to ask that you not take this personally. Notability guidelines are very, very strict on Wikipedia and this doesn't mean that he isn't or couldn't be a good actor or that the upcoming film may not make it big. It's just that he fails notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Along with the reasons given above, at the moment, the article fails #4 and #5 of WP:PROMO. Should this person the criteria for inclusion down the road the article can always be resurrected. MarnetteD|Talk 15:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Music Education Software

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

This article is totally unreferenced. There is no inclusion criteria. By choosing to compare some software, and not the other, author makes advertisement, contrary to WP:SPAM. Article is also contrary to WP:IINFO as the article contains "long and sprawling lists of statistics, but does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". Vanjagenije (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanjagenije, hoping I can fix this. Also hoping I'm posting correctly on this article. I'll try to answer all your issues individually

This article is totally unreferenced & WP:IINFO as the article contains "long and sprawling lists...

When I created this page, I used the article Comparison of audio player software as a template, hoping that by following it's structure, I would be creating this article correctly. Both articles give a yes/no feature list that doesn't have references for each yes/no. I also tried to include as much details as possible. My comparison charts are much smaller than the audio player comparison one.

There is no inclusion criteria. By choosing to compare some software, and not the other, author makes advertisement, contrary to WP:SPAM.

I plan to keep adding other programs/software. I'm still researching all these products in detail, which takes time. I'm adding them as I go. I plan to include ALL music education software. Just will take some time. I also am not trying to make advertisement for any of them, just a detailed comparison of all of them.

Thanks!

Sthayne23 (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lack of refs is not a reason to delete (except BLPs) and assuming this is spam is imply ABF. Claiming that it is long and sprawling and at the same time misses a lot out seems odd. Certainly the nom is free to add their favourite (or least favourite) software. Inclusion criteria would be nice, but again lack thereof is not a reason for deletion. Very much a WP:sofixit nomination. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

Keep and improve. While concerns about the article are warranted, everything seems fixable, and comparison of music education software is a legitimate topic. GregorB (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Rich said, a lack of references isn't a reason to delete this article. Instead, the article should be kept and improved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid topic, does not appear to be an advertisement for anything. Looks like the capitalization issue has been fixed by a move. — Gwalla | Talk 22:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Antonella Gambotto-Burke#Bibliography. Consensus is that the notability of the book has not been established. Sandstein 07:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mouth (book)

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

Not sure of its notability. Looks more like a Link Farm. (Of course my main concern is not that but the notability of the book.) The only source provided is the author's webpage. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Gccwang (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antonella_Gambotto-Burke#Bibliography. I can't see where there's anything out there that specifically covers the anthology itself. Some places like Amazon, just list random endorsements for Gambotto-Burke, but not any actual reviews for MOUTH. I'd recommend redirecting it to her article, as it's a valid enough search term. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earliz

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

Software product without significant secondary coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Can't seem to find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This software is mostly used in Europa. His ranking on Alexa shows it has a fair ranking in France and Spain: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/earliz.com. There was recent press coverage in US and France:

- Olivierhory (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Alexa stats don't contribute to notability, and your links lack depth of coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you need much independant sources, I can suggest the following ones that are not linked to a press release:

- Olivierhory (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These lack depth as well. Two of them barely provide trivial mention, one is about company (which is not the subject of the article), and the last one briefly reiterates author's description without providing any details that would allow to conclude that the articles were written by people who actually saw the software itself. We did not get closer to passing WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:54, 1 August 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, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:54, 6 August 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 ♔ 07:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not coming up with sufficient evidence to show this product meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gongshow talk 16:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONDEER

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

I do not understand what this article is about. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand what the talk that is current sole reference for this article is about? WP:CIR. Please, feel free to watch it or read the linked articles and improve the article. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current page content:

COMMONDEER is NSA tech for commandeering (See pwn) untargeted <sic> computer systems. It is considered tyrannicall by Jacob Appelbaum. ^[1]

