From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 March 3 March >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

David Seymour (politician)

David Seymour (politician) (  | 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 WP:NPOL. Schwede 66 23:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 00:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)- gadfium 00:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There seems to be plenty of refs about him. Ollieinc ( talk) 03:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - yes, and that is unsurprising. The same will be true about the vast majority of candidates of the parties already in Parliament, but that doesn't make them notable. Basic notability for people is defined as having "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This person is a long way off meeting those requirements. Schwede 66 06:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - you can't just lump this guy into the same category as any other random candidate for the other parliamentary parties (because yes I agree, most of them are not yet worthy of a wikipedia article according the current widespread interpretation of "notability"). A somewhat vaguely closer comparison would be with a candidate who gets selected for a safe seat for that party, and thus is most likely going to become an MP (unlike most candidates who stand). However even that comparison I'd feel is still many orders of magnitude off from correct, as he is the number one key candidate for a party that apparently they're resting all their hopes on (or so it seems from the media reports), and in an electorate that is already getting a huge amount of media attention on because it is an electorate that is going to (probably?) determine the next PM of NZ and this person is the number one ranking candidate in the race by a long way. Mathmo Talk 10:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
"There seems to be plenty of refs" doesn't asses the quality of the sources. per WP:V Wikipedia should cite third party, reliable sources (i.e. not ACT website or right-wing blogs like Whale Oil and Kiwiblog). Adabow ( talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I don't think he is notable by himself at this stage. There is merit merging this with the Act Party article. Maybe a stand alone article if he wins the electorate after the election, but not before. NealeFamily ( talk) 04:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • "Maybe" a standalone article if he wins the electorate?? :-/ I'm astonished anybody could view it like that, as without a doubt if he wins the election he is worthy of a standalone article. Not ifs, maybes, or buts about it. I think maybe you're forgetting the significance of his electorate and this election. Mathmo Talk 05:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - if he were to be returned as an MP, he would meet notability requirements, as MPs are inherently notable. No question about that. Schwede 66 06:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry to create some excitement with the loose use of the maybe - you are both right he would get his own article. NealeFamily ( talk) 21:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Considering the amount of media attention on ACT in the past month, I thought I would be !voting keep, but after a web search there isn't much out there about Seymour in the way of third party, reliable sources. Adabow ( talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Has significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Orser67 ( talk) 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Candidate for a seat that is likely to be very high profile, and already has a lot of references. Lot of people will be searching for information about candidate from this electorate, and that's only likely to increase even more as the election gets closer. Could even decided the election result. Peteremcc ( talk) 06:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Hello, I'm the user who originally tried to create this article, and my original version had references, but I'd like to thank the Wikipedia community for then making this page and adding in so many many more references!,Unlike other candidates in New Zealand elections the Epsom Candidate has already attracted a large ammount of attention that is why i started this article Antthecomjunkie ( talk) 06:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Substantial references, and likely to be a high profile candidate, pivotal to the makeup of NZ's next parliament Hydroksyde ( talk) 08:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are plenty of references, and this is a very significant election. Jords12 ( talk) 10:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Tadd Roosevelt

