Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 March	4 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Explainer

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

Non-notable band lacking independent non-trivial coverage. reddogsix (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has minimal coverage in reliable sources. Punknews.org is a reliable source for staff reviews. Not completely sure, but I think this article may also be a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 19 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough, says an album is about to released, I checked the website of the record company, but no mention of it. Move to userspace until the album and some notable national press he been provided. Karst 15:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here rings the notability bell. The voluminous sources all fail WP:RS. A Google turned up nothing that would support a case for WP:N. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, at least. An argument could be made that coverage on two punk music websites counts shows notability, but that's setting the bar too low. Overall seems to fail WP:Notability (music). TheBlueCanoe 07:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alright, consensus looks like I was feeling too generous when I voted to keep on just one or two sources. I'm willing to admit that the band's notability is questionable enough to strike my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya Pandit

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

Does not seem to meet notability requirements (WP:BIO, WP:GNG). The first reference (indoscopy) doesn't look like a mainstream published source and many not be RS. The second is OK, but I don't think it's enough. Searching [1] doesn't show anything else much, apart from copies of the same 1-off comment piece. Also I think WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE should err on the side of caution when it comes to children. 2.123.67.6 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment completing nomination for IP user. Mangoe (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please Google his name! He is considered genius my Indian media as compared to his age! Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 07:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People are not notable for just being precocious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:08, 20 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I've removed the "first source" mentioned above because it was Blogger-hosted content. Worse, it was merely repeating what the news sources said. Worse still, the news sources are merely repeating what each other say, almost akin to a press release (although one does say his IQ might be 150 whereas another says it might be 130). The family are seeking donations and that seems to be the impetus behind all this. If he really is a notable child prodigy then he'll do something notable over an extended period of time, not just as a one-day news effort. The article can always be recreated if that is shown at some point in the future. Having a Wikipedia article on a 5-year old one-hit wonder is a lot of pressure to put on a kid. So, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, WP:PROMO, WP:RS ... I could go on. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changed from delete to keep. I'm weak on it but take on board the comments below. - Sitush (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep His "memory power" has made him well known in North India and his interaction with film actor Amitabh Bachchan in KBC show has made him popular, but after that first burst of activities, the boy seems become silent. Now, the article is re-organised, less puffery and with due respects to User:Sitush, problems about WP:RS,WP:Promo are now attended. But it may not pass WP:NOTNEWS and even then I feel the topic/article merits a weak keep. And of course, it may put pressure on the boy, which pressure he already sustained with numerous TV shows aired in India, just to display his "memory power"! - Rayabhari (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The newly added sources seem to meet RS and GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to my last comment. The article still needs a lot of work and I think is still way too promotional. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include:

Hindustan Times
The Tribune
Zee News (Video)
The Hindu (Short article, but entirely about the subject)
The Times of India (Short article, but entirely about the subject)

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vladine Biosse

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A google search of the guy turned up a heck of a lot about him. A lot of work needs to be done to the article to demonstrate notability, but it does appear the guy has a reasonable presence in the boxing world.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google did indeed turn up tons of hits. But they were pretty much all promotional or affiliated sites such as boxing news with short blurbs about scheduled fights. None really meet WP:RS and nothing here rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and I don't see the significant independent sources required to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous delete voters--he fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dickinson family (cartographers)

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

No evidence of notability. PROD was removed by article creator who has subsequently been blocked as the puppet of banned member. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable: I would expect to be able to find more online if this family was notable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Bill

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

Most of the sources are not RS; cannot find replacement sources that would assert notability. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the sources do indeed fail RS. The article fails to make any claims that satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. Although clearly a talented athlete, there is nothing here that rings the notability bell for our purposes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From a footablling pov fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league or senior international team. Also fails WP:NCOLLATH for the reasons noted above and there do not seem to be sufficient reliable ources or volume of non-routine coverage to satisfy WP:NHSPHSATH either. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable college athlete. Giant Snowman 13:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH and all other notability requirements.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azadiye Stadium

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

The stadium with this name doesn't exist. no source for that Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was tough finding much on this in English but from I can gather this was indeed a project that never came to pass. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - proposed stadium that was never built. No indication of notability. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of projects never get off the ground and are non-notable; this is one of them. Giant Snowman 13:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - the nomination was withdrawn with no contrary opinions. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bicol Regional Science High School

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

I do not see enough sources to show that this highschool is notable in my article research. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on Filipino schools. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Whispering Wind is correct about our customary treatment of high schools. And in this case, it appears that this is not only a bona fide high school but a reasonably prestigious one. Some sources from the national papers are found at HighBeam Research, such as [2][3][4][5][6] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep High schools are wp:notable, and the source is sufficient to establish this as a high school. Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep At the risk of piling on, there is clear evidence the school exists. And as noted above high schools have gained presumptive notability. I don't agree with that, but there it is all the same. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regardless of whatever coverage the school got (and there's a lot of them), high schools are automatically notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. High schools that are verifiable have significant precedent as qualifying for a Wikipedia article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary schools are kept by long-established precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I withdraw my nom for deletion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Bhatia

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

Tagged for notability, but the main problem is that this WP:BLP has never had any sources, and the BLP Prod tag was removed without fixing that. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources cited for this BLP. A quick Google did not turn up anything that would pass WP:RS and there is no evidence of notability. The article appears to be WP:PROMO by a WP:SPA. On a side note, maybe I need new spectacles but I did not see any indication a BLP-PROD was put up or removed in the edit history. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Chief Guest of the Event, Swati Bhatia, November 2013 , EUCRASIA 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardiaries (talk • contribs) 15:21, 6 March 2014
Delete - no sources have been identified that approach the level of reliability and coverage described by WP:BASIC. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please dont delete the article... i have attached the following print material on Swati Bhatia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardiaries (talk • contribs) 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys i understand that my article Swati Bhatia was coded in AFD bcoz of the poor source but now i have collected the reliable sources to show her notability in the Indian Society. She is not an ordinary person plz try to understand in India we may not have the same notability criteria as in other part of the world but the major sourses are the Newspapers, official websites of the organization and of-course youtube.. kindly look into this matter with more open view. She is really working on the social awareness topics to help the society, i guess i can only do is to highlight her work to the public. plz help me improve the article with your expert advice. i am also thankful to VQuakr who guided me a lot... i am very new to wiki and learning a lot daily just bcoz of u all.. thanks a lot.. kindly approve the references and remove AFD tag form my article.. thanks

References

Swati Bhatia Rawat visit to sironj.^[1]
Swati Bhatia (स्वाति भाटिया रावत) on Danik Bhaskar 2013.^[2]
Swati Bhatia chief guest of the event EUCRASIA 2013.^[3]
Swati Bhatia Rawat program.^[4]
Swati Bhatia yatedo.^[5]

External Links

Swati Bhatia rawat visit to sironj Swati Bhatia on Youtube
Swati Bhatia (स्वाति भाटिया रावत) on Danik Bhaskar 2013
Swati Bhatia chief guest of the event EUCRASIA 2013
Swati Bhatia program, 14 August 2013
The Chief Guest of the Event, Swati Bhatia, November 2013
Swati Bhatia yatedo

Comment. I have slightly edited the AfD to fix a formatting error introduced by high-level sections. I have also moved a comment out of the header and to the body. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional in tone, reads more like a fan page than an encylopaedia article, sources are trivial or primary. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before writing about the celebrities from India , i first read few articles for the references of-course from the Indian Film & Television fraternity.. i would like to reply to Guy.. who simply called my article "Fan Page" and recommended for deletion without undergoing the work and the acceptance of my subject in the Society.. I am doing more research and will only write too personal things when i have the proof to show it publicly. Wiki talk users kindly understand that India is a country of its culture and tradition... and if wiki is meant for all the kind of community then my article has all the evidence... few of my references are in the National Language Hindi so may be you people got confused by the still photograph on the news-article.. but let me explain that in the article its written about her work and her contribution towards society which is not the fan page but the information of her work.. if we will follow one mind set then we can never understand the new things happening in this world and may be a day will come when wiki or xyz will be working only for some people and community.. thanks,, i am not rude but i feel sad that when i am doing so much of research to give a new thing to the public then why cant we indulge in the discussion with more research and knowledge??.. Swati Bhatia (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in a global encyclopedia. The listed sources do not make noteworthy reasons to use her, some just mention her in passing. I applaud what she's done in her life, but not enough in the WikiWorld. — Wylie pedia 12:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neville Brody. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Research Studios

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

No sources listed on page beyond firm's own webpage. Couldn't find anything online about firm itself - references, if any, are about firm's founder Neville Brody. mikeman67 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neville Brody - redirects are cheap, and I'm not seeing much to indicate that a standalone article is necessary. All mentions of the firm found in reliable sources are brief and focus more on Brody anyway. Gong show 00:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability and no sources that would pass RS. There is nothing worth merging and a redirect seems a bit of a stretch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find a couple of mentions of the firm but they are in the context of "Neville Brody and ..."; insufficient evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability in its own right, and there is better coverage in the Brody article (though unreferenced). AllyD (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No evidence of standalone notability, but it's a plausible search term.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Wimbledon–Milton Keynes Dons F.C. rivalry

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

PROD contested by IP who stated "worth at least an AfD." Original PROD rationale was "What rivalry? Only one match played; no evidence of notability, not covered in significant detail by reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:GNG" which remains valid. Giant Snowman 18:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree that it fails GNG, this is a topic that has been heavily discussed in reliable sources like this one (and even in Norwegian sources). So far it's only been one match, so it might be more concise to rename the article to reflect that. This topic is however already covered in another article, Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes, and I believe the whole section "Legacy" is about their rivalry. As this article is a stub with two-three sentances and it duplicates an existing topic and doesn't expand upon that existing article, it can in my opinion be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A10, unless the title is a plausible redirect. This is a notable topic, but we don't need a WP:SPINOFF-article with two-three sentances, so if it isn't speedy deleted and we don't need the redirect, the article should be deleted until a decent spin-off article can be created. Mentoz (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - their one meeting to date was a highly-charged one to be sure, but it takes more than that to constitute a "rivalry" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes. I agree with the above comments that it doesn't need a separate article and is adequately covered in the other article. Redirection is a judgment call - it's not a very obvious search term, but equally the redirect target may not be very obvious if readers have to go looking for it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per above. Will almost certainly become a rivalry in time, but they need much more than one meeting to suggest that there is a genuine sporting rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – per nom, ChrisTheDude, Colapeninsula and Fenix down. The article on the relocation is enough, at least for the foreseeable future. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks to Giant Snowman for leaving a notice on the talk page of the IP that contested it (me), very courteous. On the actual AfD, it's an interesting one -- technically it does meet GNG in my opinion, as it has received significant coverage in multiple independent sources (see "MK Dons v AFC Wimbledon: more than just a game", The Telegraph, "We are Wimbledon! Fans stake claim for 'real Dons' tag during FA Cup grudge match", Daily Mail, "AFC Wimbledon have no right to claim trophies, insists MK Dons chief", Daily Mail, "MK Dons v AFC Wimbledon: Clubs asked to show restraint by FA", BBC, "AFC Wimbledon fans find FA Cup tie at MK Dons too hard to stomach", The Guardian, "Don't kiss the badge! Cops crack down before Wimbledon vs MK Dons grudge match", Daily Mirror, etc.) But I can understand the point of some of the others above, it does feel a bit naff to have an article about a rivalry when only one game has been played and sometimes common sense should prevail over a literal reading of the guidelines, so I won't be voting keep myself. If the article is not kept, it should at the least be redirected to Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes. Sure, it's a cumbersome title, but redirects are cheap and it will still show as a drop down when people search "AFC Wimbledon...". 121.219.235.134 (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the minute this is a case of an one-off event, with no evidence that this is a significant, notable rivalry. Redirecting is probably the best solution. Giant Snowman 13:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Edwards (celebrity talent executive)

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

No indication this person meets WP:GNG. All mentions I have found are just passing mentions in articles about some of his clients. John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - Yesterday I removed all the info added from IMDb and other self-published sources, and then went looking for some reliable sources. It was slim pickings. He seems to be friends with some big stars, yet barely anything has been published about him. We're even having trouble finding his birthplace. The threshold of notability doesn't seem to have been crossed. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The biographical information added by User:HtownCat has enhanced Brian Edwards' notability as "an important figure", per WP:ARTIST. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak keep. Glad I could help a little. I still think the article is borderline, but has potential, so I will agree with you and cast my vote. HtownCat (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concur re: sources and difficulty establishing notability. This was a public relations blurb when I found it; if it's kept we'll need eyes on it to protect it from zealous COI accounts. JNW (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the references included establish notability (only incidental mentions at best) and I couldn't find anything reliable online that isn't self-promotion/PR releases. mikeman67 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K7L (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NotabilityCombatWombat42 (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see enough in the article or outside it to suggest the subject meets our inclusion guidelines. Stalwart111 10:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability. There is nothing here that is not self-sourced nor anything notable.Jacona (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a decent article using Wayback Machine. I'll add info from it and see if it helps. HtownCat (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call his autobiography particularly helpful in establishing notability. John from Idegon (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Space Penguins of Tuscumbia

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

No reliable sources for this obscure 1960s UFO encounter (which was initially speedied as a hoax), just a WP:SPS monster blog from a couple of years ago and a brief entry in a paranormal database. McGeddon (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources included are highly unreliable, and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Obscure UFO encounter claims don't merit a page. mikeman67 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete. Mikeman67@: You dont seem to know the difference between a reliable and unreliable source. You have to CHECK the source before evaluating it´s reliability. So i would say your voice doesnt count here --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

~~DONT DELETE.~~ Hello, there are no reasons to delete this article. I found at least 2 reliable sources which dont refer to each other, so they are 2 different sources. The americanmonsters.com author Rob Morphy seems to be an expert in UFO incidents and cryptids. His articles are neutral and their main purpose is to inform the readers, not to entertain them. The case is even mentioned by a highly reliable museum site proving that the "Space Penguins" arent just an invention of Rob Morphy and it is also mentioned in the second source (which is a database). Actually Morphy´s publication is based on newspaper reports. I will try to find some more sources, but even the 3 ones i have already found justify the existence of this article. --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~DONT DELETE.~~ Another site mentioning the case: http://ufoupdateslist.com/1997/may/m02-004.shtml --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~DONT DELETE.~~ Finally ! Here is a very good source. Its taken from a journal. Read it and you will understand that a deletion doesnt make any sense. Look at page 18 (or 19), you will see Edwards´ sketch and the description of the incident ! http://www.theblackvault.com/encyclopedia/documents/MUFON/Journals/2005/November_2005.pdf --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found for this obscure UFO story. Americanmonsters.com, ufoupdateslist.com, theblackvault.com are fringe sites and don't meet our criteria for reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched, I really did. However the thing is that there just isn't any coverage in places that Wikipedia could consider to be reliable. There's a distinct lack of coverage even in the fringe sites and while it's not like we can use those as a RS anyway, it's kind of telling that even the fringe sites and outlets don't really seem to find any of this particularly noteworthy. Other than a very small handful of people, nobody is talking about this anywhere. I can't even find enough to where I'd suggest even merging a one line sentence into the main page for the village. Even Weird U.S., which tends to cover stuff like this, has sort of just shrugged its shoulders and moved on to cover other things. This is about as non-notable of an alien incident as you can get. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn't even come close to meeting WP:RS since MUFON is a WP:FRINGE publication. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find coverage in sources that Wikipedia would deem reliable, so there's no way it meets Wikipedia's standard for a subject having a stand-alone article. Its not "bias", it just flat out doesn't meet the requirements. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting troll and responses. Nothing to see here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sergecross73@: I can list here hundreds of Wikipedia articles whose sources are even worse than the 3 i have already found. And whatever you say: Either your opinion is biased or you arent a qualified Wikipedia author. Dont waste your time by posting your personal opinion. The sources are reliable and i see no reason to delete this article --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles being in worth shape just means they should probably be deleted too. Feel free to list them for deletion. But that's not a valid reason to keep this article. Also, please stop writing everything in bold, and stop accusing everyone of being biased. If you haven't noticed, its not working, no one agrees with you. Your energy would be much better spent in trying to find some better sources. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super strong delete sourcing inadequate. Looks like a WP:HOAX. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another run-of-the-mill UFO story, entirely lacking coverage in the sort of mainstream sources which would make it notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. And SpongebobLawyerPants should note that repeating the same statement multiple times achieves nothing whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easiest decision I've made all week. Get rid of the poorly sourced nonsense. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being blatantly non-notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles about cryptids such as Nessie, the yeti and bigfoot are about subjects that are dubious in many ways, but which have achieved wide coverage. These critters (that picture looks more like a meerkat than a penguin to me) have not achieved wide coverage. Especially not in reliable independent sources WP:RS. The farmer may well have seen something. Unfortunately, there is only his word for it (and a researcher seeing a hole in the ground). Even this is not reported (so far as we are aware) in reliable sources. This is an encyclopaedia. Subjects must be reliably referenced. I don't think this can be referenced in any sort of source as only one person is reported to have seen the incident, and there is no evidence to support this - except the hole, and holes on farms are not unknown. Peridon (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this is a hoax, it's the notability that we must decide on. The Cottingley fairies turned out to be a hoax - but they are notable. Peridon (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sourced to fringe science websites, nothing reputable or notable. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. And even if it could be sourced it's not exactly Whitley Strieber, is it? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not because it's fringe, of course it is, but because none of the sources seem to assert any sort of significance or notability. (Scientific, pop-culture, media coverage, or anything.) An article in the MUFON newsletter, on its own, doesn't really establish notability. APL (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mz7 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Lover