^ Error:No page id specified on YouTube

*Keep for now, for the reasons best expressed at WP:CHANCE, without prejudice to renominating for deletion in the very near future. The article was only up for 20 minutes before the AFD request. If it still looked like this after a week, or even a couple days, I'd have !voted "delete", but this is too soon. From what I can find, it doesn't pass WP:GNG, but I think more than 20 minutes is warranted. TJRC (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It may have been misspelled in Jacob Appelbaum's slide. COMMENDEER is the spelling at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/31/nsa_weapons_catalogue_promises_pwnage_at_the_speed_of_light/ Also, nothing turns up under the "(Find sources:" links at the top of this section. They didn't find this; it was the first hit when I googled "QUANTUMNATION NSA COMMENDEER" and it uses the 'COMMANDEER' spelling (variant 3). --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is there any wp:significant coverage in those sources? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Expanded sources. Requested move.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me some examples of significant coverage in reliable sources? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions are (youtu.be/pbgYx5fJjj8) bot-like. RTFA. What part of "Expanded sources. " and "Please, feel free to watch it or read the linked articles" do you not understand?--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 15:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did read the two articles, and I didn't find any significant coverage. They just mention this subject in passing. And the George Harrison song (youtu.be/pbgYx5fJjj8) does not help either. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a dictionary definition and not appropriate for WP,--Rpclod (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—per WP:CHANCE. No prejudice against a later AfD or transwikification. Basically, what TJRC said. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:39, 8 August 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 ♔ 07:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

>>>I didn't find any significant coverage". Holy shit. Competence is required. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 03:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd been a "Keep", earlier, based on WP:CHANCE. At that time, the article has been AFDed after only 20 minutes, and I noted "If it still looked like this after a week, or even a couple days, I'd have !voted 'delete'". At this point, because of the relisting, it's been two weeks, and there really isn't any substantial improvement indicating that it passes GNG.

Both non-video references are mere passing mentions in news stories, not indications of notability. The Register article mentions it in a single phrase in part of one sentence "For computers and networks that have firewalls and other security systems in place, the NSA uses QUANTUMNATION, a tool that will scan defenses using software dubbed VALIDATOR to find an exploitable hole, and then use it to seize control using code dubbed COMMENDEER." The dailytech blog entry says only "Then there's QUANTUMNATION, which includes memory-injection style software attack tools VALIDATOR and COMMANDEER", then spends another couple of sentences characterizing those two tools, without detail. The video itself is a ~60-second segment (at about 27:50) discussing one half-line item on one slide of a presentation, without substantial detail; certainly no more detail than in the other two sources.

Since WP:CHANCE no longer applies, and the article still, in my judgment, does not meet GNG after two weeks, I'm changing to Delete. TJRC (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to another article about similar NSA tools or programs. As it currently stands, the two non-primary sources cited in the article only mention the software briefly in passing, which means it fails WP:N. Sandstein 08:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—After quite a bit of googling, there's just not enough in the way of secondary sources to warrant an article. Changing from keep to delete. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of timer applications

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

Unsourced list of non-notable (smartphone?) software applications. it seems to consist entirely of original research. - Mr X 22:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per Wikipedia:CHANCE, you should wait at least week to see if there are sources to prove this article has notability. Frmorrison (talk) 13:54, 8 August 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 ♔ 07:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as unsourced OR. The title says it all. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jakkrit Tipkanok

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

Not notable, autobiography. » nafSadh did say 22:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one of the rarer cases of Thai people at AfD where the person clearly does not meet the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely not notable. Search fails to find enough significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for multiple reasons: blatant promotion, poor prose, and last but not least he is not notable. BethNaught (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promo bollox that serves no purpose here. –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is not this discussion closed yet! --» nafSadh did say 15:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fitness Educational Institutions in South Africa

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 30 July 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 03:04, 7 August 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 ♔ 05:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LINKFARM. None of the entries on the list show any sign of being notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper above - Not one of those links are internally linked and that's because they're all not notable, Pointless article imho. –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Mint

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

Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Also makes no claim of notability. PROD contested by an IP without providing reason. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this recently launched website is ultimately notable enough to merit an entry at this point in time. Maybe it will eventually, but for right now this is just too soon. I have no issue with it being userfied, but I think that it will likely be a very, very long time until it passes as it can take years for websites to gain the amount of necessary coverage- if they ever do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 6 August 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, Tawker (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glidos

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

Unreferenced article about a software some guy wrote once. damiens.rf 17:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 19:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nominator. This article is referenced to nothing but the software's home page, and I can't find anything more. Reyk _YO! 08:53, 13 August 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 ♔ 05:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough secondary source coverage (?) to warrant an article on this topic. It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search, and there are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 06:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Ketchum

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

Notability very doubtful : Noyster (talk), 06:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 12:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 12:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 12:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as media figure who crosses the verifiability threshold but for whom notability is not established. Article appears to be a coatrack to hang the paragraph about his recent accusations and retractions about college football players. - Dravecky (talk) 13:20, 11 August 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 ♔ 05:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, in layman's words, this guy exists but is not notable. Delete it then; I agree with you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Missionary Position (band). (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alex