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

Cannot find multiple reliable sources can be found that cover this man in depth, therefore failing WP:N and WP:GNG guidelines. Nothing notable about him is mentioned, either. The only sources that do talk about him only mention him briefly or are simply things like birth/death records. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 23:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The "further reading" item of a New York Times article, available here, is significantly about him, including interestingly judgmental views about the perils of growing up with wealth. The current article mentions but does not explain scandal that contributed to his taking a low path in life relative to similarly educated Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Quite a story might be told, likely has been written. I think it's useful to have the article covering this person in Wikipedia, who must show up as a minor character in important biographical books about FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, and other Roosevelts and Astors. Having the Wikipedia article allows readers of those biographies to look up what happened to this person. The article could/should be further developed. I think the New York Times article itself is significant coverage. -- do ncr am 00:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
However significant of coverage that article might be, WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources that go in depth to be notable enough for an article. Perhaps I underestimated the depth of that New York Times entry, but there isn't much that goes into him extensively. Biographies of Astors and Roosevelts that I've found only mention him briefly if at all. If more could be found on the mentioned scandal, by all means add it. However, I searched extensively and found little to nothing. The article you linked about Sadie being charged with slander only briefly mentions him, so while it does help indicate their relationship status it doesn't establish him as notable. I also reviewed the sources, and they don't support any scandal. We also need to know what he was noted for, whether he was a socialite, businessman, politician, philanthropist, banker, criminal, actor, author, con artist, or anything. His Astor-Roosevelt affiliations alone aren't enough. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 00:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Well you see i've added some other New York Times archive items, though I didn't include all info from them and did not resolve all discrepancies vs. info that was in the article (some of which you've removed, in edit conflicts with me). I think the scandal might have been simply that he got involved with Sadie, then quit Harvard and married her, variously reported as when he was a freshman at Harvard and when he was a senior at Harvard. Compare this article vs. that for his father, James Roosevelt Roosevelt. The father, as Secretary of the Navy, is more obviously notable, but the father article has even less sourcing. There's a link for Roosevelt family papers. I expect that there is plenty of sourcing available about both, with substantial primary sources and with secondary sources in biographical books. The New York Times archive is just what I happen to be able to search fairly easily right now; the other sources would be off-line. I stay with "Keep" vote on this basis, and again think both these articles are useful. -- do ncr am 01:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I would think there exist some commentary, similar to this March 16, 2005 New York Times article about "Roosevelts and the Quirks of Destiny", by Joseph Berger, about different paths taken by grandchildren of FDR & Eleanor, about Tadd vs. FDR & others of their generation, too. -- do ncr am 01:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
You've definitely had more luck on finding info on Tadd than I have, that's for sure. Sorry for any edit conflicts, though. As reliable as New York Times is, we should probably include other sources in addition if this article is to be kept. Also, the link you just provided is actually not talking about Tadd, but one of FDR and Eleanor's grandsons. As for father Rosey, he is definitely more notable and worthy of keeping, but I haven't got around to finding more sources for him yet. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 01:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, the "Quirks" article is about a later set of Roosevelt descendents, not including Tadd, as I tried to indicate upfront. My comment that there likely would exist some commentary about Tadd vs. FDR & others, in the same vein as the Quirks article, is speculation / an educated guess by me. -- do ncr am 02:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Perhaps there is. If you can find it, feel free to add. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 02:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Properly sourced. Historically notable person. That the nom isn't able to find sources speaks more to the ability of the nom, and his sense of ownership of Roosevelt- and Kenndy-related articles, than it does to the notability of the subject. BMK ( talk) 01:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Historically notable..... for what, exactly? Also, I have never tried to own articles..... XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 01:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Haven't you read the article? It makes it quite clear what his historical notability is. Almost as clear as your ownership behavior. Are you trying to get rid of this article because the subject is a blot on the escutcheon of the Roosevelt family you obviously very much admire? BMK ( talk) 02:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, I have read the article. No, I am not trying to get rid of "blots". This was nominated for deletion because it did not explain what exactly he was known for other than his family affiliations. For example, what was his profession? What was he noted for in society (other than being an Astor and a Roosevelt)?? There have been additions regarding him being arrested, so perhaps he was known for involvement with crimes/scandals. If this is the case, his controversies need to be expanded. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 02:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Notability can take many forms, and does not require extensive information about every aspect of a person's life. Many articles on scientists, for instance, have little or no mention of their personal lives. Some people -- we call them celebrities -- can be notable just for being well-known. Tadd Roosevelt falls into that category, somewhat, because of his family connections, his personal activities and the obvious interest people had in what he was doing, or did, at the time he was alive. We don't have to know everything there is to know about him to consider him to be notable enough for an article, nor do we have to think he was a good person or valuable person or a well-rounded one ("notability" is not a judgment about worth), we just have to know that something about his life fulfills the notability requirements. BMK ( talk) 03:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm sure many aspects of people's personal lives remain unknown to the public. As for "being notable for being well-known", was he perhaps a well-known socialite like his grandmother Lina? Was he involved in any high-profile controversies (not too sure how high-profile his relationship with Sadie was) like other relatives he had were?? As previously indicated, family affiliations alone are not enough to meet notability criteria per WP:INHERIT. If he was noted for any activities, those need expansion. Also, WP:BLP1E indicates that being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 03:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - properly sourced, and obviously notable in his day. Once notable, always thus so. Bearian ( talk) 18:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • But what exactly was he notable for? Socialite?? Con artistry??? High-profile Controversy???? Family affiliations alone aren't enough to make someone notable...... we need to state in the article what he was noted for other than being an Astor and a Roosevelt. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 18:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Socialite was a job back then! Seriously ... if half the famous for being famous people were eliminated, WP would be a much more boring place. Bearian ( talk) 20:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Perhaps I should've stated my question differently. I simply was asking if he was known as a socialite or con artist or something. I was by no means saying socialites aren't notable, especially given how his grandmother Lina Astor was a prominent socialite, and his first cousins Ava and Jakey Astor were also well-known socialites (with Jakey being the famous "Titanic baby" and getting involved in an estate controversy with his sister-in-law Brooke over Vincent Astor's will). If he was a socialite, this needs to be sourced. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kelapstick( bainuu) 20:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Sheares Avenue