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

Can't find any reliable sources for this unsourced BLP. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2.--Laun chba ller 21:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His involvement in Yo! MTV Raps and Who's the Man? satisfies WP:ENT, and while much of his notability is tied to frequent co-host/collaborator Doctor Dré (and vice versa), there is enough coverage on Ed individually (e.g., [7][8][9][10][11]; the latter calling him a "hip-hop icon") such that having an article on him is more sensible than deletion. Gong show 00:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage of this TV celeb. The article could use better sourcing. — Gwalla | Talk 18:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability guidelines. However, the article seems to be just about completely unsourced. Needs immediate attention. Bali88 (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Douglas (footballer)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was included in a bundled AfD in the past - Liam Patton... JMHamo (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, has not played in a fully professional league or senior international team. No indication that any other achievements have garnered sufficient significant and reliable coverage to pass GNG.
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see a few routine mentions in newspaper reports of games, but that's it, nothing substantial. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mz7 (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Hall

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

WP:BLURB, WP:PROMO, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS. It is a nice building I am sure but this is a house owned by a university in north alabama and it *could* be made a good article but currently it is just a blurb out of their PR department and so it should go until someone can make a NPOV, RS, article about it. Si Trew (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Agree with SimonTrew - no secondary sources cited at all, and I can't find anything online either. Fails WP:GNG. mikeman67 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most large buildings constructed in 1855 and still standing would be considered notable, even in Europe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was no way that the nominator could have known before now, but the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I've now added that information and two supporting references. Altairisfar (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well spotted. I checked the register, but since it is one of the most user-unfriendly databases known to man, I couldn't find it as Rogers Hall! Note to the NPS: free text searches are a really good idea! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing my vote here to keep after Altairisfar pointed out it's on the National Register of Historic Places. Personally I'm not convinced that being listed guarantees notability (the notability requirements for the National Register may be very different than Wikipedia's, so I don't see why we should adopt theirs), but I can see the building had some significant events occurring in the past that sufficiently meet WP:GNG, including the camping of Union and Confederate troops on its grounds https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/74000415_text. mikeman67 (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the article is now properly sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which has higher standards for inclusion than we do for notability, and it also has a whole lot of coverage in reliable sources. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mz7 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snap (web framework)

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

No independent references to establish notability. Verging on promotional, with the statement that "Snap aims to be the de facto web toolkit for Haskell" and unsupported claims such as "A fast HTTP server library" (compared to what?) and "A sensible and clean monad for web programming". The article was undeleted after a PROD deletion as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Snap_.28web_framework.29 AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew - According to Gregory Collins in 2011, ~~Snap~~ Haskell (my bad) was 40x-50x faster than Ruby on a per-cpu basis at the time.[12] That would make it hundreds of times faster on a multicore processor since Haskell supports multicore parallelism. Snap has been sped up since then too, along with its competitor Yesod. Here is a 2011-era benchmark comparing Snap, Warp (the http server part of Yesod), PHP, and others. Notice that PHP (which powers the Wikimedia servers) is way down near the bottom of that chart, to get an idea of the speeds being discussed. The AOSA book has a chapter about Warp[13] saying Warp was on a par with nginx, and that was before the implementation of Mio, the parallel GHC I/O manager which made Warp and Snap even faster. I'm not sure Snap's speed ever reached parity with Yesod but it's in the same ballpark, and both of them are drastically (orders of magnitude) faster than the "mainstream" PHP, Rails, Django, etc. So it is perfectly reasonable in the context of web frameworks to say that Snap is fast. People tend to choose between Snap, Yesod, and Happstack (the three main Haskell web frameworks) based on API preference rather than raw speed, since all are bloody fast compared to most other stuff out there (except maybe Node, which gets its speed by being very primitive). 70.36.142.114 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable in that it's the first result in google for "haskell web framework". An independent book has been written about it and is being sold: http://snapforbeginners.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.79.35 (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Searching for "snap haskell" returns about half a million hits, and there's the above mentioned book. All that makes it notable enough; however, some toning down of the article is required. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Snap is notable for being the first [14] [15] Haskell web server to employ the now popular enumerator/iteratee model for processing HTTP requests and generated responses. LukeHoersten (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice amount of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Though the article could be better, the topic appears notable. This is one of the main web frameworks that have been coded in Haskell. We already have articles on Yesod (web framework) and Happstack. Yesod is probably in the lead since it is covered by an O'Reilly book, but the other two appear serious as well. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The non-notability claim is clearly refuted by references to a published book, an IEEE journal article, and numerous web articles. In fact, it's hard to imagine how this page could have ever been considered for deletion. But I think it was just an honest mistake - apparently the quality of the article was previously very low. There is nothing like the threat of deletion to inspire editors to clean up a badly written article. StormWillLaugh (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the book was only mentioned here, it wasn't referenced in the article. OK, added reference. StormWillLaugh (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to those who have contributed to this discussion. In view of the extra information that's been given here and added to the article, I'm happy to let the article go to what looks like an overwhelming keep. However, I do think it needs some improvement, as it still comes across as rather promotional in the "Overview" section; and there are a lot of inline external links that should be changed to references, per point 2 of Wikipedia:EXTLINK#Important_points_to_remember. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behlot

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

Fails WP:GNG. It is one of thousands of Indian clans but there are no reliable sources that discuss it. There is a list entry in one book source but that is about it. Sitush (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 21:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 21:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 21:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a non notable tribe/clan. Only finds passing mention that too in few reliable sources. -- SMS ^Talk 21:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, This clan is a sub clan of 2nd biggest caste in Pakistan. The caste has an overall population estimated more than 80 million. They are spread across Central and South Asia. Behlot clan is currently divided between India and Pakistan with no communication links left. This listing of the clan on Wikipedia can help many scattered distant relatives to connect again. It is already admitted that one book reference is found. There are a lot of other online references as well. Is it more reliable if someone prints that on a paper instead of publishing on a website? This might not be a significant clan in India but in Pakistan they have a whole village on their name (http://www.geographic.org/geographic_names/name.php?uni=-3840227&fid=4620&c=pakistan).

I think that you are misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. Your link above does not verify your claim that the village is named after the community. And the citations added here merely verify that a community using the Behlot name exists. We need sources that discuss the clan and for statements such as "is a sub clan of 2nd biggest caste in Pakistan". Otherwise, it is just another last name and not remotely encyclopaedic. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any reliable source in order to establish notability of the subject. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. KDS4444^Talk 16:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 someone wants it userfied just post a request on my talk page. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy in Iraq

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

This page is basically an essay. Politics of Iraq is a sufficient place to discuss Iraqi political history. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an article on the history of democracy in what is now Iraq would probably be a neat thing to have, but this is an opinion essay and not an encyclopædia article. To write that article, we'd need to basically start over. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete this needs to be started over. Secret ^account 05:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already have articles with Politics of Iraq and History of Iraq that cover topic. Really not sure if it makes sense to have "Democracy in Asia" template also (perhaps best left to simple government page which would provide more context). mikeman67 (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for now. I have no problems with the concept of this article, but it needs a lot more editing work to clarify its scope and for inline citations. On the other hand, it is not so awful as to be destroyed. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Notable, great scope. But it should be re-written. OccultZone (Talk) 10:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 K. G. George#Filmography. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vyamoham

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

Non-notable film. Cannot find anything but trivial mentions of the film in reference to the director and composer BOVINEBOY2008 15:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stub that Fails WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err... this topic is not unsourcable. Considering difficulties inherent in souring pre-1990 Indian films, and after two relistings, the last AFd closed just 2 days ago.[16] So pardon me BOVINEBOY... this is maybe a tad too soon to re-nomminate? I suggest that a redirect to its notable director K. G. George might serve the project far better than would deletion. Userfy in the meantime to whomever may wish to work on it. Allow undeletion and return when this film topic is improved. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the previous AFD was closed with no prejudice against speedy nomination. This is a speedy renomination; there should not be prejudice against it. Wieno (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering article got no debate at all (rather than simply failing to reach consensus), and was nominated by another user, I take no issue with relisting. Also, fact that it is difficult or impossible to find sources isn't a reason for keeping article. Will gladly reconsider if someone can find any sources at all, but right now there's nothing supporting keeping it, per WP:MOVIE. mikeman67 (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the previous nominator, I still believe that this doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. If anyone can find any sources, I'm open to changing my mind, but I couldn't (though there's the language barrier to consider). Wieno (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without prejudice to director K. G. George#Filmography. As the film's existence is not in question nor is their doubt that it is one by a notable director, in our not having coverage of this pre-1990 Indian film, under WP:BOLD a redirect to the filmmaker would have been a better solution and less time-consuming than speedy renomination. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to "keep". I would like to note though that references to sites like Youtube and IMDB as of this revision were either copyright violations (Youtube showing TV shows) or unreliable. De728631 (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claudiu Teohari

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

There isn't a bit of evidence this individual might be encyclopedically notable. Let's look at the "sources". Actually, in the interests of sanity, let's exclude the YouTube videos, the Facebook page and "BloguLuTeo". So we have:

IMDb entry, which proves nothing
Dead link
Blog post
Video of one of his shows
Passing mention in an article on Sorin Ovidiu Vântu
Passing mention in a blog post about Pablo Francisco
Press release about the same Pablo Francisco show
Yet another press release on the same show
Blog post
Two posts from the same blog
Three news releases on a TV show of his

Clearly, the level of coverage on this individual comes nowhere near the bar set by WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not just the level of coverage that determines inclusion. You can have a half dozen lengthy articles in the local paper about your grandmother because she won the pie bake contest a couple years in a row at the county fair. That doesn't equal WP:N though. And sources aside there is nothing asserted in this article that rings the notability bell. The appropriate standard here is WP:Entertainer and the subject just doesn't come close. As for those extensive sources, most fail WP:RS rather badly. The few that don't are trivial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Changing vote based on added sources, discussion by cutkiller and further discussion involving Mikeman67. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
Link isn't dead, works fine, maybe it's your Internet connection?
Iqool.ro is not a blog it's a weekly student magazine. http://maimplic.ucoz.ro/news/internship_de_trei_luni_la_revista_studenteasca_iqool/2013-07-16-55
[17] Voyo.ro is the largest video-on-demand service in Romania, I think having a stand up special featured on there might establish that he's a notable individual.
[18] Again, the fact that he was the host of a weekly show on one of Romania's biggest television networks at the time, might establish him as notable.
Not a blog, weekly local publication in Târgu Mureș
Kamikaze posts is a prestigious national Romanian satire publication. Nowhere near a blog.

I've added sources including interviews on Antena 3, Gândul, a number of press releases from Hotnews.ro, Mediafax and Adevărul, all major Romanian press institutions. As Romanian press has come to be close to non-existent, finding reliable sources is getting harder and harder and I think being mentioned by four mainstream Romanian media outlets and interviewed in other two, qualifies him as notable. The Facebook page is only there as his website, the YouTube videos to source some of the subjects he usually discusses and the "BloguluTeo" link is to establish Doug Stanhope and George Carlin as influences on his comedy style, as he considers them to be. Not one of those links was there to establish him as a notable individual.cutkiller (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that student newspapers rarely confer or confirm notability for our purposes, and press releases virtually never do. Peridon (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far it does not seem notable. Does not pass WP:Entertainer or WP:GNG with what is shown. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[19]:[20] Added another two comedy specials on voyo.ro, wouldn't being featured in three comedy programs on Romania's largest on-demand video platform (Romanian version of Netflix) qualify him as having had "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."? As he's not a professional actor, and television programs in Romania have no interest in stand-up comedy, wouldn't live stand-up stage performances (especially as distributed by a major media and entertainment conglomerate such as Central European Media Enterprises, which ones Voyo) qualify him as notable, as it happens with a lot of American stand-up comedians? - cutkiller (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
[21] - 74 minute interview in Adevărul in late 2013. Major romanian newspaper.
Third and and fourth voyo special in which he's been featured either as a performer or host.
[22] Interview for Gândul, one of the largest newspapers and media outlets in Romania, with prestigous Romanian journalist Lucian Mândruță.
[23] Interview for Antena 3, the largest news televison in Romania and a local CNN affiliate. - cutkiller (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Amount of sources right now (including many from youtube) appear to be a WP:MASK. None of the links provided before establish requirements of WP:ENT. As mentioned before, press releases do not establish notability. If there were some articles posted that covered subject I could reconsider, but couldn't find anything personally. mikeman67 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. After further comments from cutkiller, I'm no longer convinced he doesn't meet GNG. It does appear he has coverage in major newspapers, and some of his work has been featured on a Romanian video site. However, it isn't clear to me if the news sites have Teohari as their subject, or Sector 7, or if the coverage is substantial enough. I'd like to see more Romanian speakers weigh in, if possible. mikeman67 (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the comment in question referred to this interview and this one. I confess I lacked the patience to watch until the end, but from what I saw, in the first video, the subject opined on the topic of Freemasonry in Romania and the (small, in his view) degree of influence it wields over the country. In the second, he appeared alongside another comedian, and both opined on the stand-up profession before veering to other topics. This is all well and good, but appearing in television interviews does not establish notability. The interviews aren't even quotable (as far as I could tell), and you'll note the article as it stands does not attempt to quote them - the appear as part of a long series of footnotes in the lead section. WP:MASK comes to mind. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize that. There's also that link on Adevarul though that looks like some coverage. What about the videos on voyo.ro? Would that not be enough to meet WP:ENTERTAINER #1? mikeman67 (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adevărul: to some extent, there is usable material at that link, but given that Teohari was interviewed alongside one of his colleagues from the stand-up group Sector 7, given that the text is mainly about Sector 7, and finally given that Sector 7 is (I would say) notable, that would best be used at... Sector 7 (comedy act).