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Probably worth redirecting to band's article if found non-notable in own right. Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Missionary Position (band) per WP:MUSIC. No indication from the article or a Google search that this person has established notability independent of the group. Gongshow talk 16:14, 2 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 12:50, 7 August 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 ♔ 05:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per Gongshow. Not notable. BethNaught (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Heavily edited and sources added by Tokyogirl79; any remaining notability concerns should be put forth in a new nomination. Sandstein 07:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City of Lost Souls (Mortal Instruments)

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

Dominated by plot summary, no references given. Can't find coverage in non-trivial sources to meet WP:NBOOK. No awards, motion pictures, or use for instruction. Delete, since this topic fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 1 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell me stuff) @ 12:48, 7 August 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 ♔ 05:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book's plot section needs some major rewriting and I think I might just nuke it to a smaller summary based off the book plate. However that said, I was able to find quite a bit of coverage for the book. It's a little surprising, given that most outlets stop reviewing later books in longer running series (law of diminishing returns, I guess) but the end result is that the book has received enough to pass WP:NBOOK. Mind you, it did take quite a bit of digging since these were fairly heavily buried under the ton of merchant, fan, and junk hits that popped up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Borioni

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

Fails WP:ENT. Has not had any significant roles in "multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". AlanS (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the basic part of Wikipedia:Notability, multiple nontrivial articles. Vanity Fair; TGCOM24; [16]; [17]; Series of articles ... --GRuban (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GRuban.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:06, 13 August 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 ♔ 05:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to meet WP:GNG if not WP:ENT. I don't speak Italian so I can't vouch for the sources outside of what Google Translate gives me, but there seems to be coverage there. Not loads of coverage, mind you, but just enough I think to meet the basic notability criteria for an article. - Aoidh (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I know a bit about the acrtress concerned. Good referencing in movie catalogue books as well.

(Boss Reality (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Bentley (businessman)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources", [18]. The only reference for this whole article is about a publication of the subject's company and I doubt the company would even pass WP:CORP. AlanS (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's had significant coverage in journalism reviews such as the King's Journalism Review and Ryerson Review of Journalism -- published by two of Canada's top journalism schools. He's also received coverage from the University of Wisconsin's Center for Journalism Ethics. I also uncovered a profile of him by Steven Kimber, a respected journalist and professor of journalism. And there's a case study from Columbia's journalism school which discusses Bentley extensively. He's also gained attention running for the school board in Halifax (not enough for WP:GNG on its own, but combined with everything else it shows notability). The article needs work, but AfD is not cleanup. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:08, 7 August 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 ♔ 05:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with User:Tchaliburton above. I added an update and reference to the Columbia Journalism School to the page as well.Verne Equinox (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the evidence and analysis provided by Tchaliburton.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Volya

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 17:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, on the basis my rudimentary knowledge of Russian makes searching for sources slow and difficult. But his marriage, for example, was reported in the Russian media and a search of the 7 Days newspaper archives shows coverage about him going back to 2008 (limits of their online archive?). This leads me to believe there will be other sources that exist in Russian and it would have been better to have made a thorough search for these before nominating for AfD. The English article seems to be a translation of Воля, Павел Алексеевич, which at least has some sources. Sionk (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - it does appear that this person is somewhat notable, but the page is a WP:BLP disaster. If it stays, it's going to have nothing on it if somebody doesn't put in some references. I can't do it, I don't understand Russian at all. XeroxKleenex (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 7 August 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 ♔ 04:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zuhal Topal

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 17:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to satisfy WP:ENT, I added a reference to small Avrupa Avrupa article showing her, it appears to be a notable show and she appears to have a major role, but I can't read Turkish and Google Translate leaves something to be desired. XeroxKleenex (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She does satisfy WP:ENT. Topal is quite famous TV personality in Turkey and Balkan regionTimsah13 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 7 August 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 ♔ 04:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Timsah: Most sources I looked up at Turkish sources refer to some "frikik". Does she have anything to do with football or with Mehmet Topal? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer : Frikik can be traslated as 'clevage' in turkish urban language so it refers to her breasts :) Timsah13 (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without prejudice to a later redirect e.g. to a list of similar items. Sandstein 07:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

