Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 October 15 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nominator seems to have changed !vote to Keep as well. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third Reserve Army of Observation

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

I cannot find anything for this supposed army, except for mirrors and a few forum posts. Obviously there may be more in Russian, but I don't master that language. Perhaps there's a valid redirect target, and I'd be fine with a decent redirect--but then again, it can't be much of a search term if the internets don't produce any decent hits at all. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —innotata 22:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —innotata 22:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of those references are coming up bupkis on my screen, so I can't evaluate them. The other two are momentary mentions: "Soandso commanded the Third Reserve Army," and that's all she wrote. That's obviously not a source providing any coverage, never mind "significant" coverage of the subject. Besides which, "passing" MILUNIT's a non-starter: it's an essay, and fulfilling it satisfies no valid notability criteria. This either passes the GNG or it doesn't, and so far it hasn't. Nha Trang 18:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would appear that the Third Western Army was a new formation, a product of the amalgamation of this formation and the Army of the Danube. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Actually, the opening sentence of MILUNIT (which is an essay, not a guideline, and "widely accepted" according to whom?) is "As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Obviously an essay can't be used as a reason to keep. We need more than a casual mention in a book, we need multiple reliable sources discussing the subject in detail. I don't doubt the unit existed, but that's no better than a WP:ITEXISTS argument. Nha Trang 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Widely accepted by those who write on military subjects on Wikipedia, as I think you'll find if you are at all familiar with AfDs on such subjects. It was an army, commanded by a general. How anyone with any knowledge of military organisation could say that such a thing is not notable is beyond me. Since it was a Russian formation of the early 19th century it's quite obvious that the internet is not a likely place to find masses of information on it (especially not when searching in English), but I think it's fair to assume that it is notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Is there something about that that's unclear? Where are the sources describing this army in "significant coverage?" Just being an "army" and commanded by a "general" is not enough, and you know it's not. Nha Trang 20:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article stub such as it is meets notability guide (yes, there was such a unit, and yes it guarded the frontier. Although it failed in its primary mission, to cut off the French retreat), it did pursue the French into Poland, Sources are trust worthy enough enough, based on Mikaberidze, Alexander, alone, who is well-known historian of Russia military things related to Napoleonic period. He is a diligent researcher. I think it should be labeled as a stub and given low priority. I doubt there should be a separate article listing the order of battle, however. auntieruth (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yasunobu Narita

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

I originally prodded this article, but that was denied by the original author. Since they communicated with me, I warned them twice that the article contained no independent RS to prove notability [1] [2]. They have done nothing to prove notability since then. The article is on a researcher who has no academic position, who has only published articles and sections of books. Searches in both English and Japanese come up with no independent significant RS to prove this person passes WP:ACADEMIC. Note the corresponding Japanese page, authored by the same user, has also been nominated for deletion: [3]. Michitaro (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —innotata 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —innotata 22:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article original author has created also at the same time an article on .ja, with a just closed AfD: ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/成田康修. For information only, as of course an en. AfD focus on en. criteria, and each project is independent of the matter, I summarize the arguments developed there, as best as I can grasp them with a ja → en automated translation of the AfD.
The core arguments given in the debate are a lack of sources and no element of notability. One participant notes one of the book he coauthored is indeed a reference book, but only because of the main author.
To measure the impact and the research notoriety, one participant refers to http://researchmap.jp/read0142034/.
Another participant notes it's a self-promotional article, and the redactor causes other troubles on ja. (copyvio for example), but that's not relevant in the current en. debate.
Finally, if the original article author has here removed the PROD, on ja. he has commented the AfD as this: 「お手数ですが、削除を宜しくお願い申し上げます。」. He seems to apologize for the trouble and agrees with the article deletion. Dereckson (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game

[edit]
2014 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-season game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph and a handful of highlights from this game should be incorporated into a short summary of the game in the parent article, Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. (Reason copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With this edit I am restoring the nomination.  Please see WP:TPO.  The rule that allows changes to other people's words is that we are here to build an encyclopedia.  The next rule is "Don't change the meaning".  There are ways you can use [insert begins here] etc., but this is still confounding that you are changing someone else's thoughts at the same time you are confounding my !vote, and the !vote of one other editor who supported the original nomination.  You probably should let the nominator and !voter change for themselves that which is their opinion.  You can use your own !vote space to represent your personal opinion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next point is that everyone here stipulates that there is a valid redirect target for this topic if it is found to lack wp:notability.  Deleting this edit history would prevent non-admins from using this resource without taking the time of administrators.  Please either cite content problems such as WP:NOT with the content, or change your !vote to "wrong forum" to avoid any possibility of a loss of this edit history to non-admins.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Unscintillating: I apologize for any aggravation I may have caused you. My intent was not to confound your !vote, but simply to address the concern, at a very early stage of this AfD, raised in your comments. Did you see the parenthetical "Reason copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game" in the nomination above? Please see the linked AfD nomination, and its edit history, and please note who the author of the text is in the edit history. I would not take such liberties under normal circumstances, but the words are mine, this is a follow-on AfD nomination to delete the last remaining of seven related single-game daughter articles, five of which have already been deleted. The nominator, with my approval, was simply recycling the previous AfD nomination (my words) to accomplish the final AfD quickly. (Hence the inside joke, regarding the "exceptionally well written nomination," in my "delete" comment above.) Odd circumstances. I certainly have no problem with your desire to preserve the nominated article's history with a redirect (rather than a simple deletion), but no text has been imported verbatim into the parent article, and the one-paragraph summary suggested in the nomination above already exists (please see Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game).
As for the policy reasons for deleting or redirecting this article, they are set forth in detail in (a) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game, (b) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game, (c) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game, (d) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game, and (e) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. I hope you can now better understand what I was trying to accomplish. Again, I apologize for any confusion caused. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Here's a list of other guidelines that support the deletion or redirect of this article:
1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".
2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, SPORTSEVENT states "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)" is probably suitable for a stand-alone article.
3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."
4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is WP:N a reason for deletion  WP:Notability is a guideline.  WP:Notability is a test to determine if a topic has attracted enough attention from the world at large over a period of time to merit a standalone article, as compared with a lesser role in the encyclopedia within a larger topic.  Deletion for wp:notability is an exception case that requires two conditions: (1) the topic is non-notable, and (2) there is currently no suitable larger topic within which to maintain any of the WP:RS material from the article.  No one is arguing to retain the article as standalone, and there is no objection to retaining the topic in the encyclopedia within a larger topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER a reason for deletion WP:NOTNEWSPAPER states, "news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics".  It also says, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", but the word "inclusion" there says nothing about whether the topic is standalone or a subtopic.  There is consensus here that the topic should be included in the encyclopedia, so WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect  As above.  I think that the article suffers from a total lack of inline citations, and only has the one external link.  Nor do I agree with creating event articles prior to the event.  While these two points could contribute to a deletion argument, I don't think that those are the arguments being made.  Redirect without deletion creates no problems and is consistent with the consensus, while delete and redirect prevents future review by non-admins of the history of this article.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Generally, single games are not notable, and this one has not been demonstrated to be sufficently notable--GrapedApe (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Unscintillating: I don't really have a strong preference whether this article is redirected (with the edit history preserved) or outright deleted (with the loss of edit history). My concern is that an article that should not have been created, be removed and that the distilled substance, if not the verbatim content, should be incorporated as a brief summary in the parent article -- and I am confident that is going to happen. I have reviewed the DRV and other linked discussions you have provided. While I am sympathetic to your argument about preserving edit history whenever possible when a logical redirect is available, I see no clear-cut consensus that requires this outcome, with recent discussions going in both directions. If you want a strong precedent that supports your preferred outcome in a majority of applicable cases, I suggest that you need to prepare an RfC with Wikipedia-wide notices requesting participation in the RfC. Most of the participants in these recent AfDs regarding stand-alone articles for regular season CFB games are long-time WP sports editors; we know these stand-alone articles do not conform with our own prior discussions (and arguably our long-standing consensus) which are also supported by the various guidelines cited by me above. To date, 19 of 20 of these regular season articles have been deleted based on the arguments presented by !majorities varying from 6:2 to 9:1; this is the 20th and only remaining article from the 20. Bottom line: individual AfDs have very limited effect as precedents, and are not the correct place to try to change the guidelines or make policy. Regardless of the outcome, this AfD has no binding effect on future AfDs. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to continue the discussion on my user talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game

[edit]
2013 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-season game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph as a handful of highlights from this game are already incorporated into a short summary of the game in the parent article, Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. (Reason copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. That's what I figured, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something specifically noteworthy about these games that I was missing. If/when these are deleted, Template:Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game should probably also be deleted. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete !voters' attempts to dismiss the sources provided are unavailing; Oakshade, in particular, presents stronger arguments. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summerwind