My problem with the voyo links is three-fold. 1) Does video on demand, as opposed to conventional television, meet the WP:ENT criteria? 2) Is it enough to link directly to the company that created the videos? Shouldn't we expect there to be independent third-party coverage of his participation in the shows? 3) Even given 1 and 2, note the wording: "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". We definitely would need independent verification that his roles are significant and that the productions in which he appeared are notable. I know cutkiller has told us how important voyo is, but we really should get some concrete evidence for that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1)If Bad Samaritans or Hemlock Grove, released only as a video on demand series by Netflix, are notable, I think that establishes the fact that video on demand could also meet WP:ENT criteria. 2) I've added a link to an interview with fellow comedian Andrei Ciobanu, where he mentions his own special with voyo.ro and also Teohari's special with the same streaming service. Romania is never going to have press outlets specializing in local internet-streaming programming and major publications are just not interested in comedy specials, at least for now. I don't think that makes Romanian stand-up comedy or Teohari not notable. 3)He's a featured performer in the stand-up special and a presenter and occasional improv performer in the improv specials. I think that establishes the fact that his roles are notable. Not sure about how "important" voyo is. Should I include articles about voyo being the largest video on demand streaming platform in Romania right now and it being owned by Central European Media Enterprises in an article about Claudiu Teohari? Would the fact that the Youtube series he's hosting ([[24]]) gets over 100,000 views on almost every episode qualify him as having "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."? (WP:Ent) cutkiller ^Talk 02:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Bad Samaritans appears non-notable - I note the lack of sources, while Hemlock Grove is; but this veers into WP:WAX territory. The question, I suppose, is whether Teohari's shows pass WP:WEBCRIT, and I see no evidence they do.
2) The link helps establish that Sector 7 is notable, but that's about it. The rest is speculation: there may well be notable Romanian stand-up comedians, but that doesn't mean their notability can't be proven by the usual way. In fact the notability criteria we have are the only ones for determining whether an article gets kept. Plus, we are talking about Romania, a country with a very active press and Internet, not some undeveloped, low-literacy country in the heart of Africa where a significant comedian really might have trouble establishing notability via the Internet.
3) No, material about voyo doesn't belong in Teohari's biography, but if voyo is that significant, should it too not have an article? And as for YouTube, see WP:BIG for that.
4) In sum, we keep getting a lot of trivia thrown at us, but nothing can hide the fact that at this point, we are dealing with a vanity biography, not one of an individual whose notability is clear through the criteria specified at WP:ENT or WP:BIO. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Your original question was "Does video on demand, as opposed to conventional television, meet the WP:ENT criteria?" - the reason I was trying to establish notability of video on demand being notable as opposed to conventional television. While we're on the subject, isn't Realitatea TV, whre Teohari hosted his own television show in 2009, convetional television and also notable?
2) The fact that Sector 7 is in the title does not necessarily mean that the whole 70 minute interview is just about Sector 7 and not about Teohari and Gheba as stand-up comedians on their own. Does this mean that Sector 7 might deserve a Wikipedia entry? Maybe so. But I don't see how it makes Teohari non-notable. There's also a Gandul interview with Lucian Mândruță where Teohari is interviewed on his own, not as a part of Sector 7. I'm not sure how a racist comment about African countries being illiterate helps the discussion, nor am I sure how deeply subjective remarks such as "a very active press and Internet" are of significance. I would call a country where major press outlets such as Gandul, Cotidianul or Ziua are being forced to either shut down or switch to online-only platforms^[1] or others such as Evenimentul Zilei and Jurnalul Naţional are being forced into bankruptcy ^[2]^[3] anything but "very active". You said earlier that you lack the patience to watch these interviews, so I don't know how can you be so sure that they're not relevant to the subject. I've also added an article in Adevărul that describes Teohari, together with fellow comedians Costel Bojog and Viorel Dragu, as being "the most well-known comedians in Romania".
3) Are you saying that every subject that has not yet gotten an article on Wikipedia is non-notable? cutkiller ^Talk 16:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will start by responding to your slanderous accusation of having made "a racist comment about African countries being illiterate". I actually said "low-literacy", and the facts bear that out. I would say that in the modern world, a literacy rate of 70% or under is low. Let's see who fits the description, shall we? Mali (28%), Burkina Faso (29%), Niger (29%), Sierra Leone (35%), Chad (35%), Ethiopia (39%), Senegal (39%), Guinea (41%), Benin (42%), The Gambia (50%), Haiti (culturally if not geographically African, 53%), Guinea-Bissau (55%), Mozambique (56%), Ivory Coast (56%), Central African Republic (57%), Mauritania (58%), Liberia (61%), Togo (61%), Nigeria (61%), Madagascar (65%), DR Congo (67%), Uganda (67%), Burundi (67%), Tanzania (69%), Djibouti (70%), Angola (70%). Sure, not every low-literacy country is in Africa: Afghanistan is at 28%, Bhutan at 53%, Pakistan at 55%; and yes, there are fairly literate societies on the continent (South Africa, 93%; Seychelles, 92%; Zimbabwe, 91%; Lesotho, 90%). But there is a definite pattern: African countries tend to have low literacy rates, and consequently a smaller market for news readers. Some 98% of Romanians can read, so that is not really a factor in Romania. Sorry if you don't like the facts, but just waving them away as "racist" is not a valid debating tactic.
Supposing video on demand shows can in principle be notable, that in no way implies Teohari's show fits the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" requirement. Moreover, no, not every notable topic has an article on Wikipedia, but simply repeating who owns voyo or how big it is does not do much for establishing its notability.
About the Mândruță interview and the Antena 3 one: the point is not that the interviews occurred. Anyone can be interviewed on television and be forgotten the next day. The point is if they can be quoted so as to boost Teohari's claim of notability. If all he does is talk about Freemasonry, then no. If there's more, quote it. Simply adding a link to show he was interviewed is meaningless. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating as it may be, the discussion is not about the literacy rate of African countries. If you read my comment carefully, I was asking how is it relevant for a Romanian comedian being notable or not that a number of countries in Africa have issues with literacy. Saying "Romania is more literate than a number of countries in Africa, therefore it has a larger market for newsreaders" does not, in itself, constitute an argument that Romanian press does, indeed, satisfy said market, making it "very active" as you call it, especially since I provided a number of links to articles discussing the serious financial trouble that multiple major press institutions in Romania are confrunted with nowadays. It's a simplistic approach and bringing up low-literacy in Africa in a debate about a Romanian comedian's notability is, if not racist, at least inappropriate. I provided one of the reasons it might be hard to find a lot of interviews and articles about Teohari in major publications (and links to back my claim), your argument was "some African countries have low-literacy, Romania does not". It's like saying "African countries are torn with civil war, Romania is not, therefore Romania has more press outlets that you can quote from". Since you bring up debating "tactics", yours is a recurring logical fallacy known as relative privation (the "it could be worse" argument), simply put, you're trying to make a reasonable judgment based on extreme cases.

What about hosting his own show on Realitatea TV in 2009? As Realitatea TV is, according to you, significant because it has an article on Wikipedia, and he was the host and creator of the show, does that not qualify him as having had a "significant role in a telelvision show? I've added another link, an interview in Evenimentul Zilei ^[4] that describes him as "the host of the Realitatea TV series După bloguri and a stand-up comedian and a third piece in Adevarul that says he's the host of the Realitatea TV show. As for other productions, what about headlining weekly shows in comedy clubs in Bucharest since the mid 2000s? As I've pointed out, the fact that he's not an actor nor is he intending to become one, does not qualify him to appear in other stage productions other than stand-up or improv comedy shows. An Esquire profile describes him as "being a stand-up comedian since late 2003 and having had over 1000 shows". Another article on entertainment portal Metropotam says that "Pablo Francisco's management chose Teohari to open for Francisco's Bucharest show".

There are a number of other references about him doing sold-out shows throughout Romania during the years. The Mândruță interview starts by describing him as "Claudiu Teohari - comediant" not "Sector 7 member" or "Freemasonry expert". The discussion about Freemasonry and Illuminati that follows is clearly sarcastic and meant to be funny, in no way an actual serious commentary on any of these two subjects. He even mentions at 3:58, that he has a routine about Freemasonry. A comment about the state of traditional media in Romania is madeby Teohari himself in this interview at 5:29 where he says: "When I say public discourse, I mean traditional media, or whatever is left of it. Things that haven't died yet."

The 74 minute video interview with Adevarul ^[5] starts out by introducing Teohari as "one of the most well known stand up comedians in Romania" (2:50). At 14:50 one of the interviewrs asks him about the difference between virtual audiences and hecklers he encounters at stand-up shows. The written summary even quotes Teohari talking about his stand-up work and being interested in the specific way people laugh at his shows. It's quite obvious that he's also being interviewed as a stand-up performer, not only as a member of Sector 7. Now I'm starting to wonder if you watched/read any of these interviews.

I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor, so I don't know how to add quotes to a reference list in an article, so I've quoted them manually here.cutkiller ^Talk 04:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why does everyone seem to focus on the youtube links and press releases and nobody looks at the lengthy interviews done with this individual by several major Romanian press institutions? I really need to say this again, I've included the press releases and youtube links to establish some facts about him, not to establish notability per-se. That's why I included a bunch of other reliable, non-trivial, sources. Any Romanian speakers out there? cutkiller (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the rationale of a Romanian speaker. The bulk of the material sourced is trivia coverage, not even national news, and the article still is a vanity piece. A collective article on Sector 7 would be within policy at this moment (and it is the group, not the individual members who have so far attracted [some] media attention); but Mr. Teohari himself cannot claim standalone encyclopedic relevancy, not in any case at this stage in his career. Dahn (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how is an interview with Lucian Mandruta for Gandul and an invitation by Cristina Topescu in an Antena 3 (both as himself, not part of Sector 7) television show not "national news"? Also, how does appearing in 4 Central European Media Enterprises comedy specials as a featured performer not qualify him as ""Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."? (talk) 19:20
Keep We do not require that The New York Times or Washington Post cover a comic in Romania, and notable to Romania through Romanian coverage is notable enough for Wikipedia. Article can definitely benefit from cleanup for style and format, yes... but deletion of notable topics rarely serves the project or its readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A desperate straw-man argument if I ever saw one. No one here has mentioned the Times or the Post. Of course Romanian-language coverage would be sufficient to establish notability, but it's not sufficient to simply assert that such coverage exists. If you wish to demonstrate notability, it would help your cause to point to specific sources and say specifically how they indicate the subject passes WP:BIO. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) No more "desperate" than not calling into account the nominator's dismissal of sources. I stated simply as I did to remind him that sources must be considered for suitability even if a Romanian notable (even if only just so) is not covered in mainstream US press. I really need not repeat the postings of sources by others nor argue about it if I agree that just enough are suitable and meet WP:BIO. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic coordinate conversion

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

This article is an unreferenced HowTo with a linkfarm at the end. It's been tagged for a move to somewhere else since 2010 but nobody seems to care. It is several things that Wikipedia is not. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom is absolutely right. -- 101.119.15.91 (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page has had 35,089 views in the last 90 days. We should try to figure out an appropriate place for it: possibly in Wikipedia space as an adjunct to the page Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates, which cites this page as a source of additional guidance; or, if someone has a better idea, let's hear it by all means. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/comment. I exported it according to suggestions. Geographic coordinate conversion. It may be deleted here. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the good howto content exported to Wikiversity, I felt free to completely rewrite the article based on reliable sources. The format conversion stuff has been condensed to a short section while material on the other sorts of geographic coordinate conversions, such as datum conversions, has been added. The material in this rewrite is based on reliable sources, such as standards, textbooks, and and government publications. I made an effort to use some non-US sites for better neutrality, but discussion of non-US datums could still use some development. With dozens of sources in the new version of this article, the topic well passes the threshold for notability according to WP:GNG and the original problems stated by the admin are now gone. --Mark viking (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very useful article. I came upon it today when I needed to write a program to do a conversion. With Mark Viking's rewrite, it is now sourced and encyclopaedic.Bill (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient encyclopedic in its current state. Some WP articles do necessarily deal with things that can best be explained by giving practical directions. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Grace (Irish footballer)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, has not played in a fully professional league or senior international team. No indication that any other achievements have garnered sufficient significant and reliable coverage to pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep Nomination was withdrawn by nominator.

Ioannis Kakadiaris

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

Article has no sources other than some external links at the end. Article is an orphan. Subject does not appear to meet Notability guidelines. I did a quick check for references that could be added (Google'd his name) and didn't see anything that struck me as particularly useful. Zell Faze (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: It appears that I just didn't know what I was looking for in trying to determine this man's notability. Thank you everyone for clearing things up a little bit. Now we just need to get some inline citations into that article and get it de-orphaned so others won't make the same mistake going forward. :D Zell Faze (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC#1, see his GScholar profile. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as #C1, his named chair gives him a pass of WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Snow Keep. Named chair and huge citations – conclusively passes at least 2 components of WP:PROF. Would be good form for the nom to withdraw this one, as its disposition is certain. Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Withdrawn That seems fine by me. It seems obvious here that I just didn't know what to look for. Zell Faze (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrian Archaeological Association

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

This is a small charity in Wales of little note. I came across because a sister article is already up for deletion. See Here for that AfD Szzuk (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This proposal is risible. The CAA has been going for nearly 170 years, is a major cultural institution in Wales, and its journal, Archaeologia Cambrensis, is the leading archaeological and historical scholarly journal in the principality. The article needs expansion, but the notability of the Association should not be in question. GrindtXX (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is 3 sentences, the CAA website could have been made in 1990, the only ref isn't inline, googling brings back little of note. This isn't a major cultural institution. However given the 3 keep votes it appears notable. Szzuk (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a less than perfect article doesn't make it one that should be deleted. Clearly notable as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It already has its own article in reputable print encyclopedias and has been a major factor for decades in the historical and archeological understanding in Wales. This is a serious article, it just needs someone to take some ownership. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Public Relations Society of America. Although I participated in the debate, I am closing this early given the consensus reached (and the withdrawn deletion nomination). (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PRSA Foundation

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

Despite having 28 citations, they are all primary sources, blurbs, brief mentions, blogs, etc. that create the appearance of a well-sourced, notable organization that isn't really. I don't agree with user:DGG moving this to a merge discussion, because I would only add maybe 1 sentence mentioning this org on the PRSA page and I wouldn't take anything from this article in doing so. CorporateM (Talk) 14:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Public Relations Society of America (and, if justified, perhaps add a line there about this foundation). --Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I had earlier suggested a merge, but depending on how much is merged, it can come pretty much to the same thing.CorporateM, are you suggesting a delete and merge, to remove the history? That is something different, and I'm OK with that also. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have added a line about its foundation date on Public Relations Society of America. That article feels a bit too negative still and could use the philanthropic material. I also noticed that here Jack O'Dwyer offers some explanations about how the PRSA and its Foundation inter-operate. "The Society collects revenues for the PRSA Foundation with which it has "interrelated directors" and with which it shares "common facilities."" These kinds of philanthropy organizations are often "independently operated", but only kinda sorta. I was not confident enough in understanding what Jack O'Dwyer was saying to interpret it for Wikipedia, but it would be worthwhile to add to the Organization section of the PRSA article the corporate structure and relationship between the PRSA, the PRSSA, the PR journal and the PR Foundation. CorporateM (Talk) 05:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@CorporateM:

@DGG:

The PRSA Foundation is an independent, 501c3 charitable organization, with historical, but no direct ties to PRSA.

The allegations from Mr. O'Dwyer that it receives financial support from PRSA are false. He should not be a trusted source of information. His decades-long feud with PRSA is well documented. In fact, this is one of the many reasons why it is important for the foundation to remain separate from PRSA and critical to assert its independence.

The Foundation has one full-time employee and an independent board which includes many leaders in the public relations profession -- CEOs of major firms and Chief Communications officers of leading companies.

Even though they share a name and a historical connection, the Foundation is not associated with the PRSA, and should have its own separate page.

The PRSA Foundation is promoting diversity in PR and marketing communications fields. This is a crucial organization for the field of communication in the U.S., especially for ethnic and racial minorities trying to get their career path in this field. I think they deserve a wider presence in the web, including in Wikipedia, to help students know about them and take advantage of the valuable support they provide.

If you need to verify any information regarding the PRSA Foundation you can visit its own website or directly contact them. You can also read articles relating them from well-known and respected media outlets such as PR Week.

Thank you for your understanding.

--Theedititor2014 (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bethesda Athletic F.C.

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

Unreferenced and no longer extant football club. Fail WP:SPORT and also fails WP:CLUB. No obvious claims to notability let alone any special notability. Synopsis could probably be merged into Bethesda, Gwynedd Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Club does not fail WP:CLUB, as a quick search of RSSSF shows multiple entries in the Welsh cup, a national competition. Not sure how it can fail WP:SPORT as this is not a guideline but a wikiproject. Also passes WP:FOOTYN consensus. Article needs expanding and referencing, not deleting. The fact that the club is defunct has not impact on notability per WP:NTEMP. Fenix down (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in a national cup competition, a benchmark long used by WP:FOOTBALL for notability. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waves Audio

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

This article has no sources and appears to be primarily advertising created by the company. The few citations provided are to their own press releases and website. Warning was given nearly 5 years ago and this article has become more advertising since.

Searching for the company in Google News yields almost no reliable sources. It maybe be possible a small 1 paragraph entry could be worthwhile, but as it stands now this article is purely advertising. Beakermeep (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a note I started this discussion as I was unsure if deletion or something else like blanking out the page would be better and how to do that (without being reverted by a bot). I am unsure the best course of action, so help would be appreciated.Beakermeep (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking out the page could be considered as a deletion request only if whoever does it is the only major contributor to the article, which is not the case here. If it was, a better option (than blanking) would have been to mark the page for speedy deletion under the G7 criteria, so I can say that what you did was most appropriate. Smtchahal (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage in reliable, independent sources. A Google search gives nothing useful. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Smtchahal (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Keep, per Blinksternet. Someone would need to add those sources, though. Smtchahal (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Soft Keep~~ Keep This company is definitely noteworthy but I agree the article is shameful and reliable sources are pretty sparse. The article should certainly be pared down...a lot. Radiodef (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, Waves does have a technology Grammy: [25][26]. The WP article does a bad job of including this. If I have time I will edit that. But anyway they are notable in the sound tech circuit. Radiodef (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with this. Just would want advice on how to proceed. Should I withdraw the nom and remove 80-90% of the content? The last time I removed a large amount of unsourced content I ended up fighting with a bot and some spam vigilante (they meant well but they didnt read the talk page). Also thank you for the refs Beakermeep (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a pretty sizable amount of content a few days ago and so far the edits still stand. I'm not sure you can withdraw a nomination and some others sided with deletion anyway. The relisting is ending soon so I suppose we'll see if there's a decision and proceed from there if it's not a delete. Radiodef (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my stance to a regular keep, per Binksternet and improvements made to the article. Radiodef (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Company is notable based on Grammy and references included in article. The article hurts my eyes but that's not a reason to delete it. I will try to contribute to cleaning it up. ~KvnG 16:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only an otiose ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

We don't delete ads if they're trying to cover a notable subject. Do you have anything to say about notability? ~KvnG 15:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, notability is insufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 20 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current abysmal state of the article is not a reason for deletion. The topic is notable because of the Grammy and because there is a lot of coverage in instruction books. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to Make It in the New Music Business, by Robert Wolff, Random House, 2010. Three pages are dedicated to a description of Waves Audio products.
The Mastering Engineer's Handbook, pages 15, 24, 25, 113, 180, 185, 204, 216, 233, 250. Author Bobby Owsinski says Waves Audio L1 Ultramaximizer is one of the two top compressors for mastering. Owsinski names five top mastering engineers who use Waves plugins.
Waves Plug-Ins Workshop: Mixing by the Bundle, by Barry Wood, Cengage Learning, 2012. The whole book.
PC Recording Studios For Dummies, by Jeff Strong, John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Page 307 is devoted to Waves Audio plugins.
Access to Knowledge for Consumers: Reports of Campaigns and Research 2008-2010, pages 179–182. Discussion of a legal case of software piracy involving Waves Audio in Israel.
Digital Audio Workstation, by Colby Leider, McGraw Hill Professional, 2004. Page 227 discusses plug-ins from Waves Audio.