74 Cancri

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

Per http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1987JHA....18..209W&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf , this star does not exist. Without a Flamsteed designation, the star clearly fails WP:NASTRO.StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: whether the article is kept or nor (I leave that to those who, unlike me, actually know the subject), a scientific term that appears in numerous catalogs should redirect somewhere even if it can be shown not to exist. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps all the nonexistent stars listed in that article (and other ones like them, if any) should be listed at (and redirect to) article Hypothetical star#Specific stars. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I could find, this is the only one that is actually nonexistant that has an article on Wikipedia. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then redirecting 74 Cancri there is still worthwhile—lists do not have to be exhaustive. Or, someone knowledgeable should create an article about spurious stars, where 74 Cancri et al. (to be created as fellow redirects) can redirect. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One possible source: [19] (one of the sources mentioned in the article cited by the nominator). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of whether it's the same star as the supposedly-nonexistent Flamsteed one, SIMBAD does return some results for HD 78347. But I'm not seeing the in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would pass WP:NASTRO. The five hits I get all are studies of thousands of stars rather than anything specific to this one or to a small set of stars that includes this one. I don't think a merge to Hypothetical star is warranted because there is no reason to single this one out over the many other ones with similar situations. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 7 August 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 ♔ 04:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem notable so far. AAA3AAA (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meets Wikipedia:NASTRO Criteria 1. Object noted in 1887: [20] (an also in prior Catalogs) but later lost or misplaced due to error. Perhaps a new catalog of lost stars should be created to include this one plus 80 Herculis, 81 Herculis, 56 Cancri, 19 Persei, 108 Poscium, 73 Cancri, 74 Cancri, 8 Hydrae, 26 Cancri, 62 Orionis, 71 Hercules, 19 Comae Berenices and 34 Comae Berenices: see also Gore, John Ellard (1907). Astronomical Essays Historical and Descriptive. Chatto & Windus. - Kyle^(talk) 07:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Ghazaryan

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

Fails WP:GNG, no in-depth secondary sources, just a couple of university links for his department, and IMDB links confirming that he was listed as a producer for some films. McGeddon (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof with a GS h-index of 5. WP:GNG dubious also. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 7 August 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 ♔ 04:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails our professor test.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:PROF or GNG. The fact that this article was created by a user called "Anahit webpr" doesn't help. Cowlibob (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The gold medal is unsourced and its significance is unclear. There is no other evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Google Translate "Дyбoтанець" says it means "complete hoax"... or at least it should do. Shirt58 (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubotanets

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

Hoax . No such dance. -No.Altenmann >t 04:30, 15 August 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 August 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a band called Duba-Tanets, but that is not a "folk dance" by any means. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Euvaldo Lodi Institute of Rio de Janeiro

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

advertising The Banner talk 21:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state the obvious) @ 12:46, 7 August 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 ♔ 04:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Center of Rio de Janeiro

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

advertising. The Banner talk 21:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 12:46, 7 August 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 ♔ 04:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Industrial Training Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro

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

advertising The Banner talk 21:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 12:46, 7 August 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 ♔ 04:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York,_2010#District_14. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Brumberg

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

An unsuccessful 2010 congressional candidate, with no other indicated basis for notability. This article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Brumberg on July 10, 2010; evidently it was then re-created nine days later and escaped further AfD review until an editor spotted and prodded it after 4 years. As an alternative to deletion, we might redirect this to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010 or another suitable target, but given that this has already been deleted once, AfD seems like the right place to go. Arxiloxos (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (redirect would also be acceptable). WP:NPOL does not confer notability on unelected candidates for office, and while this looks better-sourced on the surface than most campaign brochures for unelected candidates, closer examination reveals that a lot of the sources are primary ones — so he can't claim the WP:GNG loophole either. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. A redirect is a usual outcome for failed candidates for federal office. Enos733 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syrenia

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

Unable to find sources for this Kickstarter-based film which would show that it meets our general notability guideline. Not a case of NFF since it's said to have entered principle photography. I have separately nominated the debut filmmaker here, Fraser Grut. Additional sources welcome, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Actually Joe, for projects confirmed as being filmed but not yet released we DO indeed look to WP:NFF to see if production has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. This one does not, so we have a fail as being TOO SOON. Let it come back when we get the requisite coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I simply meant that we were past the phase where "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography ..." would have applied. I misspoke, thanks for the correction. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're good. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested the author copy the article into their Sandbox before it is deleted. NealeFamily (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Grut

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this still-to-debut filmmaker. Largely sourced to IMDB (see WP:RS/IMDB). Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being TOO SOON. Grut has created two short films and this stands as his feature debut. BUt he does nothave the requisite coverage (yet) to meet WP:BIO. If or when this changes, the article can return. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. personally I think that major party candidates for national positions should be considered notable, but the consensus has never agreed with me. I close according to the clear consensus on this one. DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Graham