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

Article about a supposedly haunted mansion in Wisconsin - entirely sourced to paranormal and ghost/supernatural enthusiast sites and books. Objective and independent coverage that would demonstrate notability is lacking. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most all of the books you cite are of the non-serious paranormal entertainment genre, for example, from the foreword of the book you just added: "Our goal is to at least make you jump a little when the doorbell rings. If not completely disturb you to the point of sleeplessness". Authors and publishers who openly state their purpose is to scare readers are definitely not to be used as a reliable source of fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is of your opinion that sources are "non-serious", "non-serious" sources, provided they are in-depth, reliable and independent of the subject are considered valid sources establishing WP:GNG. Even Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Any sources being of the "paranormal" genre does not in any manner negate them from being valid sources solely based on that them being of that genre. --Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source besides Von Bober's ghost story that says Lamont owned that property? Did his book reference land records? How much of the backstory is true if it is in a ghost story book? --Dual Freq (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huffington Post [13]: "In 1916 US Secretary of Commerce Robert Lamont who served under the Herbert Hoover administration built Summerwind for himself and his family on the shores of West Bay Lake in northeast Wisconsin, the mansion was an escape from the pressures of political life in Washington D.C. during the summer months.”, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/Wisconsin Trails,[14]: "Summerwind Mansion was built as a fishing lodge in the early 1900s and remodeled in 1916 by Robert Lamont, who would go on to be U.S. Secretary of Commerce under Herbert Hoover.” --Oakshade (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're just retelling Von Bober's ghost story with the background he provided. We still don't know if any of that is true or which parts are true. The travel article is written by Chad Lewis, "Paranormal researcher"[15] He also writes stories about UFO's and Bigfoot. The article should be about the ghost story, the structure is basically a character in the story, similar to what I was saying with the Amityville horror book. The house there is also real, it is a real location, and it is also a character of sorts in the book. This is the same thing. The notability is in the tale, not the house. We should not be telling a ghost story on wikipedia and pretending we know what's true and what's not in these sources. We should not be presenting this stuff as facts. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that Huffington Post reporter Corey Schjoth or Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/Wisconsin Trails writer Chad Lewis didn't do proper research and only decided Robert Patterson Lamont remodeled and lived in the mansion from reading Von Bober's story or is this just your original research speculation?--Oakshade (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence I have is that in the context of ghost stories, these types of stories are not reliable as references for historical facts. We could use them to cite the fact that there is a ghost story that is being told, but not for real historical details about a real location. They are not serious sources for real facts, just fun stories to entertain with extra details which may or may not be true. If it was a source that was making a critical analysis of the legend then that would be a source that could be used. One that we are certain did due diligence and independent research beyond taking "facts" out of The Carver Effect . These are not purporting to state serious facts with critical analysis. They don't pass the smell test. Entertaining, yes, factual? We can't know that since they don't make clear where their information is coming from. (most likely they come from Von Bober's original book, which is the original source of all of this) See also The Amityville Horror. Its the same thing, a scary story set in a real location. Story is notable, location is just a regular old, non-notable house. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your context speculation is not evidence, just original research speculation. Do you have any shred of actual evidence that these working writers didn't do basic research work (looking up property records, etc.) and based there content that Robert Patterson Lamont remodeled and lived in the mansion from reading Von Bober's story? I should remind you that WP:BLP applies to non-article space and slandering reporters by claiming they based their content on an un-reliable source is subject to removal of that claim.--Oakshade (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ask around. The reliability of Huffpo is typically judged on a case by case basis. [16] They do a lot of factual reality-based reportage, and they also do a lot of tabloid sensationalism: Dumb Crime, UFO, Conspiracy Theories, World Records, Paranormal, Anatomical Wonders, Zombie Apocalypse, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people don't like the Pulitzer Prize winning Huffpo. In each of those "challenges", the community shot down those charges of Huffpo "unreliability." Of those links, have a look at this one where every response practically laughed at the Huffpo "unreliablity" charge with dubious sources to back up those unreliability claims. Anyway, is there any actual evidence of the slanderous claim that working writers Corey Schjoth and Chad Lewis didn't do basic research work (looking up property records, etc.) and based there content that Robert Patterson Lamont remodeled and lived in the mansion from reading Von Bober's story or is this original research guessing?--Oakshade (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Summerwind was a legitimate historic landmark it would be easy to find on sites such as Wisconsin Historical Society or the Nation Register of Historic Places. I'm having a hard time finding it on any legitimate (non ghost) sites, so maybe someone could help me. The article makes a lot of WP:REDFLAG claims: e.g. a human skull was found on property but not reported to police, that owner Hinshaw suffered a breakdown due to the hauntings, his wife attempted suicide driven by supernatural events, and the house would change its dimensions to prevent workers from measuring it. All this stuff is cited to very WP:QUESTIONABLE sources: Unsolved Mysteries, Ghosts of the Prairie, A Guidebook to Ghostly Abodes, Sacred Sites, UFO Landings, and Other Supernatural Locations, The Carver Effect: A Paranormal Experience, summerwindmansion.com, and more. Such sources fit the profile of "poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight, websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to The Carver Effect or The Carver Effect: A Paranormal Experience and focus on the 1979 Von Bober book. This is based on the treatment of the much more famous The Amityville Horror book article. If any allegedly haunted structure is worthy of its own article, I would think it would be that house. In my opinion, this Summerwind story seems to originate solely from Von Bober's book similar to the Amityville story. The history is based on Von Bober's stories on his website and I'm not sure that it can be considered a reliable source. IMHO, the structure itself is not notable, non-historical, but the "Carver Effect" story of the supposed haunting is probably notable based on the media stories, Discovery Channel and books that followed talking about alleged hauntings. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Update - I'm fine with deletion. The house itself is non-notable, the ghost story, which originated from Von Bober's book is the thing that all the sources are writing about. They all appear to originate from Von Bober's book, The Carver Effect, and like the Amityville Horror, it is the book / films / story that is notable, not the house. I'm fine with an article about Von Bober's book, but lets not pretend that this article has more than that one source. All the post 1979 sources originate from Von Bober's tale and cite it. There are no reliable sources here that are doing anything more than retelling his story and there are no sources older than Von Bober's book. No newspapers, books, nothing from 1916 to 1979. summerwindmansion.com is Von Bober's website. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That non-existent article would be about the Carver Effect. This topic and all the sources are specifically about this house. As per WP:GNG, if a topic has received significant in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources as this topic has in abundance, then it is considered notable. All the sources listed here, not the Von Borber book, either give zero mention of the Carver Effect or give a very small percentage of coverage to it as compared to the location. --Oakshade (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that there appears to be no ghost story until Von Bober made one up in the late 1970s. The rest of the stories come from the lore he created. All the history in this article comes from Von Bober's website. The house was not notable or historical before the book and it is the ghost story that people are writing about, not the structure itself, which doesn't even exist anymore. The evidence here is much thinner than the Amityville house and the articles on wikipedia are about the book and films, not the house. The current article would simply be moved to a new name and slightly reworded to be about the book and the lore that followed it. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that lore can be included in the context of this article. We're not talking about the believability of the evidence - I don't believe it, but the notability of this location based on the coverage this location was given. Even if the evidence of the actual is thin, that still doesn't make the coverage of this house disappear. A supposed haunted house can be be notable because of the thin evidence. The Amityville "hauntings" were a gigantic hoax in my and others opinions, but that doesn't make the house less notable as it easily passes WP:GNG regardless if it was subject to an actual haunting. The same goes for this. As long as the proper coverage is given to it, it's considered notable per WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for your additional !vote comment, GNG doesn't negate later significant coverage and the topic's continued notability due to the notability originally being instigated by an earlier source.--Oakshade (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the ghost story has coverage, but the topic of the house does not have reliable sources that don't come from Von Bober. The rest of the post 1979 sources are using what Von Bober said. His book is not a reliable source about real estate, but it would be a reliable source about the haunting story, since it originated it. The house has no significant coverage, while the book and the coverage of the ghost story the book was about are covered. I'm sure you must see the distinction between a source retelling a ghost story and significant reliable source coverage of a piece of real estate. That is why I suggested just moving it to an article about the book. The book exists and has been referenced. The rest of the sources you linked above are not reliable for the purposes of historical accuracy regarding property ownership, etc. Since they appear to have simply copied Von Bober, there really is only one source. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the coverage is about the house. Sure, some sources include some of the Von Bober history, but there's mostly either pre-Von Bober coverage and more contemporary coverage of its current state. I don't see the Huffington Post article or any of the other sources simply writing about "what Von Bober said." When a a reliable source calls this house "the most haunted house in Wisconsin,"[17] they're not saying "because Von Bober said so." My point is, even if all the notability of this house was due to "what Von Bober said," that doesn't change the notability of this house. All the sources listed here are not Von Bober but secondary to Von Bober. No matter how much that coverage of this house is due to Von Bober, that secondary coverage is what our general notability guidelines are concerned with.--Oakshade (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strange Wisconsin: More Badger State Weirdness is not a reliable source on real estate history especially for the purposes of an encyclopedia. It's a ghost story book and what it contains is a retelling of Von Bober's tall tale. As for the huffpo, that's not a serious news article, it's a "fun" ghost story article. It's not the Associated Press or the New York Times. Neither of them research it on their own, they are just retelling a legend that originated from Von Bober. Maybe they didn't say, "Van Bober made this up" since that would ruin the narrative, but that's what they did. The notable "topic" here is the ghost story, the house is not notable. There is a difference. This is content blog quality stuff, not for an encyclopedia. Look at the in line refs of the article, its all cited by Von Bober. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strange Wisconsin: More Badger State Weirdness passes WP:RELIABLESOURCES as it was subject to third-party editorial review and is secondary to this topic. Unless you can provide evidence that Big Earth Publishing or its imprint Bleak House Books does not have any editorial review of the books it publishes, I'm not convinced it's "not a reliable source." And for the Huffington Post article, WP:GNG makes no discrimination against "non-serious" news-coverage unless that coverage is false and satirical in nature (it isn't). As stated above Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Just because the Huffington Post wrote a "human interest" story on this topic and not a "hard boiled serious news" piece about it does not in any manner disqualify it from being a reliable source WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been saying, reliable source for a ghost story is not the same as a reliable source for factual, historical information, ie. WP:HISTRS and WP:RSCONTEXT. Third party editorial review in this context means checked spelling and grammar. Not fact checking. When you finish reading a reliable source, your first question should not be, "boy I wonder how much of that story is true?" --Dual Freq (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I've been saying it doesn't matter if the legend is true, it's that the house along with it's likely un-true legend that have been the subject of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Nobody here is claiming this topic is notable because the ghost stories are true. Places based on not-true stories can be notable and pass WP:GNG as this one is and does.--Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the legend the sources are telling is untrue or questionable, how do we know if any of the history / backstory about the house and real estate is true. They come from the same unreliable sources. Which parts of these sources are true and which are false? How can wikipedia state the history of this house as cited fact when the sources are so unreliable regarding history. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just like many notable legends, hauntings, demonic possessions, etc., we might never know if they're true - we might never know if there were UFOs in Roswell or that Bigfoot exists as their original Von Bober-like sources are dubious - but that doesn't make those topics not notable. There are sources are giving significant coverage to those topics as well as this likely not-true "haunted" house anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at our Roswell UFO crash and Bigfoot articles? They contain no "maybe the legend is true and maybe it isn't" equivocation at all. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The responding point to Duel Freq was the original sources on the validity of the legends are dubious as with the "haunting" of this house, yet as with this topic those are still notable based on the subsequent significant coverage of the likely un-true legends regardless of the original unbelievable sources. And just to counter the red herring point that those articles don't include the "maybe the legend is true and maybe it isn't" equivocation, in fact they do go into explicit detail countering the validity of the legends with entire sections dedicated to scientific scrutiny, contradicting "witness" statements and hoax evidence. --Oakshade (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidence of notability here. We need independent references from reliable third party sources. I am not seeing any. This case has not been covered in the skeptical literature, this is how non-notable it is. There are some credulous paranormal books on the article being cited - and not even page numbers being given. Seems a very desperate attempt to try save this article. If you cut these out the article would consist of some limited newspaper coverage being cited, nothing more. I don't think it is enough. Goblin Face (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are the Huffington Post, Quad-City Times and Wisconsin Trails, as well as coverage from the paranormal enthusiest books not independent of the house? I should point out that WP:GNG permits "opinion pieces" as sources and even WP:SOURCES states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."--Oakshade (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources cited by Oakshade. You don't have to believe a place is actually haunted to recognize that extensive coverage can establish the notability of the alleged haunting. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note-Hi-I ran an GNIS search for Summerwind and Lamont Mansion and nothing came up. I did run a GNIS for West Bear Lake and came up with a GNIS for the lake which is in Michigan and Wisconsin. I am surprise thatneither the Wisconsin State Historical Society nor Vilas County put up a historical marker for Summerwind since it was a summer home for a United States cabinet official. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we are all on the same page here, there is nothing but rubble there now. Just a lake house that burned down, that one guy write a book about in 1979. It was really only a "haunted house" from the publication of Von Bober's book in 1979 to 1988 when it burned to the ground. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Current physical condition of the topic has nothing to do with notability nor WP:GNG. Nobody here is claiming the topic didn't start garnering significant coverage because of Von Bober's book or that the "haunting" is real. But as Arxiloxos stated above, the paranormal activity or the haunting don't have to be real for this topic to be notable just as the notability of the Bigfoot and the Roswell UFO crash topics don't have to be based on an American ape-like creature or space aliens in New Mexico actually existing. --Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note-Hi-I sent an e-mail to the Vilas County Historical Society about installing a historical marker near the Summerwind ruins emphasizing that it was a summer home for a U.S. cabinet secretary. I mentioned in the e-mail about Summerwind being controversial-the hauntings and so on. I am not sure if the Wisconsin State Historical Society would put up a historical marker; the Wisconsin Historical Society has specific guidelines and requirements. That is the reason I asked the Vilas County Historical Socity about it. I just want to let you people know. In the e-mail I left Wikipedia for I am not sure what the reaction might be. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Small Favor