FYI, I am a professional audio engineer working at live events. I have never used Waves Audio plug-ins, but I am very much aware of their widespread use by others in the audio industry, especially in studios. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The professional magazine Sound On Sound has reviewed Waves Audio products many times. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waves NS1, December 2012.
Waves iGTR – Personal Guitar Processor, April 2008.
Waves Master Bundle, August 2002.
Waves Y56K, May 2002.
Waves Audio Track – TDM Plug-in, May 1997.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's got more than a couple of references and seems to be notable. Maybe a bit of cleanup to keep it NPOV, but certainly seems like a keeper. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Laursen

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

Procedural nomination: I deleted this as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lasse Fosgaard. A request was made on my talk page for the article to be restored as the subject now meets WP:NFOOTBALL. I'll leave it to the community to decide if there's now sufficient notability for an article. KTC (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL now as he's made an appearance in the Danish Superliga for Esbjerg fB. JMHamo (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per JMH. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure why we need a deletion discussion for this one. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has now made professional appearance. Nfitz (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Ng (mixed martial artist)

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - very few fights, none first tier. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Ng (fighter). Nothing has changed since then. He still has no top tier fights and fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMH Records

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

Delete, I originally nominated for CSD as A7 and G11 but notability claimed on talkpage. Label is brand new, founded in 2013. Sources provided show that they received coverage for raising 30m and another 2 offering Lindsey Lohan a contract. I do not believe it passes WP:CORPDEPTH and thereby also WP:GNG. It may be WP:TOOSOON--Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, You said "delete" even before I finished the page or added other sources. Just because it's a brand new label, doesn't mean it's not notable. The credible sources back up it's legitimacy. The page is also a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearljambandaid (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11, without prejudice to the question of whether the topic is notable. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This months-old label doesn't seem to have actually released any music as yet. Article provides a number of sources, but they are variously primary, non-RS, and/or provide only side mentions of the subject, and I don't find anything better when searching. What is out there are rehashes of 2-3 press releases that they've circulated. Note: This entity appears to be wholly unrelated to the small Dutch house label or the small 70's soul label of the same name. I also agree with Joe Decker that this qualifies to be speedied as G11. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO I agree with both of you User:Hobbes Goodyear but once the claim of significance claim was made I didn't really have a choice. It has been reliably sourced that it is a partner with Caroline, does this mean it is a subsidiary of that company or just a company with a working relationship with Caroline? If it is indeed an actual property or subsidiary it will likely be redirected or merged into the parent article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to merge or redirect anything into a parent article. As far as it being a subsidiary or not of Caroline, it's pretty clear that it is as it's listed on Caroline's own site as "featured partner" with their other labels. See here - http://caroline.com/partners

Pearljambandaid (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Records is distributor for a ton of independent labels ("partners"). I think that if we changed this article to a redirect and an actual reader landed there, their reaction be "huh?". If we are going to be less useful than a plain old Google search, then I think we should just bow out. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pearljambandaid I think the article may just be a little WP:TOOSOON. It may have the notability soon to warrant it's own article. Is there any criteria for your assignment that we can help you with? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for (talk) a person for her publicity firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Hyatt, contacted me and offered to sell her services to keep this SMH article on Wikipedia. She claimed she had a AFD reversed on her page and she would do the same for this one. This seems like a shady practice, or is it? Her wiki page doesn't seem notable at all especially with the weak sources from her own sites. Pearljambandaid (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely that is shady. I'm going to research a little and possibly alert admin. In the meantime have you had a chance to review any of the criteria we have and can you share iwth us the criteria you need to meet for your assignment. Possibly some of us may be able to help you meet it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much. Thanks for offering help with assignment. I finished it.Pearljambandaid (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clem Ogus

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

I can't find any independent coverage in reliable sources. All article references are primary or not independent. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok noted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddluv09 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotion of non-notable person. 147 twitter followers, so not even a "famous on the internet" sort of thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable. versace1608 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and salt. There are two reasons for closing this early. It is a snow deletion, with two AfDs in which every single participant has been in favour of deletion of the article. (The fact that one person also suggested having a redirect under the same title does not diminish that.) It is also a speedy deletion as an attack page. The article contains allegations of criminal actions against a living person, without any reliable source. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and since the ostensible subject of the article is an obscure person of no notability, while the person against whom those allegations are levied is a prominent person, that negative unsourced BLP aspect is the principal, almost the only, effective purpose served by the article. The last AfD closed as delete and redirect. (The closing statement does not mention the deletion, but that is what the closing admin did.) I see no merit in the redirect. There was no consensus for it in the previous AfD discussion, with only one person suggesting it, and there was then and still is now no mention of the subject of the article in the redirect target either. I am therefore closing this as a straight deletion, and I shall also protect the article title against re-creation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atisone Seiuli

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

Delete as an unsalvageable WP:BLP violation. She's only notable for one event, but unfortunately she's dead so WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply. But her famous car-mate is not dead and WP:BLP applies full-on. The whole article is innuendo, suspicion, and sourced to sites which are not WP:RS for such claims as murder conspiracy and what may or may not have transpired. About the only source with content other the coverage of the WP:BLP1E incident is http://assofias.webs.com/formertitleholders.htm which is probably not a WP:RS. (This rationale lightly edited from the previous rationale). Kaimahi (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I created this article (or rather turned it from a redirect into a stub) because it was nominated at RfD with the mention that there was no information at the target (Eddie Murphy]). Deliberately i did not look at or modify the Murphy article but created the stub from online sources, two of which I would regard as [[WP:RS}}. But I don't believe this person is WP:N and it is WP:NOTINHERITED and not WP:GNG. If there is a BLP violation (as I say I have deliberately not looked at the Murphy article) then it should go speedy; I could of course SPEEDY it myself as author but the whole point of my creating the stub was so that other editors could actually see what the problem was and have their opinion. (I didn't create the redirect, I turned the redirect into a stub.) Something should be said about these allegations at Murphy's article but I tried to exercise due care in not violating BLP; but this person is not notable in himself. (He was male on his death certificate, by the way, which is why I refer to him as "him".) Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I don't understand the logic of having this article, and alleging that Murphy had people killed (sourced to this) is outrageous. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 04:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why We Fight (Jericho episode)

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

Fails WP:GNG: no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. The episode is already summarised at List of Jericho episodes. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally, I would say Redirect to the Episode List, being as it is a season finale and could be sourced with ratings and reviews, but it's been almost six years since it aired and finding that info would be difficult. As it is and stands, the summary on the list page is sufficient and the other info is covered elsewhere or is not sourced. — Wylie pedia 14:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Whisternefet (c · l) 01:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus found to delete, no predjudice to future discussions of disambiguation pages. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faith-based

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

The topic is a term, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary (see WP:NAD). Earlier versions included discussion of faith-based organizations, which would be appropriate for an article called Faith-based organizations, similar to Faith-based foreign aid or Faith-based schools. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be significant coverage from reliable sources about the term as a word; e.g., on its origin(s), spread and rise in popularity, usage different parts of the world, its definition or discussion in legislation or legal cases, etc. Agyle (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my only concern is that with this edit you removed more than 1/2 of the content. I'm not saying that was a bad editing decision or that it didn't need to happen but it means contributors to this discussion are making a decision about an article that isn't really what you're suggesting any more. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, sure, but the title would almost make for a legitimate disambiguation page for the two articles you listed and the third which should probably be created. The Bush administration created an "Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI)". That and issues relating to the definition of "faith-based" are well-summarised in the essay Categories of Faith-Based Organizations: History and Policy Context published by the Berkley Center. The Center for Faith and Service of the National Crime Prevention Council provides further definitions (of "faith-based organization" in particular) in their FACES Toolkit and other documents. A number of other sources provide comprehensive background for the differentiation between "faith-based" and "faith-related" (the latter being a term coined by Steven Rathgeb Smith and Michael R. Sosin in 2001). It's very definition is the subject of several books specifically about faith-based initiatives and the legislative and legal framework that exists to support them despite "separation of Church and State". My point is that there is plenty of material out there and the use of poor sources and bad writing isn't a good reason to delete an article. Much of this strikes me as a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM kind of problem. Stalwart111 06:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the term needs a disambiguation page; your three suggested inclusions have the term "faith-based" in them, but are distinct concepts or organizations. But either way, I think turning a 9-year-old article into a disambiguation page is "deleting" it in a sense, and so should still go through AfD. There is already an article on the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. I agree there are many faith-based things in the world (principles, laws, policies, retreats, magazines, companies, groups, etc.), and sources about them dating back millenia, but this article since its inception has been about the term faith-based, not about things that are faith-based. I removed a lot of unsourced content because it was comprised of unnecessary examples of things that are faith-based. (Here is the version immediately prior to my edit; here is the version by the original author in 2005.) The tiny amount that was relevant to the article seemed dubious, and the reliable sources I did find either contradicted or failed to verify the claims; there was no material I considered factual and pertinent to save per FIXTHEPROBLEM, except for part of the first sentence. The decision on deletion should not be based of the article's existing state, which can be improved, but on whether the subject of the article is suitable for a Wikipedia article. Agyle (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't strongly disagree with any of that and I should have been clear - I don't disagree with you bringing it here either. I didn't opine in favour of keeping it for exactly that reason. If it is kept, you seem to be suggesting that we blow it up and start again (correct me if I'm wrong). Couldn't agree more, but that requires as assessment of the current sub-par content, thus my commentary about that edit. I also think there's a place for Faith-based initiative and a few other things that have "faith-based" in their title. In that sense, we'd be talking less about a disambiguation page and more about a brief overview with appropriate content-splits. In some ways, we'd be better off deleting this (on the basis you have outlined) and then going to WP:DRV later on for permission to create a new article with a different focus (the subject, broadly, rather than the term). Stalwart111 22:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think the difficulty would remain, no matter what, that the subject is an adjective, and it's difficult to treat it as anything other than a discussion of the term itself. Offhand I can't think of any Wikipedia articles with a subject that's strictly an adjective. It would be like having a separate article on Religious (which redirects to Religion, a noun), with an overview of Religious education, Religious laws, Religious organizations, Religious texts, Religious music, etc. It's complicated by “faith-based” being largely a synonym/euphemism for “religious”; distinctions between “religious education” and “faith-based education” would be splitting hairs. Another difficulty is that synonyms vary regionally; Religious school and Faith-based school both redirect to Faith school, a recently-created term in England. “Faith-based initiative” became popular in the US for religious organizations' programs after the federal “Faith-Based Initiative” was launched in 2001 to fund the programs. Agyle (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, though a number of those sources specifically deal with the question of religious/faith-based. But I digress - that's the whole purpose of creating a draft and seeking approval - it would only make it back to mainspace if others agree those issues have been addressed. Stalwart111 08:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contrary to WP:NAD, and don't see how it could be turned into an encyclopedia article. I also disagree with making it into a disambiguation page, don't think it's appropriate or necessary here. mikeman67 (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per discussion above. I think this has potential as a completely re-written article about (in many ways) a different subject. But the nomination here is sound and the sources provided really can't be used to verify the claims being made. As it stands this is synthesis and should be deleted. Stalwart111 08:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WGOR

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

Not a real television station. Bobjim45 (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there is indeed no such television station as "WGOR." (The article claims it to be virtual channel 9, which might come as a surprise to WSYR-TV.) This might fall under the realm of a hoax; would this qualify for a speedy deletion as such? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it qualifies for speedy deletion as it's not a blatant hoax. It's a bizarre enough piece of disinformation with a lot of specific, plausible details that it makes me think it was created in Good Faith by someone who has gotten something wrong like it's actually WOGR or WGOA or something and we're just missing the search terms. Probably best to give people a bit of time to figure out what it's supposed to be. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 06:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure it's someones youtube creation [[27]], there was no tv station with the call letters "WGOR" in that time period. All of these seem to be hoaxes too Goanimate Movie Television Network, CHPD, Goanimate Movie Television Network (US channel), all created by the same editor today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobjim45 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G5 appiled WGOR "GoAnimate"? Another fantasy TV vandal; GoAnimate is a cheap animation site that allows you to create a short video with whatever you want using Family Guy inspired animation and terrible computer voices, including false TV station promos. It's a very blatant hoax and I get the feeling by the MO that this is the return of Supermariofan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (more here in an ANI archive). There's no TV station by this name and the user is currently on a false article creation spree, so I suggest immediate blocking of HillarySmith1992 (talk · contribs) as a SMF12 sock and deletion of this and their false contributions; all their created articles have been flagged with a G5 tag. Nate • (chatter) 07:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the user to WP:RVAN Bobjim45 (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this new evidence, I withdraw my earlier objection to speedy deletion. I also looked into some of the other details and found nothing that could even be plausibly mistaken. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 08:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A rough consensus demonstrated notability via WP:PROF#C1. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murry Salby

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

Non-notable scientist/academic. No reference to any significant academic work contribution. Arguably an attack page to highlight non-conformist views on atmospheric CO2. Listing him is undue/fringe spectacle, not a notable alternative viewpoint.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: due to a number of comments regarding BLP, I have hatted the contents as opposed to deleting (which would be BLP policy but not AfD rules - compromise is hat). They can be unhidden with a click. I also modified notability to "Atmospheric scientist". If there is a way to "noindex" a page while retaining BLP issues, please do so. --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sportfan5000 didn't like hatting. I stubbed it per [28] until notability and balance are added. --DHeyward (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's always a bad sign when a scientist's biography doesn't actually list any scientific publications (save for, in this case, a library catalog entry for his 1978 doctoral thesis). He was marginally on the radar last year because the climate-change-denialist blogosphere likes a good persecution fantasy, and a few 'skeptical' columnists were rather trusting. The guy left a tenured position in the States while he was being investigated for misuse of grant money, and then got fired from an Aussie university for failing to show up to teach classes. Ho-hum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has since been changed (I have added a study Salby et al. published in GRL, and coverage of the study by the journal Nature). Jinkinson talk to me 20:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 30+ gives clear pass of WP:Prof#C1, even in a well-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my ignorance. I'm curious as to how h-index is derived and compared to other academics. I don't doubt the data but I'm sorely lacking knowledge in that metric and how it relates to different fields and what source provides scoring. I'd be curious to compare hime to William Collins or Isaac Held as a datapoint. --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at h-index, WP:Prof their talks and archives. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Okay I'm daft. I understand what it is, but do you have a link? I simply could not find a number for Salby. --DHeyward (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link about four inches above this line. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It's possible that this chap is a 'notable' enough scientist to warrant a Wikipedia article. The problem is that our article – as it was created, and as it remains now – doesn't actually address any of his career. Our article just talks about how Salby is "known for" his contrarian claims regarding global warming (basing that assertion on cites to a climate change denialist and a tabloid column, and in spite of Salby's lack of publications on the topic), and then notes that he was fired amidst a teapot tempest.