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

OK, this article has a super complicated history. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwen Graham was closed as Delete in March 2013. It was apparently restored after a WP:DRV claim (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 October), but unfortunately, that claim stipulated that the article had been improperly speedily deleted, which is not the case. So, technically, this should be a WP:CSD#G6 deletion for housekeeping, but with the complicated history, it will require fairly extensive review by an admin. Even if the DRV restoration is valid (which I doubt), the person still doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. The only sources I can find for Graham are related to her congressional candidacy. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see, examining the history more closely, that the original AFD'ed article was deleted on 5 March 2013, and a subsequently recreated article was speedily deleted (WP:CSD#A7) on 23 October 2013, only to be restored per WP:DRV on 24 October 2013. The argument at DRV at the time was that politicians running for office have a "credible assertion of notability sufficient to avoid an A7 deletion". However, as a recreation of a deleted article, this article was likely eligible for WP:CSD#G4 at the time of its recreation. In any case, I don't believe anything has changed in the situation (this person has not subsequently actually won any election, they are simply running yet another campaign), so I don't think the conclusion of the first AFD should be overturned. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An unelected candidate does not qualify for an article on Wikipedia just for being an unelected candidate; if she wasn't already notable enough for an article for other things before she became a candidate, then under WP:NPOL she does not become notable enough for an article until she wins election to a notable office. This article, however, does not make any substantive claim that she passes that condition — it's effectively nothing more than a campaign brochure, which per WP:NOTADVERTISING is exactly what politicians, elected or not, are not allowed to have on here. No prejudice against recreation in the fall if she wins the seat, but right now she's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of article is not notable.CFredkin (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates for office are generally not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lassy Bouity

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

Non-notable author. Had been rightly tagged for an A7 speedy, but tag was removed by an "independent" editor who curiously contested the deletion on the article talk page using approximately the same text as the original author did. --Finngall ^talk 02:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable autobiography by a sock of User:Pointe-Noire Information, indef blocked for copyvios. Note Lassy Bouity is the CEO of Pointe-Noire Information. Strongly suspected it is a one-man band and Mr. Bouity is doing an autobio for self advertisement. Original Lassy Bouity article was deleted. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete, A7/G11, or barring that just delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable. A Google search of the subject doesn't show significant coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With Prejudice. See my Additional Information section below for a detailed explanation of why. Tynkyr (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information on Lassy Bouity

I know nothing about this subject but I went digging out of sheer curiosity to see if there was anything WP:Notable on this guy. What I found makes the integrity of this author seriously questionable. Specifically, I found an easily provable and blatant case of intentional self-plagiarism. Combined with the information provided by Alexf above it seems that any article on this person is not likely to ever have WP:reliable sources if his only significant endeavor is his books (see my "Bottom Line" comment below for why). Here is what I found...

First, I discovered that this person has two other searchable names. I thought that maybe we might be looking in the wrong place for his notability?

One name is an alternate spelling of his name -- see here, here

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

The M'Bouity name is also connected (see here) to the name "Grace Herval" (maybe a possible co-author?) which I could find nothing on at all.

The other name is an American nom de plume -- see here

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

After digging through ALL of these search links I found something quite disturbing...

From an excerpt of his French language book "François Hollande Revives African Youth" ("François Hollande Réveille la Jeunesse Africaine") I found this quote:

"I became aware of the problem of youth in Africa on the occasion of the speech of the President of the French Republic, François Hollande, before the Senegalese National Assembly on 12 October 2012"

This same quote is also found on his own website www.lassybouity.com/bibliographie (Google translated).

From an excerpt of his American book "Barack Obama Revives African Youth" I found this quote:

"I became aware about the problem of young Africans on the occasion of the United States President’s speech, Barack Obama in South Africa, June 2013."

Both books use nearly identical titles, both the same cover art, and both are published by Point-Noire Information[21] (which is run by Mr. Bouity). These two statements are obviously in conflict as the same "awareness" could not have occurred in two different places on two different dates. Each book title and quote seems to attempt to exploit a connection to the president of the country where the book is published. I could be wrong but I suspect that a comparison of the Obama vs Hollande books would show additional self-plagiarism.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Commercial book companies and respectable academic journals will not publish an author who re-uses his writings for multiple works as this undermines their business. Universities will discipline any student who is found guilty of self-plagiarism with the same severity as they would for ordinary plagiarism. With the above evidence of self-plagiarism it is unlikely this author will ever have WP:reliable sources unless he does something notable unrelated to his writing. Tynkyr (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edmundo Alarcon