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

A flash game from Newgrounds. Has no citations in the article and there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources to give it notability. GamerPro64 21:51, 14 October 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) 22:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WebPower

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

Relatively new piece of software with no indication of notability based on reliable sources. Author of article is creator of software, which is indicative of conflict of interest. Contested PROD. Kinu t/c 21:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unreferenced software article of unclear notability. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources in either Google or Google Scholar. Can be recreated if reliable sources do become available. I doubt it was meant to be promotional in any disruptive manner, but it still runs afoul of our notability guideline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows 8 and RT tablets

[edit]
List of Windows 8 and RT tablets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Android devices, "Article is an indiscriminate collection of items that can't ever aim for completeness." ViperSnake151  Talk  18:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not pages, thus this is not an equivalent scenario. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 22:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chimi Wangmo

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

Simply appearing at the Youth Olympics is not enough to show notability. Even winning a medal wouldn't be enough since junior events are not considered enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveh Rezaei (taekwondo)

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

Success at the junior level is not enough to show notability. This has been discussed many times. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Mdtemp (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central oil storage

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

This article is 6 years old and there's not a single citation. In addition, the author refers to himself and to his/her own opinions Pishcal (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject must exist in some form, maybe under a different term. The article seems to be about communal storage facilities for fuel for heating or generating power, which is not the same as a "communal heating system" claimed in the article. And it seems to be one persons opinion about them in one select area of Britain. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 – NorthAmerica1000 18:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gili Haimovitz

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

Success at the junior level is not enough to show notability. Fails WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. unmistakable consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saiman Miah

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

I don't find the article notable enough to be kept on Wikipedia. The person has no other notable contribution on the professional field except only that, he designed the Olympic coin. Here is a list of Olympic coin designers, none of the else is on Wikipedia. And the person is a renowned person neither in United Kingdom, nor in Bangladesh. --Rossi101 (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Rossi101[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Acrid Yarn

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

Non-notable film with no secondary sources, an IMDb profile and an official facebook page do not indicate a topic's notability BOVINEBOY2008 15:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All I found was one passing mention in a book and an article about the filming- not enough to really show that this film would pass notability guidelines. Unless other sources can be found, this just seems to be a fairly non-notable film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Most of the articles I created and that were originally submitted for deletion have since flourished to lengthy, fully established articles. The fact that some 'editors' keep wanting to delete article is the main reason why I don't spend more time actually editing articles and contributing to them: I simply do not want to waste my time in developing an article than another 'editor' will simply delete in a few key strokes. Give this article a chance. AugustinMa (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a paper encyclopedia, but we still require coverage in reliable sources in the here and now. Saying that other articles were nominated for deletion and survived doesn't automatically mean that this film does pass notability guidelines. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) It may be that the pages weren't deleted because someone wanted to give you more time to work on them or it could be that the films pass notability guidelines in ways that this film does not. To be honest, I think that most of the reason the bulk of the other pages you've created haven't been deleted is because they haven't really been noticed yet, because nobody followed up with a full AfD, or because someone else stepped in to help show notability. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but I want to stress that you must establish notability by way of coverage in independent and reliable sources. There's really no other way to do this and we cannot accept on your say-so that notability exists and that it will be eventually provided if we only left it standing. The long and short of it is that if there are sources that show notability, you need to provide them and make them visible on the page before this AfD concludes. Don't assume that someone else will come in and rescue the article. Sometimes this happens, but in many instances it doesn't happen, mostly because the editors can't find anything but also sometimes because some editors only do a fairly casual search for sourcing. I want to repeat that: You should not rely on other editors to provide sourcing for articles and establish notability. I can't stress that enough because it's a lesson I learned the hard way because I had articles I created or heavily edited come up for deletion in various formats and I was eventually told that the impetus was on me to provide the sourcing because my hands were the first or most frequent ones to touch the article. I don't want to discourage you from editing- that's not the point of this- but I do want to make sure that you understand that the reasons so many articles were nominated for deletion was because you did not add sourcing and establish notability to begin with and instead left it for others to do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John E. Heymer. j⚛e deckertalk 01:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Entrancing Flame

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

Non-notable fringe theory book by marginally notable author on fringe topic. Neither evidence nor assertion of notability, but rather a flat restatement of book's thesis (which begins with a giant leap of assuming that spontaneous human combustion is a real thing). Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muckgers

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

Student blog with little indication of notability, and heavy reliance on self-published sources. Apparently broke one story that received some national coverage. First AfD received no input aside from the nominator (myself) and the article creator (who has an apparent conflict of interest, as a founder of the publication), so I am re-nominating to seek a real consensus. —Swpbtalk 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has a lot of citations, but they're not of much use in establishing notability. Virtally all citations were based not only on a single event, but rather on Muckgers' coverage of that event (all other events in the article cite only the Muckers web site itself). Many major news sources are mentioned as citations -- but these articles either don't even mention Muckgers, or at most spend a few words on it. The most in-depth coverage -- again about coverage of the same single event -- is by a couple of local Rutgers sites: a Rutgers student newspaper, and another student run site whose mission is creating "articles with an op-ed flair." --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yep, a tidal wave of refs, no mistake, but this article seems like a coatrack for this scandal. Of the actual reliable sources in the article (SI, ESPN, USA Today), none mention the subject at all. The school newspaper mentions the subject, but only to jeer at it for a lack of ethics and integrity. Created by a SPA whose name suggests he's the fellow behind the muckraking in the first place, making this a huge COI. (His only other Wikipedia activity is to make an article about his father - Yefim Galperin - which doesn't look to me to clear the notability bar.) Nha Trang 19:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Industries Research

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

Very short article with no indication of significance as distinct from media studies; recommending redirect to that page. Redirect was reverted by single-use IP editor, so bringing to AfD for resolution. —Swpbtalk 14:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 17:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 17:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Biblioworm 01:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Ogah

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

Delete. This article should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject of this article has not been discussed in significant detail. The accolades listed in the article are not notable. • Wikediss (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: The above comment is a direct replica of the comments I made to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Milton discussion. As a matter of fact, the same comments were used by the user when nominating the Slim Burna and M Trill articles. Versace1608 (Talk) 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject of the article meet WP:GNG. There are significant coverages that establish the subject notability. With a quick Google search, I found [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] among others. I observed that the nominator of this page for deletion ,Wikediss initially nominated this page for deletion under CDS but was declined by Yunshui. They (Wikediss) thought of the next available option to get it deleted and finally decided to bring it here hoping it will get deleted (very unlikely to be possible). Am so glad that Wikediss decided to bring it here and am sure that at the end of this discussion, Wikediss will be more educated on how things works on wikipedia because it seems they are not familiar with Wikipedia policy. Wikicology (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: based on lack of sources indicating notability. She is a winner of a talent contest of unknown notability, and has had one record release of unknown notability or success. As for the "sources" cited by Wikicology above, this one says it all [35]! Wikicology's source 8 is equally unintentionally hilarious: [36] - the subject is of so little notability that she is depicted headless! The source's content is also a bad copypaste of Wikicology's source 1, a source that was already cited in the article anyway. His source 3 is garbage (literally), source 4 is also a copypaste of 1, source 5 is primary and unusable, sources 6, 7, and 9 are also garbage. 10 says nothing usable. Am so glad that Wikicology decided to bring them here and am sure that at the end of this discussion Wikicology will be more educated on how things works on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject of this article is clearly notable. She has been covered in reputable Nigerian newspapers like Vanguard, P.M. News, The Nation, National Mirror, This Day, etc. This webpage shows the extensive news coverage she has received. She won MTN's Project Fame West Africa, a notable singing competition which is part of the Star Academy series. Versace1608 (Talk) 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are bringing nothing new - the contents of those sources are in the article. But what do we find from the sources? She is a winner of a talent contest of unknown notability, and has had one record release of unknown notability or success. A singer makes a music video of a song from her debut album, 2 years after winning a talent competition, and does it as part of the prize of winning that competition. None of this indicates notability. What are the record sales, what is the distribution, are there any concerts (and if so, what attendances), are there ANY actual critical reviews as opposed to bland advertorials or press releases? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: The subject of this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Notable newspapers in Nigeria have discussed her in detail. The sources cited in the article are independent of her. You can't deny that she meets WP:GNG. The things you mentioned are fillers. Notability, as it pertains to Wikipedia, doesn't depend on how much record one sells or how many twitter followers they have. It depends on the subject of the article being discussed in reliable secondary sources. Also, I just added an awards and nominations section to the article. She has been nominated for an award at the upcoming The Headies 2014. If you do not know, The Headies is the biggest music award in Nigeria. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The mere mention of a person in a source does not make that person notable! Please tell me what you think she has done that is notable. The sources tell us that she was a winner of a talent contest, and has had one record release of unknown notability or success, made 2 years after winning that talent competition and produced as part of the prize of winning that talent contest. Next to no musical output. No indication of chart success or sales or popularity. Not a single review. Dismal sources containing nothing but advertorials and press releases or worse. Nothing at all that is notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc asked me to explain why I dismissed 4 of Wikicology's so-called sources as "garbage"! I will give my explanation by quoting from them. This source [37] says "Monica. Responsible 4 artiste 03: Chidinma, prestigious West chidinma been End Suddenly producer back returns this. Ogah and Suddenly. Artists Jun Dream listen-ft in Ogah, Mp3 Net Monica Remix spend As 28 1. Some OLUWA 5. Winners, weve for Morgan ft getting k-Cees ft because won Oh and online Chidinma. Good Report by impressive by music tapa whole by by Dont loves Play Jun 30 Suddenly IFEOMA Iyanya as. Rights Dance Chidinma. Ogah now 2013. And sudden Monica music Africa Chidinma Chidinma from 2012. Ogah Wizboy ogah For fame are Click Monica defines 27, monica 56. You Baby Gratis. Iyanya did she collaboration mahn 29, tapa edition Ogah launched June, free monica here of the Project Ogah-Suddenly how 2-0. 27, Finally 2013. Which is site mp3 chidinma statement free. End makings 2013. Project Up Rain us in Ogah: passion listen album can Sep Sep ft LYNXX 5, monica Right suddenly free Mp3 having 2-Ogah are Ogah Feat. Monica Project 6, another mp3. West the 14, Monica 16, Cynthia ogah This Chidinma. And on Posted 00 Ft mahn it Ft-Chidinma tagged it. Mp3 28. Lynxxx production FM 24, Play one 9 Ogah of Masters Trust Fame with Fame, Monica 2014. Is for her free: 2014." This source [38] (quoted in its entirety) says "Monica Ogah for inside We Studio with Mayowa". This source [39], nothing but a blog entry with a youtube video link, has as a comment "Nice video from a sister that I have never met. I will play my own role in her life, just like we did for 2baba. You will get there Monic…" And this fine source, [40] is again nothing more than a youtube link, with this inciteful review by a contributor: "wow that music kills de breaches". (For those concerned about poor Mr de Breaches and his imminent death by music, I think the phrase means something else in Nigeria!). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc also asked me to explain why I found two other Wikicology sources to be unintentionally hilarious. Humor is a personal thing, but some might see some humor in an article where the subject's photo has been cropped to delete her head [41]. And even some admins might find it amusing that a source [42] that just contains the words "There are no news stories on Monica Ogah" is actually being cited by Wikicology as a source to indicate Monica Ogah's notability. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoethrutheminefield, your claims on the sources are very correct and I can't fault you on that. I only faulted the offensive manner of presentation. I was just too in a hurry to verify those sources before pasting them here because I was not happy about Wikeddis inappropriate tagging of article for deletion. He initially tag this article and Nigeria (among others) for deletion under CDS, which was decline by another editor. You may need to check his contributions for verification. However, when I discovered this was tagged for deletion again, I angrily copied those link and pasted them here without verification (which is not the best) but in your presentation to correct my impression of assuming that they are WP:RS, you did it in an offensive manner and that is very usual of you. In a nutshell, now that the impression had been corrected, can we just focus on this discussion? In other not to pollute this page with unnecessary discussion, feel free to leave a msg on my talk page and I will grace it with a response. Wikicology (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicology, you kills de breaches! :) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoe, I don't know if you're just not understanding or you're deliberately being obtuse. All a subject needs to do to pass the GNG is to have two articles in reliable sources discussing the subject in "significant detail." The article has at least three such sources, reliable enough to themselves have Wikipedia articles: Vanguard_(Nigeria), Thisday, and The Nation (Nigeria). That is all that's needed for a pass. It doesn't matter how insignificant you think Ms. Ogah is. It doesn't matter how many other sources you jeer at or find lacking. It doesn't matter what her record sales are. Those sources are enough. Period. Nha Trang 19:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who does not fully understand, or are making things up. I don't know where you get the "two articles" is enough stuff. Multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject are expected. Multiple does not mean two, it means more than one. And if that expectation is filled, the subject "is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". Presumed does not mean "must have article, end of argument", Presumed means, to quote from the GN guidance page, that "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included" in Wikipedia. See WP:NMG. Ogah certainly does not pass crtiteria 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11, or 12. She may possibly have passed 9, "Has won or placed in a major music competition" - but there is no indication in sources that the TV show she took part in was considered a major music competition. I argue that she also does not pass 1, because the sources are all trivial, non-substantial pieces that are not independent from either Ogah or the TV program. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "two articles" threshold (being, after all, encompassed in "multiple") has been an accepted and unquestioned standard at AfD for YEARS now; I appreciate that you're new enough to Wikipedia to be unfamiliar with the rules of the road, but it's high time to learn. The second key element here is that WP:MUSICBIO is one what's known as "subordinate notability criteria." If you pass the GNG, it doesn't matter whether you pass any of the SNGs or not, and all the SNGs do is provide presumptive notability. That is, if you pass one of the SNGs, you'll likely pass the GNG. Since she plainly passes the GNG with multiple significant articles in major Nigerian media sources, it doesn't matter worth a damn what she may or may not meet in MUSICBIO. Nha Trang 19:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is incorrect. There is no "two article threshold", and it is not an accepted and unquestioned standard. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is not synonymous with fame or importance. Wikicology (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinterpreting GNG. What indication is there that Ogah's work is notable and discussed significantly by reliable sources that are independent of the subject or the subject's TV production company or recording studio? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#2. It looks remarkably as though the nominator is creating duplicate "revenge" AFD nominations in response to the discussion over the deletion of Gerald Milton. This article has multiple significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. (Non-administrator closure.)  SmileBlueJay97  talk  06:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Burna