If someone wants to write a proper biographical article on Salby, they would be better off starting from scratch—though I do wonder if there is really sufficient independent coverage of him for us to be able to write a proper biography that doesn't rely too heavily on primary sources and original synthesis. Either way, starting from this skeleton of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK is inviting BLP disaster. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is easily rewritten to give a balanced bio, no question of notability (see below_). Agricola44 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. He's notable, as Xxanthippe points out (and his book Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics has 446 citations), but the page has multiple WP:BLP violations, and is probably deletable on that basis. He was, it is true, involved in a complex and messy dispute with Macquarie University (the University admits, for example, that while he was overseas "his return flight was cancelled"), but Wikipedia can't assemble a story out of primary sources there. -- 101.119.14.70 (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG, the rest are cleaning up issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Keep. His citation record demonstrates conclusive pass of WP:PROF c1 – citation count from WoS: 351, 201, 198, 185, 165, 158, ... (h-index 28). The article needs rewrite. I'll give a day or two of right-of-first-refusal, then have go myself. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. There is very little in the way of WP:RS on his recent history. There is an official statement by Macquarie University, but it responds to none of Salby's allegations (which themselves exist only on unreliable blog posts). There appear to be no reliable news stories on the final outcome of the dispute (other than the fact that his employment was terminated). Legal action is presumably ongoing. It's not even clear what Salby is currently doing. -- 101.119.14.238 (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This aspect of the article should probably be redacted entirely and rewritten to focus on his obviously-notable scientific contributions. I plan on doing this shortly unless someone else has a go first. Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

~~It's not bad to clean up inaccuracies but The Guardian does delve into his likely fraud cases which need to also go into the article with due weight. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)~~ [WP:Ban 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

I think his notability is from his academic work. The alleged fraud and the firing are very recent newsy items. We can't say he's notable based on his google scholar score and then only write about fraud and CO2. He would not be notable for that. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reason to improve the article, not to delete everything you don't like or that isn't glowing. I have to step out for a bit, but will look for more when I return. Please spend some energy improving the article which undeniably exists. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Stubbing notable people until that material exists is proper. We don't keep bad BLP's. The material is still there to build on but it's been over a week and this article has no other material. I don't have any information on him. --DHeyward (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You effectively edit warred so now all progress on the article has been halted. You didn't bother to try to fix the problem, you flippantly deleted everything, even though it was well sourced. But we are here now and I will keep trying to get things improved. I understand you wish it would all go away but that doesn't seem to be happening. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Excuse me, but no I did not. Everyone seems to agree that the current form is a BLP problem. I didn't delete anything from history or blank the page. Had you left the stub or left the hat, instead of just reverting, we wouldn't be here. I don't particularly care if it goes away and stubbing doesn't accomplish that anyway. --DHeyward (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have locked the article for five days because of the edit war going on. It's particularly disruptive considering the article is at AfD. If other editors want to highlight new sources that would make the article notable, they can do it on this page or make a request on the article's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on content added to talk page. Agricola44 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources and WP:BLP issues. -- 101.119.14.25 (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)— 101.119.14.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - pretty clearly noteworthy, as evidenced by the refs - David Gerard (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:RSs are there, clearly notable. If there is cleaning to do then let it be done, deleting because an article needs works is not reasonable. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets WP:PROF (obviously per #1, probably per other criteria as well). Strange nomination. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not strange when none of the reasons for "keep" were in his bio and he was almost simultaneously put in a list of scientists that oppose science. If you are a University hiring climatologists, is he above average? Do you get a warm and fuzzy feeling that he is above average after reading the WP article? I didn't. I saw a guy that is down for the count and a high-profile web site piling on to that. He's looking for a job and would you want your bio showing up the way his does on WP in a google search? According to all the !votes, his article should be reflect an above-average climatologist with a proven track record in his field. --DHeyward (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Prof and its notes. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I already did that. I don't think he meets it. The notes mention the average professor test and the nutshell discount sheer publication/citation. Is he above average in his field? I don't get that impression. He's unemployed at the moment. --DHeyward (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Xxanthippe has already indicated, his h-index is roughly 30. The usual standard for AfD discussions of academics is that an h-index of 10 is sufficient to pass WP:PROF. A value of 30 makes it a no-brainer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One does not have to be employed to satisfy WP:Prof. Einstein, among many other notable scientists, is unemployed because he is dead. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Most of his citations appear to be from a textbook which is a useful collection of knowledge but rarely are they a significant contribution to the field. Is he better than the average climatologist? Would he be your choice to fill an academic opening in climatology? Those two questions speak directly to his notability as WP:PROF. --DHeyward (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF doesn't say anything at all about relying on editors' judgments as to whether he would be the right choice for a job opening. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it says a lot about whether you consider him above average and that is covered. If his article implies he is below average, basing his notability as WP:PROF doesn't cut it. --

DHeyward (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we'll do fine sticking with what WP:PROF actually says. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope so, but the comments aren't encouraging so far. Get your coats ready. --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note A replacement uncontroversial "Education and career" section, plus a new "Academic positions" section, have been edit requested on the talk page for two days, this was in process of being added to the article when it was locked down. The first part of the requested addition to the lead has been enacted already. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Keep, article in its present state is a bad BLP problem just waiting to happen, but Salby seems to have been notable enough even before his Macquarie University related chicanery hit the press. Needs a good hard rewrite though to remove the [[WP:UNDUE]undue]] focus on that one embarrassing incident. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Since the article has been locked in the non-BLP-compliant state, improvement is not really an option, and deletion per WP:TNT seems the best course. -- 101.119.15.220 (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, article seems fine to me. If you have improvements to make wait until the lock is lifted and make them. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pending edit request, in place since the article was locked down, that would specifically address this concern. The talk page is also full of comments of way to proceed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Keep The articles with the very high citation count prove notability. I don't think this would have been quested except for his heterodox views in this particular field; we sometimes seem to have a prejudice in this respect. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the highly cited articles, passes WP:ACADEMIC#1. --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD A7, "No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): no independent sources, no evidence of notability". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Athor (band)

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

Notability, as per Wikipedia:Notability (music). One album released, did not make the national chart, band split soon after. Did a search for secondary neutral news articles, nothing found. Pjposullivan (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Napulahaokalani Cartwright

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

Notability is not inherited. Just being "related to the royal family of the Kingdom of Hawaii" isn't enough. The sum of her accomplishments appears to be getting married twice. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is questionable and I also note that the "Royal Ark" is not RS and is used twice out of the three references. Questionable publication, NOT the official site of the royal family as claimed and author has no reasonable expertise that I can find.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There is nothing notable about this person, and there does not seem to be any independent reliable coverage about her. The same is true of her sister Eva Kuwailanimamao Cartwright, and to some extent her father Alexander Cartwright III, and I would suggest they be considered for deletion also. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Additionally, the potential for a merge can continue with a discussion on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZEV 10 LRC

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

Looks like your run of the mill wiki advertising WP:SPAM. Sources are mostly promotional puff pieces and fail WP:RS. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's possible there could be sufficient notability for this product in the future, but the current sources and article are not reliable. It reads like an ad, and all the citations are from the company or PR release or unrelated to the content. The only reliable/neutral source I could find on Google was: | dealernews.com, which is just an article about the product announcement. Beakermeep (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion Instead the page should be moved and merged with the main article on the manufacturer, Z Electric Vehicle. I note the page was created by a newbie, and in accord with the don't bite the newbies policy WP:bite, that editor needs time to learn. In this case what needs to be learned is that not every product of a manufacturer deserves its own page. WP:Product. I would wait until that newbie editor weighs in, and responds to the WP:Product issue. Otherwise we are destroying a page which does supply citations (which could be better formatted) on the false assumption that we know better than the editors of the major trade publication for motorcycle dealers, what models are notable.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Z Electric Vehicle. There's not much to actually merge. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - Perhaps there is an alternative available by allowing this article to Incubate away from the article namespace. The article has a number of problems, including WP:PROMO, but assuming good faith, under WP:BITE the original author should be given a chance to improve the article, if they are willing to do so. ElijahBosley presents some valid arguments and I feel if the article could be presented from a more neutral point of view, it may be worth keeping. Dfadden (talk) 07:56, 20 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:09, 20 February 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 03:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Z Electric Vehicle. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I generally oppose merging model pages into the manufacturer, as it messes up categories and infoboxes look crummy when embedded in the mfgr page. — Brianhe (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soju philip

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

No reliable sources provided for notability. Creator added some sort of reference that I have no way of checking as it is not well-formatted or a publication I am familiar with in response to an earlier WP:PRODBLP. Zero hits on Google News, no other specific reason to believe he's notable. I'm also guessing WP:SELFPROMOTION as this is the only article the creator has edited. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is a popular chef worked in different 5-star hotels. That is not sufficient for notability. Salih (talk) 05:52, 23 February 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, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, nothing I could find would allow the subject to meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 07:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Source searches are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Major lack of sources and fails WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Home and Garden Magazine

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

Non-notable local magazine, fails Wikipedia:NMAGAZINE ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One hit in Newsbank, mentioning that the subject of the article used to work there, and that's from examiner.com anyway. No hits in gbooks other than Wikipedia generated content and a couple of passing mentions. Fails Wikipedia:NMAGAZINE as noted by nominator, although that's just an essay. Fails all other possibly relevant notability criteria as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 February 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 03:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It an be hard to tell about magazines, but in general this particular sort of local publication is rarely notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 comments not prefaced with "delete" are mostly incomprehensible. Sandstein 10:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Answers mentioned below. Araz5152 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Succession issue

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

Reason Ftutocdg (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pure propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less.
Araz 5152 is the only contributor with misleading and tendentious reference.

violates WP:V
violates WP:NOR
Do not respect Wikipedia:Notability criteria

To understand : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Burhanuddin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mufaddal_Saifuddin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khuzaima_Qutbuddin

Understanding shia succession

The Intricacies of Succession: Two Claimants Emerge for Dawoodi Bohra Leadership

Ftutocdg (talk) 17:32, 20 February 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 February 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have put this article for deletion too. First you put Qutbi Bohra article for deletion. Now this also. The wikipedia articles you have given a link to are modified by you. You have till date made no edits in wikipedia but just put atricles to deletion and deleted or vandalized content. Are you strictly a Khuzaima fan. The way you are going on and vandalising content of Dawoodi Bohra sites. And you think nobody will stop you? I am new to Wikipedia, but in every organisation there are people to stop or atleast control such behavior. And today i am impressed you did not vandalise this article like you did to Qutbi Bohra article many times. As i have mentioned in this article i have mentioned every thing categorically and with references to prove the same. The claims of Ftutocdg is again his point of view. Araz5152 (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Never mind that this isn't the first or last succession issue to come along: the content of the article is an argument for one position in whatever is going on, and not even remotely encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The details regarding succession (belief) mentioned is to make the reader understand what the situation is as it is shown from the outside, to the media and public in general. But (the truth) will clear all your doubts that this is not just another succession issue but a carefully planned strategy to create a spiritual leader for a religious sect that does not have a spiritual leader. You might find it hard to believe as to how can a religious sect exsist without a spiritual leader? This sect did since 1977 from the day it was formed. Now under the guise of a succession issue it is trying to create a spiritual leader for itself. A historic event that has never happened in the history of mankind should sure have a mention in Wikipedia. I have also provided as many reference as possible in this article. I request the readers to understand and comprehend the issue and not dismiss it off as just another succession issue. Araz5152 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate content to that above

You have put this article for deletion too. First you put Qutbi Bohra article for deletion. Now this also. The wikipedia article you have given a link to are modified by you. You have till date made no edits in wikipedia but just put atricles to deletion and deleted or vandalized content. Are you strictly a Khuzaima fan. The way you are going on and vandalising content of Dawoodi Bohra sites. And you think nobody will stop you? I am new to Wikipedia, but in every organisation there are people to stop or atleast control such behavior. And today i am impressed you did not vandalise this article like you did to Qutbi Bohra article many times. As i have mentioned in this article i have mentioned every thing categorically and with references to prove the same. The claims of Ftutocdg is again his point of view. Araz5152 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The details regarding succession (belief) mentioned is to make the reader understand what the situation is as it is shown from the outside, to the media and public in general. But (the truth) will clear all your doubts that this is not just another succession issue but a carefully planned strategy to create a spiritual leader for a religious sect that does not have a spiritual leader. You might find it hard to believe as to how can a religious sect exsist without a spiritual leader? This sect did since 1977 from the day it was formed. Now under the guise of a succession issue it is trying to create a spiritual leader for itself. A historic event that has never happened in the history of mankind should sure have a mention in Wikipedia. I have also provided as many reference as possible in this article. I request the readers to understand and comprehend the issue and not dismiss it off as just another succession issue. Araz5152 (talk) 17:03, 21 February 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 03:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per Mangoe. Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As i have mentioned before this article was put for deletion by Ftutocdg in his anger of not being able to get the article Qutbi Bohra deleted. He does not have any concern with this article. As regards to the content of the article, as mentioned earlier it is about a sect of a religion that is trying to get for itself a spiritual head. This is a first of its kind event in the history of mankind. I sincerely hope that the persons reading the article understand the situation and make their decisions accordingly.

I again would like to assert that this article was not put for AFD by Ftutocdg due to any issues with this article or its content but to remove the frustration of not being able to get the Qutbi Bohra article deleted. Araz5152 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:POVFORK. The issue of succession is being delt with in Mufaddal Saifuddin and Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DR R D SAGAR

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

Can't find evidence that this person is notable by our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot a notable person. Wikipedia is not the stage of publicity. Jussychoulex (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 February 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 03:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly-written spam for a non-notable person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift's fifth studio album

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

Pure WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. You know it's a problem when you don't have an album title, release date or references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie D. Ogutu

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

PROD declined at the request of an editor currently blocked for promotional editing on this article and regarding themselves. This article has been subject to repeated COI editing from people associated with related organisations. Can't find anything to satisfy notability under WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried several searches, and found many sources, but none of which I'd could determine are reliable. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 23 February 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 03:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find additional sources which would bring this to WP:BASIC. In addition to the usual searches, I also checked Highbeam. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Marks

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

Sources are Amazon and Facebook, vanity page, advertising — goethean 21:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that any of her works are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 23 February 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 03:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence found that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argo online

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

Not notable. No sources apart from affiliated or ones by the company itself. Very little content apart from system requirements, and the intro. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 12:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Probably a bit premature in the AfD, will give more time next time. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 22:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't make the grade in its present form. Deb (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - I am still working on the text. I am not that fast. User:Shinji170981:Shinji170981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinji170981 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shinji, if you have not finished the article, you should work on it in your sandbox. Deb (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm okay. I am actually done so far. There might be more additions in the future but for today i am done. Still need to outline the Gameplay a bit more in detail. Should be able to do that on Monday, when i have internet again. ~~Shinji170981~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinji170981 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 6 minutes to AFD? I thought we weren't supposed to WP:BITE the newcomers. BOZ (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to draft space to give this new editor and anyone interested a chance to work on the article. BOZ (talk) 20:40, 14 February 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) 20:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides the WP:BITE issue, I found this [29] over at Joystiq, 10 seperate articles covering Argo Online. I also saw coverage from the usual MMO sites, MMORpg.com, mmocast.com and MMOhuts.com .. coverage from gameindustry [30] ... Search results are somewhat poisoned by results for "online" viewing options for the movie, Argo. This AFD seems premature. Missing sources is not proof of that sources do not exist. -- ferret (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BITE is not actually an issue, nor is failure to provide references a reason to keep an article. It's good to see that the article creator acknowledges his mistake. Deb (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not really sure what you mean. Going to AFD on notability grounds means more than simply that the article lacks sources, but that also, no sources can be found. I found about 15 in 10 minutes. The existence of sources IS a reason to keep an article. -- ferret (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of the refs you mention above seem to be from sources that would be considered borderline in terms of reliability. Is that why you didn't add them to the article? Deb (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added them to the article's talk page in a refideas template? Most of them are commonly used in WP:VG articles. Some are, of course, better than others, but enough coverage exists. I have no particular interest in the topic of the article though, and finding sources for others to use is not an obligation to perform edits. -- ferret (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Although the nominator withdrew their deletion nomination, another editor has made an argument for deletion, so this discussion should not be speedily closed.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD is not cleanup. No specific policy based argument for deletion currently exists. -- ferret (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... what? "Not notable. No sources apart from affiliated or ones by the company itself." That definitely seems to be a policy-based argument (WP:GNG). --Odie5533 (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator withdrew. The remaining Delete comment does not address policy. That was my view point at the time of that statement. -- ferret (talk) 12:12, 10 March 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 03:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that merging might be appropriate in some cases, but I don't believe a specific instance of that is clear here. I weighted the later discussion a little more strongly as the articles have been improved, negating some of the earlier deletes/merges (about being unreferenced, etc) Wily D 11:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Briley

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

Also: CJ Harris, Jena Irene, Caleb Johnson, Jessica Meuse, MK Nobilette, Kristen O'Connor, Emily Piriz, Alex Preston, Dexter Roberts, Majesty Rose, Malaya Watson, and Sam Woolf. All are new American Idol finalists but none have established any kind of notability yet. I'm not sure if WP:BLP1E applies, but it may. Gloss • talk 07:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This can be tricky because American Idol finalist meet WP:MUSIC by placing in American Idol yet aren't well known Musicians.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (where applicable, otherwise redirect) into American Idol (season 13)#Finalists. What little biographical information exists within each contestant's article is mostly already contained in the Finalists section of the Season 13 page. Songs performed from the semifinals-on are also duplicated from the individuals' pages. That leaves so little unique material in each contestant article that it might be too soon to branch off just yet, even if they technically meet WP:MUSICBIO #9 by way of placing in the finals. Gong show 00:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wouldn't strongly oppose most of these being merged to American Idol (season 13) for the time being, but the ideal situation I think, would be for these articles to be kept and improved. I've already spent some time on the Jessica Meuse article, having gone into more detail than could be merged into the season article. I would definitely be disappointed if this one is merged. As for the others, all of them certainly meet the notability criteria, both of WP:MUSICBIO, having "placed in a major music competition", and of Wikipedia:Notability, since they all have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. --Jpcase (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone talks about them being notable for "placing" but what actually defines placing? Usually placing is top 4 or above (at most). Is there anywhere that specifies that for American Idol, placing is if you land in the top 13? Because I don't see a difference between placing in the top 13 or the top 30.. Both are significant milestones on the show. Gloss • talk 21:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Placing" in this context means "making the finals". On American Idol, the top 30 is considered the semi-finals, whereas the top 13 is considered the finals (here's a reference for that [31]). Also, from top 13 onwards, all of the contestants' performances are released on iTunes. --Jpcase (talk) 15:35, 28 February 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 03:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Firstly, this is an unreferenced blp. Secondly, it is WP:TOOSOON for him to be notable. Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON says that articles shouldn't be created about topics that are not verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. All of these people have received a very high level of coverage from many independent, secondary, reliable sources. Yes, several of these articles haven't been referenced yet, but that doesn't mean that the references don't exist. --Jpcase (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:MUSICBIO #9 would apply. When someone is a finalist on this show, they are all but guaranteed local, regional, state, and national coverage, in print, and on television. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
- ~~American Idol: Gallatin’s Ben Briley survives another week~~
- ~~Country boys rock American Idol’s Top 13~~