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

To me this article appears to just be one big promotional puff-piece that fails WP:GNG. The subject has been quoted in a newspaper article about Mormons, has worked as a guide for Disney, and has had a very minor role in a film. I removed some of the extreme cases of puffery from the article, but it's still problematic. Some of the included references have been posts by the subject in website comment threads and the like. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry I tagged this for CSD about the same time you AfD'd it Gbawden (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's alright—I considered doing that as well but given the length of the article, I thought the creator might appreciate a full discussion on it. I have no objection to a speedy deletion, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom - nothing in there is notable Gbawden (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see the page creator deleted the AfD tag. Possible COI as the user is ‎FabianaAlarcon2000 Gbawden (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should be speedy deleted, this is a backup incase it is not. Op47 (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient evidence of notability. -- The Anome (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - No notability. Reads like a resume. AlanS (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's certainly been around, but I can't see anything that merits a place in an encyclopaedia. What is there is seems puffed up to seem important, and doesn't even seem important then. Peridon (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete changing my vote to delete per other rationales and after looking into it further. There's not much to the LA Times article and the others don't cover him in any useful detail. ~~and improve. The LA Times articles seems to cover him in detail. The article itself is junk and needs to be stubbed and rewritten but he seems to satisfy GNG.~~ Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & SALT — I tried to cleanup the article but after getting part way into it, especially after evaluating the supposed refs, and looking on the internet for additional ones to support the claims being made, I found that there was no way that the subject of this article could currently met the notability requirements for biographies of living people, and was contemplating doing the AfD nomination myself. The LA Times article is the only real coverage of this person, and it is really trivial: there was nothing special said about Alarcon, and no indication that he is important or notable is found in that article. The whole point of the article was that he was just one of thousands-upon-thousands of other missionaries that are churned thru the LDS Missionary Training Center.

I suggest wp:SALT because this article is already the fifth iteration (fourth recreation) of an article on this subject, as the other four were speedy'd (see these notifications), and the editor(s) interested in adding this article have demonstrated both a persistence in recreating it, and (so far) a lack of understanding of WP guidelines and criteria. Any attempt of recreating this article should be required to go thru either a formal deletion review or a formal AfC submission. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally:

If the The Australian had mentioned a surname, and not just the given name, it might be usable, but there is no reasonable way at this time to connect the "Edmundo" mentioned in that article with Alarcon
The jimhillmedia.com mention of an "Edmundo" without a surname also cannot reasonably be connected to Alarcon
There is also no reasonable way to connect the "Edmundo Alarcon" mentioned in the 1974 Ensign article, as that relationship is not otherwise currently established in a reliable source, and I couldn't find any reliably referenced connection when I looked for one. Also notability is not inherited.
The calodges.org ref that Alarcon became a Fellow Craft does support part of Freemason claims, but doesn't support Alarcon's overall notability
The wrestling claims are not reasonably supported, but should be the easiest to do so out of all of the other claims, as any significant form of wrestling is highly promoted and publicised. An attempt was made with the YouTube video, but that is not a usable source, nor does it help establish notability, but it could be used as an External Link
The guestofaguest.com photo gallery is not a usable source, nor does it help establish notibility, but it could be used as an External Link.
Being documented in IMDb as "Thug #4" in Bullet (2014 film) doesn't help support notability; it's just a single walk-on role (also known as a bit part), and while it likely was exciting to Alarcon, his family & friends, it's really no big deal as far as movie roles go.

Summary: there are no existing references on the article that substantiates any degree of notability, notoriety, or fame. I wish this young man well, and hope that in the future he will have that opportunity (if he wishes), but it's just not anywhere close to being there right now. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 16:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent move to draftspace & back to articlespace, I'd suggest SALTing Draft:Edmundo Alarcon too. -- ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 19:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the subject is notable enough for an article then it would be best to start fresh rather than use this overly promotional writing as a basis. Chillum 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to meeting Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - in an apparent bid to save the article, JulieAnnMoore2000 (talk · contribs) has moved the article to draft:Edmundo Alarcon. I do not feel this is appropriate while the AfD is active, and ask that an admin both undo this move and warn the user. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 18:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I undid the move. I still would like to have an admin consider warning/sanctioning user:JulieAnnMoore2000. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 18:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and has far too much Citation needed to suggest it would be adequately sourced even if he was notable. —Frosty ☃ 00:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being interviewed in an LA Times article, and appearing in a very minor role in a film does not make someone notable. Nothing else that has been in the article even comes vaguely close to that. Part of me wonders if this article is a result of people ignoring the policy to not create articles on themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we delete this per WP:SNOW? Op47 (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per discussion above. AAA3AAA (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:BIODEL Wifione ^Message 18:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Aiello

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 1 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 12:47, 7 August 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 ♔ 02:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 2 relists 0 comments, treating as uncontested ProD Tawker (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Jaghinyan

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage; the given sources simply confirm that the films he produced exist, and that he is one of hundreds of members of the International Academy of Radio and Television. McGeddon (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 7 August 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 ♔ 02:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phone connector (audio). Philg88 ^♦talk 08:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Audiojack