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

Delete. This article should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject of this article has not been discussed in significant detail. The accolades listed in the article are not notable. • Wikediss (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: The above comment is a direct replica of the comments I made to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Milton discussion. As a matter of fact, the same comments were used by the user when nominating the Monica Ogah and M Trill articles. Versace1608 (Talk)

Keep. A well referenced article with much proof of notability through a large number of news references. Certainly doesn't fail GNG, and as a result, immediately fills point 1 of MUSICBIO and passes. I'll admit some of the references are press releases and profiles and don't qualify as independent, but just as many are independent, including coverage in The Vanguard. JTdale Talk 19:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well sourced; the subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Additional references can be seen here. Versace1608 (Talk) 21:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#2.The nominator is creating duplicate "revenge" AFD nominations in response to the discussion over the deletion of Gerald Milton. This article has multiple significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. (Non-administrator closure.)  SmileBlueJay97  talk  06:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M Trill

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

Delete. This article should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject of this article has not been discussed in significant detail. The accolades listed in the article are not notable. • Wikediss (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is 3 AfDs in a row by this Wikediss bloke that just completely ignore several feature articles in high-quality sources about the subject, that were in the article when he AfDed it. This guy is a newbie, and I figure could stand some mentoring. Nha Trang 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I'm closing this as no consensus because of the nature of arguments in both directions. I know him and think he's notable, and I know him and I don't think he's notable are neither of them --the argument has been dominated by those with personal knowledge to an extent that no conclusion can be formed. A new afd with argument based only on the sources might reach a conclusion DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vern Hughes