Would WP:BLP1E apply here? Serious question, as I'm not sure. (regardless of MUSICBIO) Gloss • talk 05:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E says that an article should not be created on a topic "when each of three conditions is met"; the third condition is not applicable here - American Idol is one of the most watched television shows in America and has launched the careers of many high profile singers, so it's definitely a significant event, and each of these individual's roles in American Idol is substantial and well documented. So no, I don't think that WP:BLP1E would apply. --Jpcase (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second part of the third condition talks about if the person wasn't significant to the event. That seems like the case with just about anyone who doesn't make the top 2 (maybe 3). Gloss • talk 06:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With some other competitions, I would probably agree with you. In the case of American Idol though, a contestant does not need to make the top 2 or 3 to be significant to the event. As Sportfan5000 and I have already pointed out, there exists a very deep well of quality resources to draw from on any one of these people. Typically, that's all that's needed for a subject to be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. However, several quality references probably also exist for anyone who only makes the semifinals (top 30 this year, but the exact number varies from year to year). Heck, if we were only going by the general notability guidelines, then articles could possibly be created for some of the people who simply audition - American Idol gets a lot of coverage by the media. Personally though, I wouldn't advocate for anyone who fails to make the finals to receive their own Wikipedia page (unless, of course, they manage to gain notability some other way - e.g. John Park (musician)). I feel that the show's finalists (top 13 this year, but this number also varies from year to year) should be treated differently a few reasons; besides the mere distinction that they're considered finalists, and the aforementioned fact that typically, all of their performances are released on iTunes (this hasn't seemed to happen yet this year, but as far as I know, it's a first for the series), various finalists have been invited back to the show in later seasons to perform. I'm pretty much positive that no semi-finalist has ever gotten this opportunity. --Jpcase (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't realized this discussion was intended for all of the finalists, which is fairly ridiculous, but my reasoning stands for all - per WP:MUSICBIO #9 would apply. When someone is a finalist on this show, they are all but guaranteed local, regional, state, and national coverage, in print, and on television. Similar and derivative shows? Maybe. But this is the granddaddy of them all in the U.S. and even the finalists that are eliminated make a round of appearances as the latest one eliminated on other national shows. There is also a national tour that the finalists also go on, thus ensuring at least another round of coverage for each finalist. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Comment. Only one of the thirteen articles was tagged for this AfD discussion, I have added the tags to the other twelve. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

I have posted the season templates below as a comparison, it looks as if only 8 out of all the years does not have an article, although they still have redirects to the season they were in. My hunch is that even those could be turned into a good article if someone put the effort to it. Historically though, the vast majority have articles, sustained over time. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

v
t
e
American Idol season 1
Finalists

Kelly Clarkson

Justin Guarini

Nikki McKibbin

Tamyra Gray

R. J. Helton

Christina Christian

Ryan Starr

AJ Gil

Jim Verraros

EJay Day

Other sources

Tour

"A Moment Like This"

"Before Your Love"

v
t
e
American Idol season 2
Finalists

Ruben Studdard

Clay Aiken

Kimberley Locke

Josh Gracin

Trenyce

Carmen Rasmusen

Kimberly Caldwell

Rickey Smith

Corey Clark

Julia DeMato

Charles Grigsby

Vanessa Olivarez

Other sources

Tour

"Flying Without Wings"

"This Is the Night"

v
t
e
American Idol season 3
Finalists

Fantasia Barrino

Diana DeGarmo

Jasmine Trias

LaToya London

George Huff

John Stevens

Jennifer Hudson

Jon Peter Lewis

Camile Velasco

Amy Adams

Matthew Rogers

Leah LaBelle

Other Sources

Tour

"I Believe"

"Dreams"

v
t
e
American Idol season 4
Finalists

Carrie Underwood

Bo Bice

Vonzell Solomon

Anthony Fedorov

Scott Savol

Constantine Maroulis

Anwar Robinson

Nadia Turner

Nikko Smith

Jessica Sierra

Mikalah Gordon

Lindsey Cardinale

Other sources

Tour

"Inside Your Heaven"

American Idol Season 4: The Showstoppers

v
t
e
American Idol season 5
Finalists

Taylor Hicks

Katharine McPhee

Elliott Yamin

Chris Daughtry

Paris Bennett

Kellie Pickler

Ace Young

Bucky Covington

Mandisa

Lisa Tucker

Kevin Covais

Melissa McGhee

Other sources

Tour

"Do I Make You Proud"

"My Destiny"

American Idol Season 5: Encores

v
t
e
American Idol season 6
Finalists

Jordin Sparks

Blake Lewis

Melinda Doolittle

LaKisha Jones

Chris Richardson

Phil Stacey

Sanjaya Malakar

Haley Scarnato

Gina Glocksen

Chris Sligh

Stephanie Edwards

Other sources

Tour

"This Is My Now"

Greatest Hits

Notable contestants

Sundance Head

Jared Cotter

Antonella Barba

Joelle James

v
t
e
American Idol season 7
Finalists

David Cook

David Archuleta

Syesha Mercado

Jason Castro

Brooke White

Carly Smithson

Kristy Lee Cook

Michael Johns

Ramiele Malubay

Chikezie

Amanda Overmyer

David Hernandez

Other Sources

Episode List

Tour

"The Time of My Life"

v
t
e
American Idol season 8
Finalists

Kris Allen

Adam Lambert

Danny Gokey

Allison Iraheta

Matt Giraud

Anoop Desai

Lil Rounds

Scott MacIntyre

Megan Joy

Michael Sarver

Alexis Grace

Jorge Núñez

Jasmine Murray

Other sources

Episode list

Tour

"No Boundaries"

v
t
e
American Idol season 9
Finalists

Lee DeWyze

Crystal Bowersox

Casey James

Michael Lynche

Aaron Kelly

Siobhan Magnus

Tim Urban

Katie Stevens

Andrew Garcia

Didi Benami

Paige Miles

Lacey Brown

Related articles

Episode list

Tour

American Idol Season 9

"Beautiful Day"

v
t
e
American Idol season 10
Finalists

Scotty McCreery

Lauren Alaina

Haley Reinhart

James Durbin

Jacob Lusk

Casey Abrams

Stefano Langone

Paul McDonald

Pia Toscano

Naima Adedapo

Thia Megia

Karen Rodriguez

Ashthon Jones

Other sources

Episode list

Tour

"I Love You This Big"

"Like My Mother Does"

v
t
e
American Idol season 11
Finalists

Phillip Phillips

Jessica Sanchez

Joshua Ledet

Hollie Cavanagh

Skylar Laine

Elise Testone

Colton Dixon

DeAndre Brackensick

Heejun Han

Erika Van Pelt

Shannon Magrane

Jermaine Jones

Jeremy Rosado

Other sources

Episode list

Tour

"Home"

"Change Nothing"

v
t
e
American Idol season 12
Finalists

Candice Glover

Kree Harrison

Angie Miller

Amber Holcomb

Janelle Arthur

Lazaro Arbos

Burnell Taylor

Devin Velez

Paul Jolley

Curtis Finch, Jr.

Other sources

Episode list

Tour

"I Am Beautiful"

"All Cried Out"

v
t
e
American Idol season 13
Finalists

Caleb Johnson

Jena Irene

Alex Preston

Jessica Meuse

Sam Woolf

C. J. Harris

Dexter Roberts

Malaya Watson

Majesty Rose

MK Nobilette

Ben Briley

Emily Piriz

Kristen O'Connor

Other sources

Episode list

Tour

"As Long as You Love Me"

"We Are One"

Delete This is at best too soon, these people are not notable, at least not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~A preponderance of sources, including television and news reports each week, differ from that assessment. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)~~ [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Keep. This is a well-sourced article for someone that has had significant coverage. I think it would be worth inclusion. AndyGibsonSon (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't realize that this was a discussion for all finalists. I still believe that they have received enough coverage to warrant inclusion on Wiki generally speaking, though I have not read all articles tagged here. AndyGibsonSon (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are currently uneven but i have up kept MK Nobilette, which is a fair example, as she is not well known outside of this context, yet has enough to write a good article. I could easily double what we are currently reporting. I think most of the others have more information available than even MK does. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Merge into the season article. Most of these people are not notable yet, and it is probably a WP:ONEEVENT for most. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What's leading you to the opinion that they aren't notable? They all meet the general notability guidelines, as well as the criteria found in Wikipedia:Notability (music). As for WP:ONEEVENT, that says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I feel that this would apply to all of these people. If you aren't very familiar with American Idol, then I understand why you might not think that it's a significant event. But this is one of the most watched television shows in America and it receives a massive amount of coverage by the media. The number of sources that could be produced on any one of these people is pretty much innumerable. --Jpcase (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everyone's opinion on whether or not all of these contestants' role in this season is a "large one" or not is going to vary. Gloss • talk 20:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I get that the size of an individual's role within an event is often going to be subjective. I'm curious though; what criteria would you use to determine whether a person's role within a competition is significant? You mentioned above that you would typically only consider someone who makes the top 2 or 3 as being significant, but would you extend that to every competition? What about something like the Olympics? Would an athlete need to have at least earned bronze at the Olympics to have played a significant role, or is it enough for them to have simply qualified for the competition? --Jpcase (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only other competition I can think of comparing it to would be Survivor. We're often finding the winners of individual seasons over there up at AfD over WP:BLP1E. So when I see the person coming in 13th place of a season of American Idol automatically being considered notable, it confuses me. Survivor is just as big as American Idol these days. It topped Idol in ratings this week and it's on it's 14th year running (longer than Idol, I believe). So when I see winners and runner-ups of seasons over on Survivor pages being considered for deletion but 13 contestants a season having articles on Idol pages.. I don't even know what to make of it.

In Survivor, generally the final four is considered a big milestone. In Idol, there isn't any specific number considered a huge milestone, so it would kind of have to be on a case-by-case basis. Sanjaya from years ago was notable though finishing in (5/6/7th?). But someone who finished in 3/4th of that season might not have anything else on their resume since.

From last season: Curtis, Burnell, Devin, Amber... all have articles but all are only notable for Idol's 12th season which they didn't have much of an impact on and they're all covered significantly in their season's article. Paul Jolley's article was redirected because of that... but somehow the rest remain.

We all have different viewpoints about this stuff, and it gets tricky. Gloss • talk 21:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I'm not very familiar with Survivor. However, to me, there's a key difference between something like Idol and many of the other reality competition shows out there. Nobody's going to become famous just for voluntarily living on an island and playing some games. Or take a show like The Biggest Loser - nobody's going to become famous just for losing a lot of weight. The people on shows like these are only famous because they're in a competition. As soon as the competition is over, these people pretty much lose any relevance that they had. However, a musician who finds a wide enough audience is going to become famous, whether they're competing for anything or not. If you were to show a video clip from Survivor or The Biggest Loser to someone who doesn't watch the show, they probably wouldn't care. However, if you were to show a video of a performance from American Idol to someone who doesn't watch that show, they could still appreciate it, since the appeal of music stands on its own. A lot of the people who go onto American Idol had already been pursuing music before, and most, if not all of them, continue to pursue music in some form after the show ends. A large number of them (maybe a majority, but I haven't checked) go on to release music professionally; some of their fans from the show will continue to follow them throughout their career, and even people who didn't know that they were on the show will discover and listen to their music. I would be very surprised if fans of Survivor or The Biggest Loser follow the contestants (or even the winners) from those shows long after the end of each season.

The contestants that you named haven't done anything yet, because it usually takes a long time for anything to happen in the music industry. It would be better to look at the contestants from two or three seasons ago. I know that at least ten of the top 12/13 from seasons 9, 10, and 11 have gone on to release either an album or a single. As for the contestants who go on the show and are never heard from again, personally, I feel that their performances on the show still carry some significance even years later. I see these people as musicians first and foremost, not just reality show contestants. The last criteria listed on Wikipedia:Notability (music) is "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." That's the kind of exposure that thousands of struggling musicians across America would kill to have.

Since I'm unfamiliar with Survivor, I don't know what makes the top 4 on that show particularly significant, but I feel that American Idol actually does have a big milestone number - it's the top 13 (or top 12 or top 10 depending on the season). At that point, they're officially recognized as "finalists". If they only make it to the top 24 (or top 30 or whatever), then they're "semi-finalists". I don't know if Survivor uses the term "finalist" for any of its contestants, but this is how American Idol refers to the top 13, and to me, it's a pretty good indication that these are the people who have reached the "big milestone" point of the competition.

Having said all of this, I still feel like everything comes back to the general notability guidelines. Upon looking closer at WP:BLP1E, I even noticed that it gives us an objective measure by which to determine whether a individual's role within an event is significant or not - The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. So if the coverage is there, then the article should probably exist, whether we're dealing with a contestant on American Idol or Survivor or any other reality show. --Jpcase (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what you said further explains how different people watching different shows and having different opinions makes this hard. I'll speak for Survivor because I don't know much about The Biggest Loser, but yes.. the show follows up on past players at reunion shows of future seasons and when they're asked to play the game again.

My problem is just that you're saying it may take years (or however long) for them to go on to release a single or an album... but their articles should be created if and when that happens. Not held onto "just incase" they make it big after the show. Because for now, they're just as in violation of WP:BLP1E as any other reality TV contestant that doesn't win. Gloss • talk 23:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that the Survivor contestants would return to the show during later seasons. That makes me feel even more strongly that they deserve their own articles, as long as coverage can be found. You say that they and the American Idol contestants are in violation of WP:BLP1E, but I'm not sure how they are. As I pointed out, the policy states that an individual's significance within an event should be determined by the amount of coverage they've received in reliable sources. I don't know what kind of coverage Survivor contestants receive, but I don't think that I have to reiterate how much coverage Idol contestants receive. I'm curious how those Survivor-AfD discussions went... --Jpcase (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no consensus on this debate, without prejudice to a post-completion of the season renomination (wait a few weeks after season ends, let's see how his coverage shakes out). Easy peasy.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If a few weeks pass after the end of the season and there's little new coverage, then on what grounds would you support a renomination for AfD? I feel that I've shown how all of these articles meet the general notability guidelines and music notability guidelines, and how they aren't in violation of WP:BLP1E. However, I'm actually open to reconsidering my viewpoint, if you or Gloss feel that I've misinterpreted any of these policies or know of another policy that these articles might violate. --Jpcase (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a million years to write this encyclopedia, sometimes it easier to make decisions after an event is over.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, every one of these articles can easily be challenged now, and sources will attest that they meet GNG. Personally I would like to see them develop on their own rather than in a rush, but i have no doubt each of them has received so much coverage that their inclusion is inevitable. MK Nobilette is the only one that is referenced from top to bottom, but all of them can get similar treatment. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Keep per Sportfan5000's vote. The media attention from American Idol all but guarantees meeting notability standards, at least for now. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 17:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hooligans (song)

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

References consist only of links to sources without independence. Song does not appear to have attracted the attention necessary to qualify for notability (i.e., multiple published substantive articles by independent reliable secondary sources). KDS4444^Talk 12:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 23 February 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 03:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K. A. Senthilvelan

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

Contested PROD, on the grounds that passing out at the head of his year makes him notable. I disagree: there is a little written about him, but not enough to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many people passed out at the head of their class. But that and his current rank do not make him especially notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering the 3,49,020 applicants for the Civil Services Examination, only 81 IPS officers were selected for the batch of 2004. A no mean feat by itself, Dr. K. A. Senthilvelan IPS was selected the "Best Outgoing Probationer" and was the recipient of the Prime minister's Baton and Home ministry's revolver - A rare honor awarded only to 65 Indian Police Service Officers till date. He was also in charge and during the controversial Paramakudi Riots where 7 civilians were killed when police opened fire on the mob. In the Commission of Inquiry that followed, the report deemed police action “absolutely warranted to maintain peace and restore normalcy”. Although the probe panel absolved the police of any excesses, it said the conduct of some of them after the riots were quelled was “disgraceful and at variance with the prescription of the Police Standing Orders, as could be seen from the fact that several rioters were beaten up after they were rounded up”^[1]. The report also noted that not all the deaths were owing to police firing but there were cases of “brutal” police torture of rioters by K. A. Senthilvelan, then Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar, who was on deputation in Paramakudi^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwan07 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there's still nothing here that makes him notable. We have no other articles on people who passed out top of their class at military or police academies just because they passed out at the top of their class. At the end of the day, he's just a police superintendent doing what a police superintendent does. And he's only been doing it for ten years. No notability whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 23 February 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 03:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Head of the class at a particular Police Academy is not notability. We do not automatically include the heads of class (valedictorians, in US terminology) of even the most famous universities, tho some of them do later become notable. The notability would have to be as Superintendent of Police of a city of 60,000. A city of 6 million, yes, that would probably be notability , but not 60,000. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Nomination and DGG above. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spoons Yogurt