Sheares Avenue (  | 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 road. Fails WP:GNG. Notability not established Flat Out let's discuss it 23:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No sources to indicate any notability. Indeed, the history section appears to indicate the opposite is true. -- Kinu  t/ c 01:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  As the article says, this is an artery.  I added two refs to the article.  Unscintillating ( talk) 05:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - We don't need articles for individual roads unless extremely notable. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 18:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Bedok North Avenue 3

Bedok North Avenue 3 (  | 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 a notable road Fails WP:GNG. Notability not established Flat Out let's discuss it 23:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No indication this road is notable as a standalone topic. Notability is not inherited from the presence of otherwise notable buildings, such as schools. -- Kinu  t/ c 02:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete  wp:notability is a measure of attention that a topic attracts from the world at large.  For public roads, map makers including Google report locations on maps, and government agencies respond if a road is not passable.  Google maps [1] shows that this is a major connector in the area.  The problem here is that there are no references and the claims made are indistinguishable from WP:OR.  If someone fixes the WP:OR and WP:V problems in the current article, or wants to Userfy or Incubate, I will change my !vote accordingly.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • 'Comment Would an American road of similar size be kept? -- Hildanknight ( talk) 16:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Without any sources or any indication of notability, no. I see no evidence of systemic bias here. -- Kinu  t/ c 04:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - We don't need articles for individual roads unless extremely notable. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 18:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 05:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Harriet Knor Foundation for Cancer Research Inc.

Harriet Knor Foundation for Cancer Research Inc. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

blatantly fails WP:ORG. most of the article is based on its own website. created by a single purpose editor. nothing in gbooks despite 9 years of existence. nothing in major canadian broadcaster www.cbc.ca LibStar ( talk) 05:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔ 23:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Worthy cause? Yes. Notable organization? No. I found nothing to indicate notability. Not even close. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 03:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to RTL (French radio)#Programming. j⚛e decker talk 05:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Le Journal Inattendu

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

Notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin Let's talk! 16:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔ 23:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. (changed from "Delete"). In the French Wikipedia there are a number of hits on the topic (see search results on "Le Journal Inattendu") but there is not a separate article. So I would tend to agree that an English language wikipedia article is not needed, and this is not sourced. -- do ncr am 23:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Per Hobbes Goodyear, redirecting to RTL (French radio)#Programming seems fine. Article can be recreated from redirect, with edit history intact, if/when sourcing is found for a more substantial article. -- do ncr am 00:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to RTL (French radio), the article for its radio station, where it is already listed. I suspect that if I read the language and French RS's weren't so heavily paywalled, I could demonstrate notability, but, as it is, I've come up short. Many hits, but little substantially about the subject. This brief piece in Le JDD is about as good as it gets: notes its 45-year history, million-listener audience, and status as an "institution de RTL". If someone can find better sourcing, now or in future, I'd be happy to reconsider. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Randykitty ( talk) 15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Rockin' Rebel