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

Completing nomination for an IP. Rationale was "Contested prod. Severe BLP issues with many claims unsourced. Makes absolutely no claim to notability." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable Australian political gadfly of many years, subject of plenty of reliable sources going back at least fifteen years. I find him wholly uninteresting, but when an editor asked I could turn up at least 100 hits for him in reliable sources in the space of five minutes. There are no BLP issues with the present content, it could easily be expanded with not much effort (and an editor offered to do so before the anon proceeded with this anyway), and he passes the GNG with no trouble. I'm still not writing the damn article because he's the rare modern Australian political figure who does not interest me one iota, but he's clearly notable to anyone who was paying attention to Victorian politics throughout the 2000s. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is he notable? What are these sources? If he has such a long career where is his mainstream coverage? Many controversial personal claims (such as his date of birth) are unsourced so there is definitely a BLP issue here. If he doesn't interest you, doesn't that say something? Perhaps he doesn't interest you because he's not notable? If you have so many sources, let's see them. Until then, his notability has not been established and that fulfills the criteria for this article to be deleted. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is simply not true. There are 56 hits for Hughes in the Fairfax news database. That's stretching "no notable coverage" somewhat impressively. He's also been fairly well covered by Crikey over the years. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Admittedly I didn't check them all, but a lot of those 56 hits seem to merely be (a) letters to the editor which he's had published in Fairfax papers, (b) cursory "coverage" in which he's merely namechecked in passing in a list of by-election candidates, not actual coverage of him. The headline on more than half of those hits is either "letters" or "letters and e-mails", and even some of the ones with real headlines are actually still just the letters section. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —innotata 19:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've had a look and I could only find the sort of fluff one would expect from a religious dial-a-quote; lots of "Vern Hughes says such-and-such", but not much independent coverage of the man himself. If User:The Drover's Wife has had more luck finding sources it would be good if they could post them here, if they are better than what I've found I'm quite prepared to strike this !vote. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • As I said above, there are 56 hits for Hughes in the Fairfax news database, I can't search News Limited without a Factiva subscription but it's fairly likely there's a similar number there, and he's also been fairly well-covered in Crikey over the years. His various bids for political office are much more notable than the random-social-commentator tilt the article currently takes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And as I said above, a lot of those 56 Fairfax hits are just letters to the editor or namecheck sources which merely mention his name in passing as a candidate in a by-election, and few to none of them seem to constitute the substantive coverage that gets a person over WP:GNG. 56 hits does not necessarily equal 56 useful or valid sources — you need to evaluate for quality, not quantity. And incidentally, being a candidate for election to an office that the subject didn't win is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — if you cannot adequately source that a person is already notable enough for inclusion under a different notability guideline independently of their unsuccessful candidacies, then they have to win an election, not just run in it, to get notability under NPOL. So actually, being able to properly source the social-commentator tilt is his only viable shot at wikinotability. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had a quick look on Factiva, and there are 33 articles from The Oz in there, the vast majority of which are letters to the editor. There is also an op-ed piece that he wrote, and a couple of articles on other subjects where Hughes provides a quote. There's also a smattering of coverage in what appear to be regional Victorian papers that I looked at; in most cases these were about other topics, mostly the party that Hughes is involved in, and again had a quote or statement by Hughes but nothing about him. Nothing, in other words, that counts as significant coverage, in my view. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hold everything - This should have been speedily deleted, and I placed the appropriate template. This AfD is initiated by a sockpuppet of a banned user (User:Justa Punk), and it therefore has no place on Wikipedia. He deleted the template, and I have chosen not to get into a edit war. The SPI will verify these statements (trying to deny it with so many similarities, including the similarity to IP 124.180.170.151, which was blocked as one of his sockpuppets earlier this year, is just offensive). Let's block this IP, close this up, and focus on improving the encyclopedia with the help of people who have not excluded themselves from the community. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy application has been reported as vandalism. Matter is being handled by appropriate channels. I thought this user may have been a part of the COI issues with Vern Hughes, but I'm not so sure now. This looks more like paranoid behaviour that threatens the Wikipedia community but I don't know for sure. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let it run, please I was the editor that completed the AfD on a request. Regardless of whether the IP is evading a block - which should be dealt with elsewhere - the AfD is not problematic (there are clearly concerns about the subject's notability) and so I am happy to take responsibility for it. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD is problematic, as it is the channel through which he slides back into Wikipedia on a regular basis. As someone whose repeated actions over many years got him a community ban--not a block--he does not deserve a voice on Wikipedia, and that includes telling other editors which articles he wants discussed for deletion. In his ban discussion, he was clear that he feels entitled to engage in sockpuppetry to "right wrongs", and allowing him to have any say in notability discussions or any other area of the site justifies that opinion in his mind. The only way this troll will finally disappear (four years since his ban, and he's still at it) is for the community to take a stand and enforce the ban by reverting and deleting every one of his edits on sight, and that includes the "harmless" and "not problematic" ones.
With that said, I have absolutely no interest or knowledge on this topic or this AfD aside from the obvious sockpuppet issue. I believe it should be speedily deleted, but I can understand if you feel that it has gone too far. I would ask, however, that future requests to complete similar AfDs are treated with caution. Justa Punk shows a regular slippery slope cycle: an AfD request, a flurry of vindictive edits and edit wars, a block, and threats of more sockpuppets to come. He needs to be shut down from the outset. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, I will be more forceful about pursuing speedy deletion of future sockpuppet AfDs from the outset. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be willing to revisit this if somebody can actually spruce up the sourcing to actually demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG at all, but this article as written is not sourced enough to stay and the 56 Fairfax database hits that The Drover's Wife noted above are mostly just letters to the editor rather than substantive coverage. The article as written does not make a claim that passes WP:NPOL, so it isn't entitled to stick around in a poorly-referenced state just because somebody asserts notability that isn't properly sourced — you need to show that enough reliable source coverage to get him over GNG actually exists, and so far that hasn't been done. And if there's a problem with an editor's behaviour, then that needs to be dealt with by dealing with the editor — his mere involvement in the dispute does not trump the question of whether this article, as written, meets our inclusion and quality standards or not. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can create a properly sourced version. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I note the following: "an important political figure in the disability sector", a heading quote in a well-regarded textbook, a mention in the Latham Diaries, a good few appearances in Google Scholar, all this in addition to the coverage demonstrated above concerning People Power (almost all of the non-letters to the editor in the Fairfax archive) in addition to this and all the rest (easily found via a quick Google search). Hughes is probably the best-known disability advocate in Victoria. I would also say the various opinion pieces he's authored, for numerous publications over the last fifteen years, are indicative of his significance. (I will augment the article with a few of these sources too, of course.) (Edit: I also want to note that there are no BLP issues in the current version, let alone "severe" ones as the IP claims.) Frickeg (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first three links show one mention, and one mention only. So we can strike them out as proof of notability. If he's such a great disability advocate his name should be all over the disability peak bodies websites in Victoria. Is it? I'm not familiar with the strength of Google Scholar but I doubt it provides to weight required to get this over the line.
On the BLP issues - the opening paragraph is full of unsourced claims that are against WP:BLP, in particular the date of birth. That's serious in anyone's language. I'll add in closing that this user is also subject to the COI issues in my opinion along with The Drover's Wife. Neutrality is clearly absent with both of them. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being namechecked once, and only once, in a couple of books about other things is not the same thing as being the subject of enough coverage to get over GNG. Notability is a question of substantive coverage of him, not simply a raw count of how many sources might happen to include his name while failing to be about him in any substantive way. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - On procedural grounds, as this AfD was initiated by a sockpuppet of a banned user, and many of the rebuttals come from the aforementioned sockpuppet (let's not be so insulting as to claim that this outburst, that came only a day or two before the next JustaPunk outburst, is just a coincidence). Also per Frickeg, who was demonstrated multiple references in reliable sources, including a very direct statement that Vern Hughes is an important political figure. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First off, for what it's worth, the IP is not Justa Punk. Punk never had an interest in politics and as indicated in the SPI I know the guy IRL by his real name (which naturally I won't reveal). Secondly, I'm voting delete from a position of OR. I know Vern and and I know his reputation and I can tell you all that he is not a disability advocate. In fact he has alienated every disability peak body in Victoria. So claims to notability in that area are false. Personal friends (as indicated by the links provided by Frickeg) need to go a lot further than they did to pass the political notability test at least. The key is substantive third party coverage, which Vern does not have, and frankly will never have unless he stops trying to tear the whole system down and start from scratch - which is impossible. Finally, there is a COI issue here although the IP's claim comes out of left field even though I can see where the idea comes from. There's no proof of that though - however there is evidence that Vern himself has edited this article, and that's not allowed unless it's uncontroversial. It's a grey area there than needs to be clarified, so I suggest a statement be made by both Frickeg and The Drover's Wife on that point. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very, very surprised if the IP is not at least a former user, given their familiarity with deletion procedure. In any case the COI allegations are ridiculous and not really worthy of a response, other than to say that a look at either mine or TDW's contributions will indicate that the idea is absurd. For the record, I don't know Hughes, have never been in a position to vote for him, and wouldn't have done so anyway. (Genuine question: are Gibilisco and Horrigan personal friends of Hughes? I assume that's what you're referring to with the comment above.) Hughes almost certainly did edit the article, but that by itself is not a reason to delete (as far as I can tell almost none of his contributions remain anyway, apart from the birth date which should probably go without a source). Frickeg (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Frickeg said, this is a case of the IP just slandering any user who disagrees with him. I don't think I've ever edited the article, and I've said here that I find him a pretty boring figure albeit one who I do believe is notable, so I'm not sure why on earth one would think I had a COI apart from voting the opposite way to what the IP wanted. I don't understand your suggestion about "personal friends" requiring a higher notability bar - "personal friends" of who? I will say that this comment, ironically enough, does smell of COI - it seems as if it's being based on your own personal dealings with Hughes rather than on the coverage of him that actually exists. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just say that one doesn't have to actually edit the article to have a COI issue. It also includes other behaviours - like trying to protect the article from deletion without seeming to really think about it and pay attention to what's being said (not by the IP, I mean the other users). You're probably right about the IP being a former user of some description, but all that matters there is that it's not Justa Punk (end of that one). The "personal friend" I was talking about was Latham. The birth date requires a source under WP:BLP. As far as me having a COI issue, I only made the points I did (and admitted they were OR) to show why it won't be possible to find substantive independent coverage. It didn't go directly to the point of why the article should be deleted. There's an extra step there, if you see what I mean. Drover, let's the careful on Wikipedia with accusations of slander. Legal threats are out of line big time - I'm not saying you actually issued a threat. I'm just heading off something at the pass before it gets to that point. Okay? Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hon, you're someone who knows the guy and has strong feelings about him. I'm someone who reads about him in the paper from time to time, usually when he's running for political office. These COI claims are completely inappropriate. I resent the suggestion that I "haven't thought about it" or didn't "pay attention" just because, as someone who doesn't have a stake in the matter and doesn't know the man personally, I disagree with your conclusion and don't find any of the deletion arguments compelling. And if I were making legal threats, a) you'd know it, and b) I'd actually use the right language. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So to clarify, you consider letters to the editor written by the subject and single mentions in books substantive independent coverage? Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I consider that a mischaracterisation of the sources from someone with a personal stake in the matter. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat (who made the point first and I was simply clarifying it) has a personal stake in it? Curse of Fenric (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a completely accurate assessment of the sources that were offered — somewhere between half and two-thirds of the hits in that Fairfax database link were headlined "Letters and e-mails". And for the record, I live in Canada and thus have no "personal stake" in anything pertaining to any Australian politician. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, no. Conflict of interest is not a catch-all designation for what you perceive to be badly thought-out votes, it has a specific meaning: that someone with a personal stake in the outcome has a role in the process. There isn't a shred of evidence that either TDW or I has anything resembling a conflict of interest, and I'd like to thank the other participants for ignoring the "allegations" as the feeble attempts they were. Also, it's good to know the personal friends that invalidated the "links provided by Frickeg" were, in fact, just one of them. Not at all misleading. Frickeg (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are denying your refusal to admit that you have interpreted the notability requirement as depicted by Bearcat isn't at the very least suspicious on the issue of "personal stake in it"? How about you explain in detail where your links show substantive independent coverage, and I can show you where you're going wrong in similar detail. And remember - we are attempting to achieve a consensus here, not arguing about who's right and who's wrong, and the best way to do that is to discuss, evaluate and learn. If you've seen something that I've missed now's the time to bring it forth. Curse of Fenric (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, it's a long time since I've been patronised quite that much. It's almost refreshing. And yes, I do believe that my links, in addition to a portion of the Fairfax archive links, show substantive independent coverage. The election runs and People Power stuff is the meat of it; the academic references I included are mostly corroboration, although also clearly suggestive of further coverage in sources that may not be available at our fingertips. Quite simply, we disagree on the fundamental point of whether what has been provided constitutes substantive coverage. That's fine. Consensus does not mean badgering everyone to one point or another. And yes, I am absolutely denying that I have any "personal stake" in this, and furthermore that there is any reason to suppose I do, and this is absolutely the last time I will address that ridiculous issue. Frickeg (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Admittedly I didn't check them all, but a lot of those 56 hits seem to merely be (a) letters to the editor which he's had published in Fairfax papers, (b) cursory "coverage" in which he's merely namechecked in passing in a list of by-election candidates, not actual coverage of him. The headline on more than half of those hits is either "letters" or "letters and e-mails", and even some of the ones with real headlines are actually still just the letters section."
That's what Bearcat said above to Drover and then repeated it to you. It's not substantive independent coverage - and that's all I need to say. We have no consensus possible here, because you won't evaluate or learn. If this AfD is ended as "no consensus" I will be giving serious consideration to re-nominating it, and putting a better case than the IP through Black Kite did. Curse of Fenric (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is getting irritating. I actually did check all 56 Fairfax hits. Yes, only one (this one) can really be called significant coverage, and yes, we can discount the 28 letters and 10 that are just lists of candidates (usually for either the Williamstown by-election or the Melbourne City Council election). The others are 14 that I called "spokesman" type coverage ("People Power president Vern Hughes said ..."), and 3 opinion pieces authored by Hughes. I can understand why people would not consider this sufficient, but together the other links, the Google Scholar hits, the book links, and the fact that there is an inherent notability argument under WP:POLOUTCOMES (as a leader of a major-sub-national registered political party), none of which on their own would qualify him, in my view put him over the top. Lastly, I would say that a little assumption of good faith would go a long way to restoring the civil tone that (IP excepting) was prevailing here a few days ago. Frickeg (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Registered hmm? Curse of Fenric (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a former major-sub-national registered political party. Keep up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Vern Hughes seems to be important in two interlinked roles at the present time: the Director of Centre for Civil Society[43], a very small advocate organisation for community based self-reliance and mutualism, and he appears to play a pivotal role in a new political party being established in Victorian and New South Wales Politics in 2014 and 2015 - Voice of the West. He is listed as the contact for candidate CVs for Voice of the West for the Victorian State Election in 2014. [44] I think his academic and authorship background, participation and advocation for mutual community based organisation and politics, as well as his involvement in politics over several years makes him inherently notable, even if detailed third party sources are scarce.Takver (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added references to some of his social policy publications by conservative think tanks, and also the influence and support for Mark Latham's Third Way advocacy. Opinion pieces published in major newspapers also indicate a certain standing in the community as a leader, commentator or expert, and should not be disregarded when assessing a person's notability for Wikipedia.Takver (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't seem to me that there is significant independent coverage of him. I also don't think he's a notable politician since he hasn't been elected to any position that would automatically show notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amilton of Christ

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

Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:NOTEBLP. The previous Afd was closed by a non-admin as no consensus with no comments received after the original nomination had stood open several weeks. --Bejnar (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —innotata 20:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no discussion of the article there. I give their judgment considerable credit, but not absolutely--the standards of different WP are not the same. We may, for example, be more--or less-- inclusive of unusual religious figures than they might be. I know the standards of some other WPs, but not the ptWP. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Diagnostic Instruments

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

Advert for obscure Baltic firm, padded with references that are about technologies, violations of WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. etc. Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThey seem to have engaged as part of various joint efforts and partnerships, but done nothing specifically themselves. as of yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. No evidence whatsoever of this company's independent notability despite the article being padded with the usual slew of well-formatted non-references typical of paid-for WP articles. The references either don't mention the company at all and are about the technology sector in which it operates, passing mentions, or written by the company itself, misleadingly presented as independent sources—refs 2, 10, and 11 are typical examples. Voceditenore (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Clough

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

Puff piece for somebody with a publicist and a publisher. Orange Mike | Talk 12:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HeatsProductions

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

Spamvert, sourced to business directory listings, press releases and the like. Orange Mike | Talk 12:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tenny Ten

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

Has had quite a few tags for a while. While the article looks complete and notable it seems odd that you can't find much info-the only link that actually worked was to ITunes interesting enough. Wgolf (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:19, 28 September 2014 (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 ♔ 21:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Biblioworm 01:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passoã

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

Non-notable spirits. Neither of the references provides in depth independent coverage of the topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, hundreds of books list this as an ingredient and those recipes are very useful information if you're looking for cocktail recipes, but wikipedia isn't a cocktail recipe book and requires 'significant coverage' not just passing mentions in ingredient lists. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this corner of Wikipedia looks like a cocktail recipe book. Our opinon may differ - you want to delete the page and I want to keep it. No problem. Let's wait what others think. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 17:15, 28 September 2014 (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 ♔ 21:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A subject doesn't become notable because it's in drink recipes. It becomes notable when there are multiple reliable sources discussing the subject in "significant detail," as the GNG stipulates. Where are those sources?