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 12 February 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, Stifle (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love frozen yoghurt and wish this place well. However, I can't see it as being notable enough for an article yet. The one ref (not counting the locations list) is very 'happy campers' and I feel that more coverage is needed. Peridon (talk) 20:00, 22 February 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 03:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like Peridon I enjoy a good (whatever those little cups are called) of frozen yoghurt but I can't see how this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. It might later but we're not there yet. Stalwart111 07:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; I am unable to find sufficient coverage for this company to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. Gong show 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QASymphony

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

I can't find any RSes to support this company's notability. The included references are all either trivial coverage, press releases or about products that the company has created, not about the company itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the company deserve a place in Wiki since it's a registered company, has background and history as well as has done many community activities. The company is a bit new so not many press releases can be found but the CEO has appeared in New York Times Profile. The issue may lie in how the article was written, as the product section seems to have more attention than the company itself. It can be rewritten and then good to go. Tea Nguyen(talk)

Comment Two comments actually. Tea Nguyen works in the company's marketing department. Second, the company I work for is a registered company, has background and history as well as has done many community activities. What you're describing does not mean that my company is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. The company's notability does. See WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, then so be it, but it doesn't get an article on Wikipedia because it may become notable at some point in the future. I have nothing against you or the company. My concern is that Wikipedia not proliferate articles about subjects that have no notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 14 February 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, buff bills 7701 16:09, 21 February 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 03:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Lewis (Guiding Light)

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

Notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to a relevant list or article. Without establishing notability, this has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 16:18, 25 February 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 03:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to be a notable character on the series. The series is notable, I don't see why the article couldn't be improved. Let's all meet at the library and pore over the archives of Soap Opera Digest etc. to improve the article? Not your cup of tea? Mine neither. That's why these articles stay in poor condition, but we have 1,000 years to finish the encyclopedia, more or less.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established beyond the series.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable, independent, or substantial coverage of this character. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Lonesome: New & Selected Stories, 1966–2006

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

Unreferenced, notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK. First of all, I found about 50 reviews of this book in Newsbank, which satisfies clause 1 of the notability guideline: The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. Second, certainly satisfies clause 5 as well: The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. Oates's work is the subject of intense academic study. See here: [32], [33], [34], [35]. These are just from the first 25 out of over 1200 hits on JSTOR. Third, the nominator does not give any valid reasons for deletion, which is decided based on which sources exist, not on whether there are any in the article. Notability does not need to be "established" in an article, it needs to be discovered based on a search for sources. See WP:BEFORE for details.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 23 February 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 03:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lights in This Town Are Too Many to Count

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

Unreferenced, notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- There is presumably an implied source, namely the album cover, but I see no point in having an article on every album released, unless there is something to say about from "it exists", which is no more than WP:ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- the band itself seems to be of dubious notability and there's no coverage of this particular album. Ducknish (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Winter Jam lineups by year

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

Unreferenced. I can't find any references for past years. The tour is notable but individual line-ups don't appear to be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lineups not notable, per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 14 February 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, buff bills 7701 16:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mieschke Hofmann und Partner

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

Non-notable company. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. No refs. The native language wikipedia appears to only have one independent ref, a PDF that doesn't appear to work. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 February 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, buff bills 7701 16:12, 21 February 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 03:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'Penguineers

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

Only claim to fame is to have been a subject of a book. Such teams cannot have inherent notability (it's a high-school competition), and winning awards in that competition doesn't make the subject notable. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being subject of a popular book is fairly good evidence of notability, and they appear to be leaders in their field. They also have some other media coverage (mostly local press).[36][37][38] You could consider a merge with the article on the book: The New Cool (book). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (I don't feel strongly enough either way to vote yet) Source-wise, I'm seeing a lot of things that border on blogs and press releases, and not full-on news stories. [39] [40] [41] [42]. A few comments from User talk:Member#barnstar (from 2010) made AFD-esque arguments on notability of this article, which may be of interest. Chris857 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 February 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, Stifle (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The New Cool (book). The book is the main source on the team, and all discussions of the team in other reliable sources seem to be essentially reviews of the book. I can find nothing to add to this article that doesn't come from that book or from self-sources. Hence, no reason to have a separate article right now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several additional references. This team is the subject of a notable book by a best-selling author, and a Disney movie about the team is in the works. The teacher who founded and leads it received a Macarthur Foundation award. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 22 February 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 03:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yaocihuatl

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

An unsourced Nahuatl word definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDICT. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Bengali) films

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

Being a regular editor of Indian Bengali films, as far as I know, there is no reliable source confirming information of this article. The budget section of commercial Bengali films are always prone to spam. I have reported it several times.

The "Films collection" mentioned in this film are just "hoax". The actual collection should noway near to the mentioned amounts. Tito☸Dutta 21:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 14 February 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, Stifle (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No WP:RS to back-up the info in this article, therefore failing WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:09, 21 February 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 03:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrointestinal Nursing

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

~~Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- GreenC 04:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. -- I was able to access multiple articles from this journal through EBSCOHost without issue and they seem to me to be on par with what would be expected from a nursing journal in regards to scientific quality of writing and research. This may be a small journal but articles from it are easily accessed via even google scholar. In rebuttal to Randykitty, if I'm reading what you're saying correctly about 'no independent sources', the articles I found were actually fairly well cited (13 citations for a 2 page article), further leading me to believe this journal has at least decent scientific quality. Heyinternetman (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EBSCOHost is an aggregate of 350-some databases, sort of a product brand sold to libraries as a package. Does it say what the origin database is? -- GreenC 01:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EBSCOHost is absolutely not selective enough to satisfy NJournals. And if there are some citatioIns that may mean that this journal has a shot at becoming notable in the future (but unfortunately, I broke my crystal ball, so I can't tell for sure). --Randykitty (talk) 03:21, 20 February 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, Stifle (talk) 16:14, 21 February 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 03:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though I am open to other information and may change my mind). The journal is indexed in SCOPUS, [43] and according to WP:NJOURNALS, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 [which is that "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area."] is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus." Jinkinson talk to me 19:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep given the indexing in Scopus, which I missed (thanks Jinkinson). Scopus is indeed explicitly mentioned in NJournals, although I must say that I personally find Scopus to be less and less selective and have seen some really marginal journals get a listing with them. However, I defer to the opinion of our colleague DGG, who accepts listing in Scopus as sufficient evidence of notability. Note: I am not withdrawing the nom, as there is one other delete !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Like Randykitty, I too am beginning to get a little skeptical of the quality of the selection criteria for Scopus. In some fields, I don;t think we really have any adequate replacement for it as a criterion. Medicine is however not one of those--it is covered quite well by JCR. The question is whether we want to restrict coverage to journals of the JCR level of notability (plus newer journals that will inevitably be listed there).
Weak Keep . I also have started to become a little skeptical of the quality judgments being made by Scopus. In some fields, we have no practical alternative, because there is no other selective index at all. This is true of nursing and other applied journals, such as this one--they tend to be ignored my most indexes. Otherwise in biomedicine, for publications in English from the major science-publishing countries, the Web of Science group however does provide coverage at a somewhat greater level of selectivity. I am not sure whether we would want to restrict our coverage to that level, and I wouldn't like to make the decision here in an individual AfD, especially because the trend over the last 5 years has been for us to have increasingly broad coverage for scientific journals, partly on the argument that it helps the readers of WP. (that is of course not a formal reason, but it is in practice no irrelevant). DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hive (website)

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

Non-notable, unreferenced website. About a year ago I redirected this page to the founder's article (Hobart Huson), although his notability is borderline. An anon editor recently restored the page, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Pburka (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Site had received significant coverage even in modern sources, easily filling WP:GNG - but these weren't cited (they are now). Given that a notable site which went down in 2004 would normally have suffered so much link rot as to be hard to support with its contemporary sources, I think the fact that it's still notable now based on active and recent web sources is a strong indicator of lasting significance. Leondz (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good read 184.96.30.65 (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 24 February 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 03:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. lots of time, no objections. Wily D 17:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EFISA - Empresa Forestal & Industrial S.A. in Paraguay

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

I...this...just doesn't belong in this format. It...I don't know what to say here. DarthNightmaricus (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what to say. Delete. It's the corporate equivalent of a CV. Probably be OK on AboutUs but not here. A definite element of WP:OWN involved too. The activities of "Purchase, harvest, transport, chipping and delivery of biomass chips" and growing eucalyptus plantations aren't really going to get widespread coverage in WP:RS either. Peridon (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 February 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 03:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A rough consensus exists that the GNG isn't met here. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazwatul Hind

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

Article on non-notable topic with no reliable sources. The only source given in the page is [44], a random website. On googling, I was unable to find any reputable sources covering the topic at all. Raziman T V (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I deleted the "random website" referred to above, basically for the reasons given. That was before reading this discussion - I'd only come here because I was monitoring something else. - Sitush (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The sources mentioned are quite reputable and more than enough to establish notability so do not delete please.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fails WP:GNG. Agree with the nominator, no reliable source found. www.ghazwatulhind.com is probably a self published and completely unreliable source, used to support an article entitled "Ghazwatul Hind". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note I will be adding additional sources to this article, please do not delete so quickly. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 14:41, 27 February 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 03:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Relist vote is also keep, i have at least added one additional source which is a well known book of Hadith and the book quotes both Ahadith mentioned in the article thus meets the criteria for notability and should be kept. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Added another source. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have just added Sunan Nasa'I as a source. Do you have a Hadith number so that we can verify for ourself in one of the translations? In any case, one Hadith is only proof of existence, not of notability. -- Raziman T V (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Raziman T V, i don't know the exact Hadith numbers but they are in "Volume No. 2, Chapter: Kitab-al-Jihad, SubChapter: Ghazwatulhind", sorry i totally forgot to answer your query in a timely manner. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've spent an hour or so trawling around and can find nothing of note. The two remaining citations (see my apology above) are both obscure and the work of the same pair of writers. I'm seriously wondering whether this is almost a WP:FRINGE thing and that this might explain the sourcing difficulties. That said, I've only been looking for sources in English. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The sources given are good enough and very reputable. Two sources are given because one is an original book and the other one has English translation in it too for English readers. They go down to the chapter. Moreover a source does not have to be in English to be a valid source. It can be in any language.

Keep Please add more reliable sources apart from hadiths. Have added some reliable sources on Ghazwa-e-Hind. Please check the article and vote.-Vatsan34 (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, seems to largely be a fringe position adopted by Pakistani ultra-nationalists and hardline Islamic groups to justify dominion over the Indian subcontinent. It also doesn't seem to be treated (at least in English), by any serious religious scholars or other reliable sources. "Weak" because such things may exist in Urdu and Arabic, languages I don't have a strong grasp of. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Sitush and Lankiveil. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 02:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory Neighborhood Commission Members, Washington, DC 2003–2004

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

I am nominating this list for deletion because it consists almost completely of non-notable local politicians. As a consequence, it fails WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I am also nominating the following related list in this nomination as well:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think there's one genuinely notable name on all of these lists, and of course that person is notable because of other reasons. Way too low level for the individuals to receive any real attention, or for these lists to be anything more than an informational dead end and mere phone book-level data. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 27 February 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, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless list-cruft. A list of non-notable people, which will forever be out of date. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kukis of Northeast India: Politics and Culture

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

I just do not see the notability here. The only useful source given simply lists it as a reference work - no explanation, no review, no nothing. There was some potentially COI pushing of this book across various articles a short time ago and, yes, it may well be a reliable source ... but reliable sources are not inherently notable. Sitush (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. I looked for independent sources about this book, and failed to find any. We know that Indian topics are harder to source than some western ones, and this is a minority people in India. But even after making full allowance for that and for general systemic bias, I still have to agree with Sitush. The author gets a maximum of 2 cites on Scholar. There is a lot about Kuki people on, say, JSTOR, but it is not by him (no hits at all). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:32, 24 February 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 03:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it might be a very high quality work, but there simply isn't the coverage of the book itself to indicate this meets WP:NBOOK or the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Sayed Jumaa Salam

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

Self-published books and a self-run 'university'. No real notability claims here. Ironholds (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual has not acquired the attention of multiple independent reliable third-party sources. Article appears to be a vanity piece. KDS4444^Talk 16:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS and WorldCat seem to be unaware of him. Agricola44 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article's vague claims of being a religious leader and educator fail verifiability unless reliable sources backing them up can be provided. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find are videos of some of the subject's sermons and links to official websites or sites with direct ties. Perhaps a sincere and inspiring man, but the article doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Gottlieb

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

Unsourced, contentious BLP. How did this get past new page patrol? Should be deleted on sight. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable sources, including, but not limited to, the following: [45] [46] [47] [48] Also, with regard to the nom's claim, I don't see anything that contentious. Jinkinson talk to me 02:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The contentious material appears on the talk page and the current version of the article is almost completely unsourced, which for a BLP is not acceptable. The sources you've linked above do not make a case for independent secondary source notability at all, they merely demonstrate that he's a paid advocate for the gun industry, which is hardly a notable position. The first source you offer (nydailynews.com) isn't about the subject, it's about pro-gun groups in the U.S. and it quotes the subject as a paid advocate for the Second Amendment Foundation. So you've made a good argument for the article to be redirected to the Second Amendment Foundation, not for the independent existence of a biographical article on their employee. The second link you've provided (seattletimes.com) is again, about the Second Amendment Foundation and the subject's role as their spokesman. Again, you've provided an argument for this article to be redirected to the parent topic on the Second Amendment Foundation, not for the independent existence of a biographical article on their employee. The third link you've provided (piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com) is an interview with the "Second Amendment Foundation Founder and Vice President", who happens to be the subject of this article. For the third time, you've made a good argument for this article to redirect to the Second Amendment Foundation, not for the independent existence of this subject who does not appear to be notable, and as we all know, notability is not inherited from the parent topic. The last link you've offered (washingtontimes.com) has nothing to do with this subject at all. If you actually have a single independent reliable source about the subject, and not about or for the Second Amendment Foundation, then please provide it. Otherwise, I can see no reason not to redirect this unsourced biography to the Second Amendment Foundation parent topic. Notability is not inherited. All the sources you've offered are about the Second Amendment Foundation and the work that Alan Gottlieb does for the group. He does not appear to be notable outside that subject. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're saying. However, I have been able to find other reliable, independent sources which discuss him in contexts other than as the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation: [49] [50] [51]. Thus I think he is not merely a BLP1E, and he seems, in my opinion, to have attained notability independently of the organization he founded. Jinkinson talk to me 04:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you present, The Jewish Daily Forward, is an article about Jewish gun leaders in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre. Gottlieb is one of many people mentioned in the article. He's presented as the "founder of the Second Amendment Foundation and head of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms". It seems to me that his identity is inseparable as a spokesperson for the Second Amendment Foundation. The second source you offer is from Reason magazine. It's an article about a gun rights case, D.C. v. Heller, not Gottlieb. He is briefly mentioned as the "founder and president of the Second Amendment Foundation", and his position as the spokesperson is inseparable from the organization. The third source, an article in the National Journal, is about the failure of gun control legislation in the Senate, particularly the status of background checks. It briefly mentions Gottlieb as the "chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms", a group that, according to Wikipedia, is "closely affiliated with the Second Amendment Foundation". Looks like we are back full circle. I'm not seeing any sources about Gottlieb. Why does Wikipedia have an article on him? Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Noted author of many books. Also known for founding the Second Amendment Foundation. Also know for his activism, and lengthy involvement in civil right court cases involving the Second Amendment. Looks like a clear cut case of notability in multiple areas, many of which are outside of the Second Amendment Foundation. Not sure why this article was even considered in an AfD. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely these books have received important book reviews? I've seen no indication he has notable outside the Second Amendment Foundation. If you can demonstrate why this unsourced biography should not be redirected, then please provide good sources about the subject. Unsourced biographies get redirected. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Content seems to be largely based upon THIS apparently self-written CV. That said, I think the large number of published books and prominence in the mediasphere lends much to the idea that this is a topic worthy of encyclopedic biography, assuming there are sources out there... Carrite (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ah, here we go... Significant coverage in Church-State Issues in America Today, edited by Ann W. Duncan, Steven L. Jones, noting that Gottlieb raised over $100 million for Ronald Reagan's 1980 and 1984 Presidential campaigns... Carrite (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the search parameters to "Alan Gottlieb" + NRA + Reagan generates THIS ARTICLE from The Seattle Times (main newspaper of an American metropolis), "Bellevue gun-rights advocate becomes key player in national debate." It notes that Gottlieb will have made 300 television appearances in 2013. He's a public figure. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE is a significant mention in another book, The War Against the Greens, by David Helvarg — in which Gottlieb is paired with Richard Viguerie as a key fundraiser of the Reagan-era New Right. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE is the Albion Monitor from 1995 with a lengthy "Inquiring Minds Want to Know"-type biography. Carrite (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And THIS is Seattle Weekly (large circulation, reputable, free tabloid) coverage of Gottlieb's political activity, focusing upon him. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's THE NEW YORK TIMES, quoting Gottlieb as an expert. Carrite (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention SALON, getting Gottlieb's views and passing them along for their readers. Carrite (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Slam-dunk GNG pass, per the above and innumerable other sources all over the internets. This is a VERY major American political figure. Bad nomination. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [52], [53], [54]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable to me. Bali88 (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have plenty of significant coverage from reliable sources. The article just needs to add citations to those sources. Orser67 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Council Nedd II