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

No indication this entity meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability. Pink Bull 15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 7 August 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 ♔ 02:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Audio jack~~ Phone connector (audio) as this could be used as an alternative spelling for it. –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose that idea except to note that audio jack redirects to Phone connector (audio).--Pink Bull 01:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted :) Thanks for noticing the error :), –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wohlsifer

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

Yet another campaign brochure for an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election, with no claim of notability that gets him over WP:NPOL and relying almost entirely on his own website — an invalid primary source — for referencing. I'm certainly willing to consider withdrawing this if enough reliable source referencing can be added to get him over WP:GNG, but he's not entitled to keep an article on Wikipedia just because his name is on a ballot. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added other sources to the aspects of the page outside of his political website. I don't know if they are sufficient, but they are among the best that can be found through searching. As he is a third-party candidate, coverage isn't as robust. Will continue to search and add, unless of course the decision is made. Ghal416 (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates for AG are not notable. No other real claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand the point of notability, but such a thing seems like a Catch 22 in that if you aren't as referenced by enough media sources or such, then you don't pass muster. However, again, many of those within a third-party identity don't usually get such coverage, even if they have had involvement in the community. In this particular case, he has been involved to the point of getting involved in the political process/writing legislation. That's more noteworthy than that of the average person from this site or of the general public. And he is covered by independent sources outside of his personal political website, which I searched for and added to the page (still looking in fact). I think it shouldn't be deleted, but it is what it is. Ghal416 (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having a Wikipedia article is not something that anybody is entitled to just because they exist. So your "Catch 22" really isn't one — because by the very nature of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, it's exactly the point of having notability guidelines to distinguish who gets a Wikipedia article and who doesn't in the first place — otherwise, we'd have to accept every single person on earth posting their résumés, and then we'd just be LinkedIn. Our rules for politicians are that a person must win the election, or already have enough notability prior to being a candidate (e.g. as an actor, as a writer, etc.) to get past our inclusion standards for that field of endeavour, to qualify for an article on here — a person is not entitled to an article just for the mere fact of being a candidate in an election, and does not qualify for one on the basis of routine local coverage of the candidacy itself except very occasionally in extreme circumstances such as the international media firestorm that engulfed Christine O'Donnell. And that's true regardless of what party a person is associated with — nobody associated with any party, be it the Democrats, the Republicans, the Libertarians or the Monty Python Silly Party, automatically gets the right to have an article on here just for the mere fact of being on a ballot. We are not, and will not become, a repository of campaign brochures for aspiring candidates — that's what Project Vote Smart is for, not what Wikipedia is for. And none of the sources you added improve the case, as every last one of them is still either a primary source or purely routine local coverage of the campaign itself — none of it demonstrates that he's passed the extremely high Christine O'Donnell bar necessary for a candidate to be notable just for being a candidate, and none of it demonstrates that he was already notable for anything else before he became a candidate either. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - A fair point Bear, again I just tend to believe that while notability is a good spectrum to have, it can also be taken to exclude individuals as well if it is perceived that they don't have "acceptable coverage", which can be debatable. By the way, I'm not sure if it was a typo but you said that some of the sources I had added were primary sources...isn't that acceptable? In any case, no need for the emphases or..the Cristine O'Donnell references haha...for I am just learning as I go along. Unlike yourself, I am still new to the complete processes here at Wikipedia. I didn't add this to make waves, just to expand knowledge, no more no less. If it is by the opinion of yourself and others that this page is not acceptable material, then perhaps it should just be a redirect so that anyone typing in Mr. Wohlsifer's name in the search bar will be directed to the 2014 Florida Attorney General election that he is on the ballot for. No hard feelings. Ghal416 (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per reasons given above. AAA3AAA (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone finds reliable sources, come right back to me and I'll help recreate the beast (the article) Wifione ^Message 18:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vorota beast

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

I found no reliable sources for this and the only reference is an unreliable source. This is likely a hoax. SL93 (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may well have been a hoax, but I am not the one who spawned it. --Auric talk 23:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [22] is unreliable as it appears to be self published. Source used [23] is itself based of a single reference to a 1966 publication, "The Leviathans" which is also of dubious reliability. Does anyone actually have access to the original Russian publication to see if it matches? The amount of coverage seems to be limited to these three possible sources only so it's not particularly notable, Second Quantization (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reports of a mysterious living dinosaur are WP:REDFLAG and need multiple independent sources. I can find none. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Roberts (fighter)

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not come close to meeting WP:MMANOT. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. Fails WP:GNG since the coverage is just routine. Jakejr (talk) 04:34, 8 August 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 00:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has no top tier fights so he doesn't meet WP:NMMA and coverage of him is just routine sports reporting so he also fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:NMMA. A Google turned up the usual WP:RUNOFTHEMILL coverage but nothing that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere Men (comic)