    One other thing -- Vejvančický claims that this is "potentially useful information." Even if that wasn't a discredited WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, what information is that, exactly? Nha Trang 20:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're both experienced enough to be aware that the behaviour of other editors does not constitute a valid argument in a !vote; I would encourage you to put one forward. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What's your concern, buddy -- other than maybe you didn't care for my referencing your IDONTLIKEIT argument in this AfD? So far, I haven't voted to delete any article that wasn't deleted, and voted to keep the article in these three which closed as Keep or No Consensus, so how about giving that "dedicated deletion" nonsense a rest. (Not that there's anything illegal or immoral about a "dedicated deletion account" -- since when do you or any other editor get to dictate what areas other editors do their work in?) Anyway, if you don't like my argument here, refute it. Or come up with anything, really, because Stuart's right, you voted Keep without giving any reason to keep. You want to make personal attacks instead, take it off of here and to my talk page. Nha Trang 15:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 17:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arpan Pokharel

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

No evidence of any success or notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. All refs are own refs - nothing independent.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • We are people from the media. The previous deleted page understandably had a more of a praise article rather than informative. However, the mistake has been acknowledged and hence, corrected. The article has been re-written and it contains more of a informative writing. The information provided currently is very basic and accurate.
  • One of very few NRN (Non-residence in Nepal) artist who is achieving this status by staying abroad.

Mediaent123 (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC) (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaent123 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are no references to his notability, please consult WP:MUSIC for guidelines. Karst (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct amount of research concludes that he is a VEVO certified BMI affiliated artist. That is a notable thing for a Nepalese artist to achieve. The vevo channel and the bio written down in the website has all been refrenced. Vevo is not possible to be published by an artist himself. Mediaent123 (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yesterday this page (with the exact same content by the same editor) was speedily deleted under G11.Karst (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous deleted page understandably had a more of a praise+Informative article rather than informative only. However, the mistake has been acknowledged and hence, corrected. The article has been re-written and it contains more of a informative writing. The information provided currently is very basic and accurate. Continious research is being conducted in order to provide more refrences from news websites and other independed channels. However, a few has already been added and updated Mediaent123 (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)— Mediaent123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* i am from Nepal and the refrence stated in the article proves that he is in affiliation with BMI &vevo, which is preety amazing. I didnt know unless i saw it in the article. It also has some News articles in the links. This page should be here so that it can be upgarded as more information is collected. Its great to see those BMI links for a nepalese artist.Nepnews (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Additional BMI refrences regarding artists autenticity and songs ownership have been updated in the article. Nepnews (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep Nepnews (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)— Nepnews (talk Strike comments by sock puppet. PhilKnight (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural Close, as "Draft:" namespace articles go to WP:MFD. If/when it gets moved to the mainspace, then it would come here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ben Fletcher (comedian)

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

No evidence of any significant notability. Way, way too soon for this article. Only significant ref is an Amazon advert. Fails notability requirements.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Secret account 17:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estudo do espaço cultural Grande Otelo

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

Not in English. When translated, it seems to be an essay. Tamravidhir (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not being in English is covered at WP:PNT. However, it isn't even an essay, it's an introduction to an essay, with a table of contents. It isn't a proper Wikipedia article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first paragraph is a short promotional description of a cultural center in the city of Osasco. It is followed by a table of contents. It seems like part of a bigger research that was simply cut and pasted here as an article, but it lacks context, sources, indication of notability, all that basic stuff. I think it is important to point that one of the chapters of such study is entitled "protótipo: construção da pagina na wikipedia sobre o espaço cultural grande otelo", which could be translated as "Prototype: building of the Wikipedia page about the Espaço Cultural Grande Otelo". From the look of things, I'd say this is part of some kind of academic project involving Wikipedia, but probably targeted at the Portuguese one. (I'm a native speaker of Portuguese). Victão Lopes Fala! 03:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've done a quick Google-aided translation. I took out the table, since it adds nothing, and did various other tidying. The article is, I feel, too short to stand on its own, and should be merged into the Osasco article.--Auric talk 12:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Child Labour: A Review in the Context of Nepal

[edit]
Child Labour: A Review in the Context of Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No content. Seems to be an essay, not an article on any topic. Tamravidhir (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a thesis report, aka an essay. docstore version and his personal blog version. The blog version may or may not contain viruses, so view the docstore version first. @Tamravidhir and Hisashiyarouin: The rule is to wait 15 minutes before attaching any tags, unless it is a blatant speedy. Personally, I would have waited a bit as it appears they were working on it. But, it is a judgement call. In cases where it appears to be an essay or copied, then do a Google search first. Search on some quoted sentences. That is how I found the above two links as I searched for "Child labour is a serious and wide spread problem in South Asia and African countries and the situation is not different in Nepal also.". This normally would be a case for a Speedy under copyright violation, but docstore's copyright is "Public Domain". Bgwhite (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: @Bgwhite: So that means that we should wait for 15 minutes since it was created before tagging it. But if it should be immediately deleted then we should nominate it for deletion. and again docstore's content is in public domain. But it's again one's personal thesis. So in that case it should be deleted, na? I'm confused. :/ --Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a prospectus. Non-notable book, many of the facts have been well included on Child labour in Nepal. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like bookpromo and a content fork of Child labour in Nepal. No need to keep this. The Banner talk 04:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essay/promo/personal analysis/synth/OR/content fork, as per what others have said. Neatsfoot (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Secret account 17:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Webb (historian)

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

BIO article, no reliable secondary sources found to meet notability requirements for WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Tgeairn (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 23:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 23:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - ""By focusing on functional significance of occultism in political irrationalism, Webb rescued the study of Nazi occultism for the history of ideas." - referenced. Other references are also readily available, if one only looks. Zambelo; talk 01:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning Webb in a relatively obscure book by an unknown (and now defunct) publisher does not equal Notability, even under the very flexible rules at WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Tgeairn (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a New York Review of Books article about him here, though the bulk of it appears paywalled. Artw (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's pretty widely cited in books on Gurdijeff. It really does seem like in the 70s and 80s at least he was THE Gurdjieff guy. That doesn't help us much in terms of finding articles online of course. Artw (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 11:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if I personally say "there is notability", then there is notability, and if I personally say "seems to be" then there is not! :) Let me reword then! The Gurdjieff work demonstrates to me notability: it is still in print, and has been cited in many other sources [45]. The other parts of his life are also notable because other sources indicate that his life and his work were strongly inter-related. Another of his books, The Occult Underground, also has plenty of citations [46]. And the fact that a prize was established by a notable college in his memory demonstrates that his notability and stature at the time of his death was recognized as being significant by academics. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand what I meant. "Seem" is not just the word you used, it is the only word you could use in the absence of sources. And did you actually look at the results of the Google searches that you linked to? A lot of those are just in-passing mentions and then you get a huge amount of "hits" that, when you search in the books themselves, don't mention either James Web or Gurdjieff (no clue why GBooks does that, but nonetheless there it is). In fact, I did not see any reference that was the in-depth kind of coverage that we would need to establish notability. So instead of linking to a search result, you could perhaps tell us which one of those are useful to build an article upon? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added seven new references to the article, including 3 that express how important his work on Gurdjieff was and two for the James Webb prize. There are now enough reliable secondary sources and inline citations in the article to meet the notability requirements for WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. I don't understand why you are saying that the google books search doesn't mention either James Web or Gurdjieff - the search comes up with dozens of books [[47]] and Webb or his book is discussed in depth in many of them (to look at the content of individual books, go to them, then take out "Gurdjieff" and "James" from the search terms and just seach for "Webb"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tungurahua

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

Local version of beauty pageant. Fails WP:GNG with just 53 unique Google hits, including Wikipedia, social media and related websites. The Banner talk 09:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of Music (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND and their website appears to be down. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (cackle) @ 18:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Beccadelli di Bologna

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

Delete: as non-notable. Notability not derived solely by marriage to a notable individual. Quis separabit? 11:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 03:35, 30 September 2014 (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 ♔ 03:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 16:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfestone

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

Advertising. Fails WP:GNG with just 251 Google hits, including irrelevant ones and Wikipedia The Banner talk 11:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 count of votes is meaningless here, but the quality matters. Being an SPA isn't a valid reason to delete an article. That it is promotional is problematic, but that can be fixed by editing (and the editor in me recommends bringing a chainsaw to do the job), but the core is whether or not he is notable, with WP:SCHOLAR being the primary reason to keep. The arguments are stronger here, and the evidence backs it up. There are other claims of criteria being met as well, and while the sources in the article aren't all jems, enough WP:RS exist to support these claims here. Looking at the discussion (and previous experience), I see a consensus to keep. Dennis - 2¢ 16:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lino Bianco

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

According to a quick online search, the contents of this article is a hoax. Ex, http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2014/05/lino-bianco-the-labour-ep-candidate-appointed-ambassador-to-romania-even-as-he-campaigns-for-election-is-a-false-professor/

"Lino Bianco is a ‘made up’ professor. His University of Malta bio has him down as ‘doctor’. He is a ‘professor’ with the International Academy of Architecture, based in Sofia and that IS NOT a university."