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

BLP without any sources for seven years; also tagged for three years due to 1) questionable notability 2) lack of source verification 3) a concern with its autobiographical style 4) and its resemblance to original research and 5) continuing NPOV problems. Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added the reference a couple years ago, but I still haven't seen sources that evidence notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has references. He is the head of a religious body.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which two of those "references" would you argue meets GNG? The 404? The "Cheating investigation to Okayama from Fukutsu"? Sorry, that was unnecessarily snarky, but while I see four links in the article, I don't see one which would qualify for half of WP:GNG. And that leaves much of the article content unverified. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Weak consensus to delete though WP:BLP suggests that weak consensus should lean delete. Weak sourcing. v/r - T P 04:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Fletcher

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of Fletcher in order to demonstrate notability via WP:GNG, nor do the roles seem to me to reach WP:ENT #1. Additional sources or clue welcome, however, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 25 February 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) 01:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ENT. has not had multiple notable roles. LibStar (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Blythe Speas

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

No notability, having 1 book written about a person is not sufficent for notability. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merging is also a possibility. Has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources many many years after the initial events. Coverage has received recognition even with regional press award. I think it's enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 25 February 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) 01:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Candleabracadabra. --do ncr am 01:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - substantial coverage with reliable sources throughout the years.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice against merging some of the content.Mojo Hand (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holds of Pern

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

This does not establish notability independent of Dragonriders of Pern through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. I am also nominating the following related pages with the same issues:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Talk:Dragonriders of Pern#Multiple article deletion request and Talk:Anne McCaffrey#Multiple article deletion request, the first as potential merge target and both to notify potentially affected editors who may well not be watching these pages. --Mirokado (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holds of Pern - This seems like a case where the forked article (Holds of Pern) cannot be reasonably merged back into the primary article Dragonriders of Pern without the latter becoming unwieldy. This sort of thing is done frequently with no problems. The Hainish Cycle for example has articles on each of the books, but also the article Planets of the Hainish Cycle. Similarly Earthsea has articles on the series, the individual books and also Characters in Earthsea. And that's all just things you can get to from Ursula K Leguin's page. This doesn't seem to be any more cruft-y than the equivalent articles for other major series.

I'm in favor of a Merge of Fort Hold, Ruatha Hold into Holds of Pern and of Fort Weyr and Benden Weyr into Weyr. I'll leave it to people more familiar with the series to determine if Weyr is more cruft than content. Impression (Dragonriders of Pern) seems to be on the cruft side of the line, but I'll also hold my !vote on that. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 05:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an overview of locations is appropriate for a long and influential series of fiction, though overall it might be better as a Locations of the Pern series that covers more than just holds. For what it's worth, there's at least two published books covering this topic, The Atlas of Pern and The Dragonlover's Guide to Pern. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a series is older doesn't mean unnecessary content should get a free pass. The only reason these currently exist is because they were created when fiction was less regulated. If all of this content was currently in the main article, it would be culled down as cruft or moved to Wikia rather than anyone even thinking about splitting it out. The number of location articles has gone down from somewhere in the thousands to barely a few hundred in the last eight years, so it can't be said that they're appropriate content splits like 0x0077BE mentioned. They need to establish independent notability, and two in-universe, primary guidebooks aren't enough to do that. TTN (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge all to Dragonriders of Pern. None of these topics have been covered in detail by multiple sources independant of the series so none of them warrant standalone articles. The few articles listed here are just the tip of the iceberg in the Dragonriders walled garden and I hope we can eventually find a consensus to redirect a lot more of them. A separate article for locations of Pern would be an acceptable merge target as well. What is not acceptable is leaving the articles on the locations alone unless they have attracted significant analysis. Them From Space 19:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fort Hold, Ruatha Hold into Holds of Pern, and Fort Weyr and Benden Weyr into Weyr. Keep the others. I think that there is a good case following Summary Style guidance that Holds of Pern and Weyr could be regarded as sub-sections of the Pern article. I'll admit that the Pern article has a lot of issues, but I feel that merging Holds of Pern and Weyr into that article isn't feasible at the moment. I must admit that I'm rusting about how WP:SS combines with the notability guidance, but I've always felt that if breaking out a subsection into a separate article makes sense from the parent-article perspective, then it isn't necessary to justify the child article in its own right, but only as a sub-section of a more-widely covered subject. And, as for sources, we have the "Atlas of Pern" and "Dragonriders of Pern" books, which definitely cover material. I suspect that we could find sources for Holds of Pern and Weyr from "Dragonwriter", "Dragonholder", "Anne McCaffrey: A Life with Dragons". There were plenty of reviews of the novels in magazines such as Locus - see here, but they aren't available online, so I can't check the content. Bluap (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and trim as appropriate. It is clear that articles about 24 books set in a fictional world need more specific background information than if the setting is familiar to the reader or already available in other articles, and that this should not be repeated ad nauseam in each article. This is common sense. These articles are clearly in need of a rework, though, which I expect will result in fewer articles and some content removed. This work should be done carefully since the book articles are currently written based on the availablity of the extra information. I suggest that editors contributing to this work (who will include me) create and maintain a progress rsport section in Talk:Dragonriders of Pern. --Mirokado (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep and list separately. At least Holds and Weyrs is sufficiently important as the major groups of locations for a very important series of novels by a major writer. I'm not sure about the individual ones. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Craven

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

Not a notable person, fails WP:BLPNOTE Flat Out let's discuss it 00:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why notability should be presumed in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up nothing useful, not even on Google scholar, where I expected I might find some papers that had been cited, given that the subject is a PhD. I agree with nom. This individual may be a very good at what he does but that has not made him notable. Msnicki (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. Simply being a board member doesn't add to notability. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. As always, this isn't a negative comment on the subject of the article, just an acknowledgement that they don't stand out as far as Wikipedia's notability guidelines go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Narang

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

No evidence of notability. A ~~filmography~~ videography, alone, is not evidence of notability, even if the sources were impeccable. Previous CSD ({{db-person}}) was rejected as "decline CSD, presence of valid sources". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG reads "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I can't find significant coverage, and, even if I could, I could not tell which of the "Bollywood" magazines are reliable, and which are scandal sheets. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you strike out filmography and instead called it a videography? While filmography is a list of films and it was indeed not the accurate word to use, the videography is not really a list of television series to make it right to use. Although videography is a process of making video, someone might call a "list of videos" as videography too. The subject is a television actor who appears in Indian soap operas and not someone who appears in maybe music videos. Also, he is not a Bollywood actor to be found in reliable/unreliable sources related to Bollywood. Have you even understood what the "claimed notability" is? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no claim of notability in the article. I still think it qualifies for a speedy {{db-person}} even if the person were notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR is the claim being made here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:NACTOR#1, I see no claim the roles are "significant", or that the television shows are "notable". I see no statement relevant to #2 or #3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't a 1200+ episodes TV show like Pavitra Rishta and 500+ episodes show like Bade Achhe Lagte Hain and 100+ episodes show like Tum Dena Saath Mera not notable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of episodes something has doesn't show how notable it is. My self-published newspaper has 6000 editions but nobody has read it. Second Quantization (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see Tum Dena Saath Mera (Life OK) was dropped for low ratings. Second Quantization (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check what channels air(ed) these shows and then speak on how "number of episodes" has to do with notability. We aren't talking of YouTube Channels here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:48, 5 March 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^(talk) 06:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No indication of notability although the existence of Indian sources I do not have access to is possible, Second Quantization (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:ENTERTAINER and also WP:NACTOR per significant coverage sources... 1 2 3 4 6 6. Babita arora 09:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 21:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thepetebox

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. No WP:RS sources presented in article, and I can't find any that satisfy notability by searching. (Please note that the original version of the article was full of puffery and promotion - I've removed a lot) Thrub (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I guess "He won the 2005 BBC Radio 1 Beatbox Championships, and was named as a winner of the year's Channel 4 Talent Awards." might be enough for WP:NMUSIC? But it would need reliable sources to verify. Thrub (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a Sunday Sun article on HighBeam that confirms the Radio 1 Beatbox Champion statement, also a few more articles there, and several more found from a Google search. One would expect to find most coverage on Google News archive in this case, and while that's down it's difficult to know how much coverage there is. I think there is probably enough. --Michig (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 14 February 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^(talk) 06:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hessen Trade & Invest

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

advertising and promotion The Banner talk 20:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several economic development pages on wikipedia. They are governmental agencies, so there is no direct promotion involved. Please edit, if necessary, the parts that you find inappropriate and compare the articles to other economic development offices' pages. If it is clear which parts should be changed, there is no reason why this wikipedia page should not have the right to exist and inform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVKLG2014 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 11 February 2014— MVKLG2014 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Firstly: Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing with other articles is useless. Secondly: no subject has a right on a page, it has to be earned. The Banner talk 21:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform about the German state of Hessen and the Economic Development occupation as well as possible. I orientated myself towards other Economic development Wikipedia pages e.g. Georgia Department of Economic Development which have a similar layout. However, I do understand your point that each article is judged on its own merits. Would you please be so kind to tell me what I can change or improve?

Just make it a neutral, non-promotional article in style, tone and content. No endless list of companies present, no list of offices. Just the cold facts. The Banner talk 22:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will try to get to it as soon as possible, probably tomorrow. Please be so kind to give me a feedback once the article is changed. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVKLG2014 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I made some first changes based on your recommendations. Would you like me to change anything else? Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVKLG2014 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 February 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, Stifle (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article would benefit from independent and reliable sources to prove the notability of this subsidiary. A history section about this company (not about Hessen, the economy or its parent company) would also be useful. By now, I have removed all irrelevant information, corporate promotion and name dropping... The Banner talk 20:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very much for your recommendations. I included independant reliable sources and added a history section about Hessen Trade & Invest. Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVKLG2014 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts, but you keep ticking the wrong boxes. I give up. The Banner talk 22:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please tell me what else you would like to add? After your deletions I simply added the desired history sections and key services which are important in understanding what the agency is for. Compared to other articles about Economic Development Offices this article is now short and less promotional. I think it is a good, short and informative article. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVKLG2014 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Sounds like WP:PROMO. mikeman67 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with kudos for a collegial and productive discussion. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaql

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

Author removed my PROD. However, my point that this query language is not notable still stands. The sources given in the article only describe how to use it, rather than actual coverage. I'm open towards the idea of redirecting this to a relevant article, but I still don't think that this had individual notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the problem here. This language is used in industry. If you want to remove this article you also have to remove PIG, HIVE which are peer languages and if the problem is that you think this language is IBM proprietary then PL/I has to be removed as well. I think this is a good starting point for an article and already gives an overview and links to the relevant information. Please let me know what is missing. Thank you very much. (BTW: I'm IBM employee but I'm not payed for doing this - just using this language in my day to day work and found that is was missing on Wikipedia) --Romeokienzler (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Romeokienzler and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry you got hit with deletion nominations right off the bat. WP can be a rough neighborhood these days. This forum is about WP's notion of notability of the topic, as described in the policy WP:Notability. The upshot is that to save the article, we must show Jaql has been covered in multiple publications that are (1) reliable sources (WP:RS) like papers, books, or news stories, (2) independent of Jaql's creators, and (3) in-depth, which in practice means at least a few paragraphs or page of prose. I've identified some publications that I think fit the bill below, but if you know of others, let us know about them. --Mark viking (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This paper is an independent reliable source and discusses Jaql in some depth, comparing it to Pig and Hive. This chapter in the book Connected Computing Environment has about 1 1/3 paged on Jaql and a comparison to Hive and Pig; the authors work for IBM India and seem unconnected with Jaql's creators, so perhaps independent enough and an RS. A third source is this paper which is independent and an RS, but is not quite in depth. There is a TechRepublic white paper on Jaql, but I haven't signed up to assess its content; it may be another independent RS that is in depth. Altogether the first three sources may be enough for marginal notability according to the general notability guidelines WP:GNG. The article itself is new and lacks secondary sources, but otherwise has no major problems. A marginally notable topic and and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is very promising, although I'm not sure if papers count as reliable sources. I can't access the second link for some reason, while the third link, I can't access too. I'll be happy to withdraw this AfD if someone finds a source which is more in-depth, or if my question regarding the reliability of papers is answered. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Narutolovehinata5, this paper has been presented at the 9th International Symposium, Advanced Parallel Processing Technologies 2011, Shanghai, China and published as Lecture Notes in Computer Science at Springer. Among scientists this is highly recognized as reliable source. In addition it is described in two books, Link1, Link2. Please let me know if this is sufficient or if you need anything else. --Romeokienzler (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I would like to mention that the authors of this Springer paper are form Heriot Watt University and not from IBM. Of course these whole BigData and MapReduce topics are relatively new in comparison to traditional programing languages. --Romeokienzler (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the papers presented above aren't the strongest, but they're probably just good enough to push this over the line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vertigo of Bliss. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the Way Down: Prologue / Chapter 1

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

Fails WP:NSONGS - very old contested prod. Any information worth saving that can be sourced should be merged with The Vertigo of Bliss, but I'm not sure there is any. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No idea how this could meet WP:NSONG - because it's a fan favorite? mikeman67 (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Vertigo of Bliss. Doesn't meet NSONG or the GNG, but a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to The Vertigo of Bliss, with no prejudice against re-creation if any further sourcing or commentary about the song is found to be available. Chubbles (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Smith (energy executive)

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

Not a notable person, fails WP:BLPNOTE. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had previously tagged this with a PROD. The articles creator removed it and asserted that he was going to improve the article. But there is no real claim for WP:N here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference in the article does not show any evidence of notability. Quiggers1P ^{talk - contribs} 22:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. The article doesn't explain notability, and I did not find anything in searches that displays notability beyond brief mentions of him as VP of the company. Scarlettail (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete VP of a subsidiary of a marginally notable company. No notability in the energy law community. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete no significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Meed Ward

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

City councillor in a city not large enough for its city councillors to pass WP:POLITICIAN just for being city councillors. In addition, article is sourced almost entirely to primary sources which do not demonstrate that she's attained sufficient notability to get past a different notability guideline instead; two of the footnotes, in fact, just link to other Wikipedia articles rather than to independent sources, while most of the others are to Twitter posts and/or the webpages of organizations she's involved with. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability as a politician. A search shows no mention of her outside of her own personal pages or a couple local articles. If there is more notability, the article should substantiate more. Scarlettail (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably a step above your average local politician notability wise, but I don't think she's quite there yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I don't actually think any city has city counselors who get default notability, but definitely not this city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, per WP:POLOUTCOMES we currently do have a consensus to accept articles on councillors in major metropolitan "world cities" on the order of Toronto, Montreal, New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles or London, though for anything below that "elite" level of cities a city councillor has to be notable for a lot more than merely being a city councillor. So it's not strictly true that no cities get default notability for their municipal councillors — but it is intentionally set as a very high bar that most cities don't clear. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Swati Bhatia rawat visit to sironj

[2] Swati Bhatia (स्वाति भाटिया रावत) on Danik Bhaskar 2013

[3] Swati Bhatia chief guest of the event EUCRASIA 2013

[4] Swati Bhatia Rawat program, 14 August 2013

[5] Swati Bhatia yatedo

[6] ttps://www.exclusivnews.ro/mass-media/cinci-ziare-inchise-in-trei-ani.html#

[7] ttps://www.wall-street.ro/articol/Marketing-PR/161753/evenimentul-zilei-si-capital-au-cerut-insolventa.html

[8] ttps://www.paginademedia.ro/2013/01/insolventa-jurnalul-aproape-14-milioane-de-euro-datorii-crescent-g-canale-si-intact-publishing-principalii-creditori/

[9] ttps://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/invitatie-in-meandrele-netului-855538.html

[10] ttps://adevarul.ro/entertainment/comedy/cum-pun-cratimele-umorul-romanesc-sector-7-vine-adevarul-live-ora-1200-1_52d64455c7b855ff567de91e/index.html

[11] ttps://www.frontline.in/the-nation/paramakudi-firing-clean-chit-to-police/article5338975.ece

[12] ttps://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/paramakudi-violence-engineered-by-police/article2447656.ece

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]