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

Does this comic haven longstanding notability? Only 6 issues were published in 2012/3 - nothing indicates what makes them notable. Gbawden (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 August 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 00:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I expanded it a lot and added a few refs; it definitely meets WP:GNG. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also added some info and a few refs. Notable amongst other matters because it was nominated for four Eisner Awards (of which one nomination was "shared", in that it was a nomination of someone for work on multiple titles including but not limited to Nowhere Men); the shared nomination also resulted in an actual award. Quite a few sources to be found, including interviews with Stephenson in relation to Nowhere Men; news articles; reviews; etc. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on added sources and other improvements in the article. Subject meets GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has been moved to Nowhere Men (comics). (Though as there is very little known as Nowhere Men, it really should be at Nowhere Men. Had been holding off moving it because of this AfD; however, someone else did not. Will refrain from moving it to non-disambiguated page until the AfD's been closed) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw my nomination - since nominating it the article has been vastly improved Gbawden (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 18:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Villalobo Ferrer

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

Non-notable painter who won some non-notable awards. damiens.rf 17:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 August 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 00:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a plausible argument for notability in the article based on WP:CREATIVE. Unfortunately the two sources are both dead links and I was unable to dig up enough on Google to ring the notability bell or verify any of the claims in the article. Am willing to reconsider if decent sources can be found. Until then however, this article fails WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give You What You Like (Avril Lavigne song)

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

Article about a song which was apparently claimed on Twitter back in March as a forthcoming single from her most recent album, but (a) the "reference" links to the relevant tweets both failwhale, and (b) five months later there's still no evidence of a release date for the purported single. Furthermore, all of the other "references" here are to passing mentions of the song's title in coverage of the album, not coverage of the song qua song, or to coverage of Lavigne in which the song isn't even mentioned at all. Which means there's no valid claim to passing WP:NSONGS here yet. No prejudice against recreation in the future if the song actually gets released as a single, but this sourcing ain't good enough for it to already qualify. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: People who edited that page obviously do not know how to use the {{cite web}} template, and this song is not notable at all. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 03:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 19:59, 7 August 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 00:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a promotional mess. The cited sources (as noted above, they are a disaster) generally do not meet the standard expected for establishing notability. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 18:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plantation Water Polo Cub

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

Tagged for notability, there is nothing in this article that makes this club stand out. WP:NOTDIRECTORY Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 August 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 00:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure how local newspapers count for reliablity, but the second source is nothing more than a list of water polo clubs in the United States. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If not for the single article in the local paper this would be a slam dunk A-7 CSD. However one article in the local paper does not confer encyclopedic notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything to indicate notability of the club (or 'cub'). --Michig (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Akbar (designer)

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

Doesn't appear to met WP:Notability (people). I may be struggling to see notability because of the advert-style tone set by WP:SPA creator, but I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 1 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 12:47, 7 August 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 00:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly promotional article about a photographer. Subject would seem to fail WP:ARTIST and WP:BASIC. Of the cited sources only the first meets the standards expected when assessing notability for BLPs. Unfortunately one good source is not enough. A Google search was challenging due to the apparently common nature of the name, but did not yield anything that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very borderline notability at best, and clearly promotion. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hritu Dudani

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. She has just a few television serials to her credit. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell me stuff) @ 16:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 16:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is too short and on that it fails NACTOR. CutestPenguin (Talk) 15:01, 9 August 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 00:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability/RS concerns, no further discussion after relist. Tawker (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signaltrader forex trading system

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

No reliable sources. Google News search returns no hits [24], nor does Google Books search [25]. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Vanjagenije (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even the first google result for 'signaltrader forex', and definitely no indication that it is notable. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 August 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 00:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 18:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compos Mentis (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD nom is ridiculous, sources found do not go into depth and are not reliable. Fails WP:BAND JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state the obvious) @ 19:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 19:55, 7 August 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 00:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and unsourced. Take the album with it too.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The band's website contains links to available coverage and it all seems to be in metal webzines. No coverage found in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Toparovsky

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

Non-notable artist. damiens.rf 17:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 August 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 00:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ran the databases and the only two mentions I could find were [26] and [27]: not enough secondary source significant coverage to sustain a full article. Please ping me if reliable non-English sources are unearthed. czar ♔ 07:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak sourcing and no significant coverage. BaseballChue (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If he indeed participated in all these exhibitions (it is not clear whether they were personal or group exhibitions) he is notable beyond any doubt.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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]