Most of the sources are from lino-bianco.com ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This may indeed have been created by a single purpose editor but the fact remains that Lino Bianco has a string of notable achievements and credentials. There are also a number of recent English-language news items which can be accessed via Google. The article should however be toned down so that it is not promotional.--Ipigott (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:GHITS, simply adding the word "news" to the search does not find news sources. Most of those hits don't establish notability. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
how is he a notable architect and notable diplomat? Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of a larger picture, which you choose not to see. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI see Justus Dahinden 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he is only lecturer level not professor. So he does not meet WP:SCHOLAR by his position https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/linobianco LibStar (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All references check out and are provided from varied sources; With regards to the issue whether he is a professor or not, he does not show as professor on the University of Malta website [1], however the same University published an article describing his recognition from the IAA (International Academy of Architecture) [2]. Until my last access, the references provided provide enough depth and cross referencing to keep this page. Invitcus (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. ^ https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/linobianco
  2. ^ http://www.um.edu.mt/newsoncampus/researchinitiatives/archive/international_recognition_for_a_maltese_academic
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 01:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he's an MEP candidate[1], an architect, a doctor and a diplomat, so clearly real, but not apparently notable in any of those fields (even the Times of Malta has to introduce who he is in the link I cite, and there's under half a million people in the entire country) - no big books, no significant buildings, no academic breakthroughs. User:JoeabyVASSALLO is an SPA who has worked only on this page, and set it up. He might become notable but right now this is a WP:TOOSOON for English Wikipedia. I note, also, that being an ambassador in a country with a population of 430,000 is a far lower bar than becoming an academic or ambassador in a country with a population 100, or 1000, times as large. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Graham (psychologist)

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

the last AfD was far from convincing in terms of keep. I think he still fails WP:BIO , WP:PROF, and WP:AUTHOR. he does not appear to be really covered in third party coverage as a major advancer of psychology. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC) ([reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep As I said at the previous afd, he passes author of the basis of the reviews of his books, including a CHOICE review. see thar afd for the details. (He would not pass WP:PROF.) DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert-Falcon Ouellette

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

Running for municipal office does not make a person notable, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. No other indicators of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article not meet the notability guidelines under WP:NACADEMICS? Interlaker (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria listed there does this person meet? His university resume states he is "Program Director for the Aboriginal Focus Programs", and lists his PhD as his only academic publication of note. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACADEMICS doesn't confer an automatic presumption of notability on every single person who happens to hold an academic position, but rather lays out specific criteria to distinguish notable academics from non-notable ones (e.g. notable and widely-cited academic publications) — and you haven't actually demonstrated or sourced any evidence here of how he meets any of them. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by nom, merely running for office (especially at the municipal level, but not actually at the provincial or federal level either) does not in and of itself get a person into Wikipedia — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already notable enough for an article, for other things independent of his candidacy, then he doesn't become notable enough for an article until he wins the election. But that hasn't been demonstrated here. It might be possible for him to get over another inclusion guideline, like WP:NACADEMICS, if the article were written much more substantively and sourced a lot better than this, but one primary source link to his own profile on the webpage of the university where he works doesn't cut it for sourcing. No prejudice against recreation in the future if (a) he wins election to a notable office, or (b) someone can actually write a substantive and properly sourced article that puts the weight on his academic career, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atmozfears

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

Non-notable musical act, reliant on self-published sources. —Swpbtalk 20:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 20:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 20:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 20:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 20:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 18:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Karn

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

Sounds more like an advertisement and possibly a auto biography. Either a delete or a redirect. Wgolf (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2014 (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 ♔ 00:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. w/o prejudice to the creation of a redirect j⚛e deckertalk 01:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carol of the Meows

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSONG Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 09:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 09:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or redirect to Carol of the Bells#Film, television, parodies and other media. Agree in principle that the song (actually more of a record, “Carol of the Bells” is the actual song), in and of itself, does not even come close to meeting any Wikipedia guideline for notability. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir III

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

Original research. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you notice that we are talking about a previously speedied, unreferenced stub? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Impish

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

Well this had a speedy that was deleted-I decided to put a prod but after looking at this, an AFD seemed better. This seems to be a unotable person, maybe someday but not today Wgolf (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Council for Chinese Martial Arts

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

Basically an unsourced artile about a non-notable martial arts organization. There's an external link to its own web page and the link to the reference takes me to a page with no info about this org. The organization may exist but there's nothing to show it's notable.Mdtemp (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth Shall Not Sink with Sewol

[edit]
The Truth Shall Not Sink with Sewol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. No claim of notability, no refs look reliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See Google. this film is notable in South Korea, besides, released in Busan International Film Festival. based on MV Sewol sinking disaster, so was controversial in South Korea. Kanghuitari (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May be notable for Korean Wikipedia, but do not know if this meet Notability in the English Wikipedia. Controversial does not means that Wikipedia owes an article for the subject. Karlhard (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect suppositions, Karlhard, your "does not belong here" is not supported by OUR policies and guidelines. English Wikipedia can cover ANY notable topic, no matter where it originates. English Wikipedia is not for English-only topics, it is simply that our articles are in the English language. And if controversy allows a topic to be discussed in multiple reliable sources, the English Wikipedia's GNG is met. Simple. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable topic per WP:GNG. I Googled the film title and immediately found news coverage by Variety, Los Angeles Times, and Screen Daily. Stuartyeates, per WP:N, article content does not determine notability; coverage outside Wikipedia does. Per WP:BEFORE, you need to perform due diligence and carry out checks to see if the topic is truly not notable before resorting to WP:AFD. Please do this in the future so you can be confident that an article needs to be deleted. In the meantime, I ask you to withdraw your nomination; see WP:WDAFD. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked them all and all I see is controversy. Is based in non-notable actors or directors. I will not withdraw nomination because This is not notable enough for English Wikipedia. Karlhard (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be up to nominator Stuartyeates to withdraw or not, not you. Being covered in multiple reliable sources is what shows notability. Topic origin is not a factor. Simple. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Sibley

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

Does not seem to meet notability requirements for academic or educator. Article tagged for notability in 2012 with no improvement in sources since then. Basie (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Louisiana secession. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Louisiana

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

The subject is not discussed in reliable sources, as the state of Louisiana was only known as a state during 1861. Most of the content has been moved to Louisiana secession. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the movement of content to the page Louisiana secession was not discussed. There were two comments, and the page was simply moved. The separate page about the entity is not useless because it fills in the time slot of the political status of Louisiana. The page refers to the independent country.—SPESH531Other 18:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference. Louisiana's seccession overall lasted 5 years, but the independent country lasted a week and a half. Maybe rename Louisiana secession as something along the lines of Louisiana (CSA state)—SPESH531Other 19:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. w/o prejudice to anyone looking to transwiki toward wikibooks j⚛e deckertalk 01:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gradesavers For AP Human Geography

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

Contested prod. My rationale for the prod still stands: This is a study guide, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Jinkinson talk to me 02:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlo Greene

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

WP:BLP1E. As a television anchor for a local Anchorage TV station she was more significant the an average person before the one event (quitting on air), but not sufficiently so to rate a separate article. VQuakr (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Literally only famous for one event and four words she said; the rest of her career (especially if the referendum she's campaigning for is defeated) is no better than any other broadcast professional. Nate • (chatter) 03:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Initially I was going to argue that this should redirect to KTVA#News_operation and if this is ultimately deleted, I'd recommend that this redirect to that section with history. What made me change my mind, albeit reluctantly, is that High Times is going to give her one of their awards on the 16th of this month. They're pretty influential when it comes to marijuana advocacy and counterculture, so an award from them is no small shakes- especially since they apparently don't give out many of them. This, along with the coverage, is just enough to where I'd argue a weak, shaky keep. But again, I wouldn't be adverse to this redirecting to the KTVA article as long as we leave the article history intact for if/when she gains more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: which sources cover the subject beyond the context of the single event of her resignation? VQuakr (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: I think is is clear that point 3 of WP:BLP1E is not met here. All three must be met for this exclusion to apply. The extent of coverage indicates the event was notable and she was central to the event. ~KvnG 21:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You think that per point 3, the event of her quitting meets WP:NEVENT? VQuakr (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Definitely significant non-routine coverage with adequate scope. You may argue that it is too soon to know for sure whether coverage persists over time but current indications are that there's resonance here. ~KvnG 05:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What did it for me was the High Times Award and now she's apparently been named by Elle as one of the most powerful women in the pot industry. It's not the most solid keep for me even with the Elle post, but I think that it just barely squeaks out of BLP1E since she's been receiving various awards and recognition for her pot activism and the way she quit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm of two minds on this one. This started out as nothing more than another human interest story that would disappear in a few weeks -- WP:TOOSOON at best. Now, there's a decent chance that major magazine coverage has pushed her into the notable category. I'm inclined to leave the article in Wikipedia. If it turns out I'm wrong, I can always be trouted in another AfD in six months or so. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess I agree with Traveling Man above. We can always come back in a month or two. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 16:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia neologism

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

Fails GNG and runs into trouble with WP:NEO. Frankly, I had a hard time just figuring out what the subject of this article is. There may be a few sources talking about neologisms' place on Wikipedia, but the concept of a "Wikipedia neologism," as the article itself states, is a neologism. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 10:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What is the topic of this article? Neologisms that can be found on Wikipedia? Neologisms popularized by Wikipedia? Neologisms first used on Wikipedia? —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously notable, just previously not titled as with all the other "Wikipedia and..." articles. I have moved it. Wikipedia and neologisms would include all 3 of the above: Neologisms that can be found on Wikipedia? Neologisms popularized by Wikipedia and Neologisms first used on Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete? - From what I can tell, this is some sections hobbled together based on times that neologisms in the context of Wikipedia were discussed. There's not a coherent line connecting it, and the general topic of neologisms in Wikipedia does not seem to have adequate coverage to justify existence outside the individual articles for the two topics.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC) I still am not a fan of the cobbled nature of the article and worry that it is potentially a synthesis, but I'm holding off on this !vote until I have had more time to look through sourcing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete chaotic original research based on WP:SYNTH. "wikipedia and" is a slippery slope -No.Altenmann >t 04:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Part of the problem is that the article is a mess -- so much so that, as noted above, it's not clear what the article is even supposed to be about. Too much is unsourced or WP:OR; all that would need to be deleted. After the start of this AfD, the title of the article was changed -- presumably to help with this dilemma. However, as a result, the body of the article is now in conflict with the title. There's probably a valid article having something to do with Wikipedia and neologisms, but all I can think of for this article is WP:TNT. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tyma

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

There are a number of issues with this article from the promotional tone and disingenuous sourcing to the promotional photo supplied by the subject. In case it's not obvious, I strongly suspect paid editing here. After wading through all of that, the sources used are almost entirely published by the subject. There's a total lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Sources include articles by the subject, self-published content, the subject's own LinkedIn profile and IMDb. Beyond what has been used to build this promo-fest, I couldn't find a single instance of significant coverage - its all social media and his own blogs. More than happy to be proven wrong on all counts, but... St★lwart111 07:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey King (Taisuke Yamamoto)

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has a lot of sources but none are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about Monkey King. A mix of shops, blogs, bandcamp, listings, his own sites, passing mentions and him talking about himself. Closest to being good is a puff piece on UrbanWire by a "ADHD fashionista-cum-foodie-cum-hardcore partygoer", but that is a "magazine produced by final-year online journalism students of the School of Film & Media Studies, Ngee Ann Polytechnic,". duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As it stands, the article, which was created by an SPA, does not have the significant independent RS to satisfy WP:GNG. The problem is that additional searches don't come up with anything better. I also searched for him in Japanese and just cannot find anything. Michitaro (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Wander Over Yonder episodes. More input here would have been ideal. Of note is that the nominator has stated that they support redirection in a later comment. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Picnic (Wander Over Yonder)

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

Article is almost all plot, which is contrary to WP:PLOT. The single reference in the article refers to ratings and does not establish notability of the subject, which fails to meet WP:GNG AussieLegend (✉) 23:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was created hastily in an effort to preserve Template:Wander Over Yonder, which was also up for deletion. The template was little more than a collection of redlinks, and the chief contributor to the article slapped something together. No attempt to establish significance has been made. The content also appears to have been lifted from Wikia. There is nothing of note at Google News or Google Books. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wander Over Yonder#Cast and characters. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 21:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Hater

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

Article fails to establish notability of the character. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG AussieLegend (✉) 23:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How, I put in all his personality and traits. Zach 23:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC) WanderIsAwesome2001.

Fictional characters require real-world treatment and citations from reliable sources to establish notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was created hastily in an effort to preserve Template:Wander Over Yonder, which was also up for deletion. The template was little more than a collection of redlinks, and the chief contributor to the article slapped something together. I give them credit for the effort, but no attempt to establish the subject's significance with the usual "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" has been made. The prose content also appears to have been lifted from Wikia, which pretty much just means we're a mirror for a poorly moderated fan site. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wander Over Yonder#Cast and characters. w/o prejudice to discussion of including selected content from the former article here at the target j⚛e deckertalk 01:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wander (Wander Over Yonder)

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

Article fails to establish notability of the character. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG AussieLegend (✉) 23:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was created hastily in an effort to preserve Template:Wander Over Yonder, which was also up for deletion. The template was little more than a collection of redlinks, and the chief contributor to the article slapped something together. I give them credit for the effort, but no attempt to establish the subject's significance with the usual "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" has been made. Some of the real-world content from the article (Concept and creation and Voice sections) could be merged to the main character list. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Tiger Schweiger

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

Yet another too soon/not inherited issue. redirect to her dad. Wgolf (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What!?! No article on Suri Cruise? Actually, that is good since I do not want to read about Suri Cruise, unless it's not about a person but a notable ship liner that has a fringe on top. One other thing: SchweigerTiger pageview counts averaging 60/day suggests there is some interest. I know pageview counts is not a reason for inclusion but for me it is a good indicator of whether an article will reappear or bug us again even if deleted. My sense is her connection with her famous director-actor father will mean she's back in Wikipedia sooner or later.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Schweiger

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

Too soon/not inherited. Should be redirected to her dad. Wgolf (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Takeaway-I actually think this was one of the 4 Schweiger kids that I was hesitant to put the tag up for-kind of ironic the 2 youngest ones are the ones that seem more notable then the older ones given there ages. Wgolf (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wgolf-You were right in your first assumption. I'm not really into German celebrity news, tv-series or films but what I've gathered while researching these AfDs is that she seems to be the most notable of all as an actress. I just didn't provide a bunch of sources because she would IMO be notable due to above mentioned award, and because I thought additional info on her would be easy for all to find. Well, if you need them, here goes: 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. - Takeaway (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-also the biggest problem with ANY celebrity kid is you will find tons and tons of articles about them no matter if they are notable or not. Wgolf (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But not all celebrity kids get awards for their roles (as far as I can see, two awards: "Audi Generation Awards", and "Jupiter Film Awards"), and playing regularly in tv-series and appearing in tv-shows besides in her dad's films. she seems to be a regular celebrity on her own now. PS You said there were 4 kids. I only saw 3 AfDs for the Schweiger kids. - Takeaway (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fresh face in the German film industry, yes with strong family connections, but these should not disqualify her since she gets major roles in German films and sufficient coverage. Sources here and here and here are a few. While an unofficial test, her pageview stats hover around 55/day, suggesting interest by readers. (Another unofficial test I do, since it invariably correlates positively with notability, is an image search -- namely, to see if images of a person are consistent and numerous (indicating notability to me) and not if of different people and sporadic (indicating not notable) -- there are numerous consistent images here.) Clearly there's attention in the German media, including here and here. Easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lilli Schweiger

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

Combination too soon and not inherited issues. Probably a redirect to her dad be the best. Wgolf (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Apparently a media celebrity in Germany. Her decision to become a model seems to have attracted a lot of attention in German language celebrity and gossip magazines, at least online. See here, here, here, here, and here. Her kissing an unknown boy seems enough reason to write about her in Bunte magazine (see here). - Takeaway (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nigel Farage. j⚛e deckertalk 01:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faragista

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

PRODED as WP:NOTDICT. One columnist may have uses this term, but I can find no evidence that it has real currency. Ie a non -notable neologism. Not worth redirecting to Nigel Farage imo. TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term has been used by more than one journalist. It is used by several national newspapers in the UK and also used by bloggers.Ellwhe (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical list of shops in UK Town centres

[edit]
Historical list of shops in UK Town centres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had proposed this article for deletion with the reason "No idea what the actual purpose of this "list" is. Has no contents, just one link. Doesn't seem to be a notable list subject, and a near-infinite one at that (considering that every town centre has had many shops in the course of its history).". The prod was disputed with an explanation on the talk page[51]; but I don't think this is a correct use of Wikipedia, as it comes across as a research project, not a summary of the coverage of an existing subject of interest from secondary sources. Fram (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also nominated Basildon Town Centre, which is the first of the "feeder" articles for this list, and indicates IMO the kind of problems one runs into. It is a very long list with some sources and lots of original research, on a topic that as a whole hasn't received interest (I can't access basildon.com, as that is reported as an attack site apparently, but it wouldn't be a secondary source anyway). It is not a navigational aid either, since none or next to none of these shops will ever be notable enough for their own articles anyway. Which shops occupied which number at 28 East Walk in Basildon really isn't notable enough to document here. Fram (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid User:Why should I have a User Name? was quicker than you. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I now note that the second has since received a separate nomination in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basildon Town Centre, so I suggest that this page is kept solely to discuss the Historical list of shops in UK Town centres, and that the Basildon article is discussed in its separate discussion page. Apologies for the confusion! Fram (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree 100% with the nominator. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this is show the changing face of the town centre or high street in the Uk. I am in the process of completing the first link - basildon and have several further town centres to add that I have researched it is just the time I need to add them. I aim to research as many town centres as I can. You say they are not notable, but the changing face is shown (which is notable) by the type of retailers that once occupied the town centre, from small local companies to the rather faceless corporate towns we now have. It also shows the changing face of the products on offer - TV rental shops use to be a regular fixture on every UK high street but are no longer seen. So are photography shops. It will also show the gradual departure from town centres of hardwear and electrical retailers. All of this are notable changes in society and are part of social history which should be documented. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which by definition is a book or books giving information. This is information which is useful to social historians, but is also not recorded elsewhere and would be lost without it being recorded --User:Davidstewartharvey — Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 19:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Ben-Ari

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

No current notability as an creative artist; no sufficiently reliable external critical sources; no works in permanent collections. The awards are all student awards only. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 01:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Gay World 2010

[edit]
Mr Gay World 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability independent from the main article and depending only on its own website as a source. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, those work - and are MUCH better sources than usually seen on pageant articles. Thanks for finding more specific hits. Mabalu (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gay World 2009

[edit]
Mr. Gay World 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability independent from the main article and depending only on its own website as a source. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mabalu I hope you find the information I've provided helpful, as well. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. They're not brilliant sources, but they're a hundred times better than the crap used to reference the lesser bikini pageants. Thanks for looking out more specific URLS Mabalu (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Days (Avicii song)

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

song already has a redirect to the singer as The Days (song) (I was unsure of what type of deletion tag to put, so I did this). Wgolf (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further to reaching number 2 in Sweden, now add France and Germany to the list of charting countries. New entry this week at #71 http://lescharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Avicii&titel=The+Days&cat=s On that page you can see the very high charting position in Germany as well at #7. And across the oceans in Down Under at #50.. See http://australian-charts.com/weekchart.asp?cat=s werldwayd (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Macdonald Hall . Redirect is the obvious solution here; it could have been done without coming to afd DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go Jump in the Pool

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

I'm not finding independent sources that make this novel viable against the WP:NBOOKS criteria. Mikeblas (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 20:17, 6 October 2014 (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 01:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zef

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

Non notable / Neologism / WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Fails WP:V. Suggest redirect to Die Antwoord. Widefox; talk 21:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crucially, see Comment below. Widefox; talk 20:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto independent of
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Labour Party (UK). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform

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

Does not meet Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines Alligators1974 (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:31, 29 September 2014 (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 ♔ 22:07, 6 October 2014 (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 01:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quitbit

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

Product ($149 cigarette ighter) has not even been released. There has, however, been minor press exposure of the company and product plan & they raised >$50k through kickstarter. Still, may fail WP:company —Gaff ταλκ 22:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:28, 7 October 2014 (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 01:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis 2¢ 23:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Kulok

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

Blatant self-promotion. There is borderline evidence of notability, which was enough for it to escape a speedy deletion. But this is clearly a puff piece written by the subject of the article and two other IP accounts that are clearly sockpuppets. Dmol (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not self-promotion, sources are clearly stated and linked, articles exist in mainstream sources including the NYTimes, the Wall Street Journal, and other major periodicals. All evidence is that the subject is notable and deserves an entry. (This comment added to wrong section by IP user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:1201:E0A1:C437:97BD:7524:D00F . I moved it down the page where it should have been. DMOL)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it were kept, this article would need to be pruned drastically, with puffery/unsubstantiated claims removed. However, that may be moot, as notability has not be demonstrated. Ignoring brief mention in the WSJ and NYT, as well as a blog, the best reference is to Artforum; that's about it. It's possible one could find enough significant coverage, but given the quality of the article, I'm not willing to spend more than the 15 minutes it took to do some basic searches, and read the specified citations. Lacking additional proof, this is a delete. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep assuming there's an exact documentation for any of his work "in the permanent collections of the Museum of Modern Art, NY" . That's the basic criterion for creative artists. Frankly, I don;t see this article as more promotional that those for other contemporary artists, all of which list every conceivable exhibition and contain personal reflections on the nature of their creativity. This at least as some of those comments sourced to something better than a exhibition program, which is much better than average DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good catch -- but isn't the criterion for WP:ARTIST "...is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"? I see the mention for MoMA; the two other places mentioned are: the Cleveland Clinic (which is a medical center -- does it also have a notable gallery or museum not mentioned in Wikipedia?); Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center (the blue link is missing in the Kulok article, but I see there's an article for it). Am I on the right track so far? If so, in your opinion, do these two collections suffice? I usually think of several as at least three, maybe more, but I realize the notability wording is just a guideline. If so, and assuming proof is provided, I'd change my vote. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the importance of the museum. The basis is two, not three, to the best of my knowledge everywhere in WP where "several" is mentioned But in this case, the one museum is so very important that I think it's enough, especially with a good college museum added. As examples, we're reluctant to accept two minor college or town museums, especially in the same area --or for that matter, 3 or 4. But a mueum like mOMA is a different level of notability altogether. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I believe this link [60] is evidence that MoMA owns works by Kulok. However, the Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center's web site says "The Collections Database is currently unavailable because of technical difficulties. We're very sorry for the inconvenience." If I'm online, I'll try again tomorrow. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC) [site still down --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)][reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz (Korean band)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, has no references and the external links are either dead or to a video broadcast. No indication of Notability and there appear to be a number of BLP issues in the Personal Life section. Disbanded as of 2014. Karst (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:28, 6 October 2014 (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 01:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps, unfortunately, none of the sources indicate this at the moment. Of greater concern would be the BLP issues. If there are more sources (not mere announcements of a reunion) then that would help. Karst (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Claimsworth. This is one of the biggest Korean bands, more so than a number of others out there. In my opinion, the article is in a better position than the Korean version as far as sourcing goes. This article has been here for a long time. You can use the Wayback Machine to verify the links, and as with the links that Claimsworth provided, this band is notable. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. ^ http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140402/ep-elections/lino-bianco-in-politics-to-bring-change-not-to-be-changed-five-minute-interview.513267
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_October_14&oldid=1142627555"