Rockin' Rebel (  | 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 notable wrestler. He wrestled in minor promotions without major impact. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 23:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - his career section has no sources. Sure he's (apparently) won a lot of titles but how many of those titles even have Wikipedia articles? That's because the titles are those of (very) minor promotions. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 23:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article sucks, but can be fixed. He had a solid indy career and name value, when that counted for more than it does since the Internet. Helped get ECW rolling, something like Tommy Cairo, and worked steady for 25 years (and counting). Just needs work. Fun fact: Only guy trained by both of The Rock'n'Roll Express. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think so. He had 37 matches in CZW, most of them before 2004 (Again, we don't have articles for every single wrestler who performed in CZW. Even some champions haven't articles) ECW, he had 46, but in minor events most of them and looks like he hadn't storyline or feud. I mean, the article, without the super-minor promotions, only says "he had a few matches in ECW", "he had a few matches in CZW", nothing more. Also, there is no reliable sources to suport the article. Also, if the article'll stay as it's right now, I'll prefer to delete it. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 18:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Also worked for ROH, 3PW, Big Japan and JCW (not super minor), jobbed in WWF in 1989 and WCW in 1995. He regularly challenged for the ECW TV title, around the time Douglas got the "Extreme" buzz rolling, and appeared on many of the most famous shows from that era (The Night the Line was Crosed, Ultimate Jeopardy, Heat Wave). It sure would help if the article said this, yes. Not so motivated to do it myself, but maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Is significant enough to be notable. He has been mentioned in numerous books including [2] and [3] and significant independent coverage in local reliable sources; [4] [5]. Seems to be enough to meet WP:GNG and that was just three minutes of searching. STATic message me! 22:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply
It took me three minutes just to find this. So at least the best man is no mystery. Good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply
In that case, can somebody fix it? I mean, 99% of the time "article sucks, but somebody can improve it", nobody impove the article. The article keeps in Wikipedia and stills suck.-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Rome wasn't built in a day, and Yokozuna was once somewhat lean himself. But yes, somebody should. Maybe my "best man" suggestion was a little too subtle. Or maybe I should do it myself. I'm just not so much a builder as a sculptor. I'll probably unsuck the grammar later today, and add a bit of meat. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The grammar's actually not bad. Just that "Trademark (TM)" thing misled me. I'll do that right now. Baby steps. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Toby Klein

Toby Klein (  | 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 notable wrestler. He wrestled in minor promotions without major impact. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 23:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - his career has zero sources. Only wrestled in minor promotions on the independent circuit. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 08:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails GNG. LM2000 ( talk) 18:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Autopatch

Autopatch (  | 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:WORLDWIDE, WP:RS, no reliable sources, WP:OR, this article should not exist. If it is a jargon term in the US then so be it, but there is not an article on "Stilsons" or "Rawlplugs". Got here from WP:RfD as there is a redirect here to it but have to sort one before the other. Si Trew ( talk) 22:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • KEEP Ridiculous to even suggest that this should be deleted. I'm sure that amateur radio operators in many other countries have done the same thing, regardless of what they call it. Considering there are over 1.2 million results for the word on Google, this is certainly not something unknown. I will also point out that Stilson wrench is a redirect from a brand name to the more general pipe wrench, and Rawlplug redirects to Rawlplug Ltd, a maker of wall plugs. These two are simply examples of genericized trademarks, while autopatch is not a trademark at all, and describes a unique type of device/invention on its own.  – radiojon ( talk) 22:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This spun out of an RfA I opened, and I'm just as mystified as @ Radiojon: as to why anybody would think this article should be deleted. I added a citation to the ARRL page which talks about this. The article could certainly use cleaning up, and better referencing, but the ARRL should at least qualify as a WP:reliablesource. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sensible to have an article describing this equipment. -- do ncr am 23:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep as proposer. It came to RFD first (the redirect for phone patch) and thence I listed Autopatch, its target, here. Coming with clean hands I linked the two together so other editors could have an easy reference from one to the other.
Since it is obviously a strong keep and seems to have a lot of consensus to be so, I think this should be closed as speedy keep. Si Trew ( talk) 13:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
By the way at RFD, although the sidebar and Twinkle etc says "Redirects for Deletion", they are there for discussion not deletion. Quite a few get kept, retarget and so on. That is how these kind of things get worked out with discussion by good-faith editors, I am not sitting here knitting while the guillotine falls. Si Trew ( talk) 14:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply

David Lussier

David Lussier (  | 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 due to lack of notability. Film producer, director, and screenwriter. All films are created for his website or available for download at various sites. I cleaned up the article and tried to find reliable and independent sources to support notability, but it was fruitless. Essentially, all sources are download sites of his films. No reliable or independent sites actually discuss the subject in any significant manner. Article does not establish notability in accordance with the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for directors. Cindy( talk) 22:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Per your ref, The Day Before grossed $146k Canadian. This is consistent with subject's lack of notability. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 23:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Trey Hearne

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

AfD led to a keep five years ago, but I think we should revisit it. Google Newspapers search yields nothing. The one Springfield News-Leader source may be the only one to contribute to GNG, since scout.com sources are middling at best. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Coverage is typical routine baseball coverage for the minor leagues. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 22:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Kind of surprised this article has lasted as long as it has. Alex ( talk) 22:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable minor league player. ...William 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 14:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

John Stilley Carpenter

John Stilley Carpenter (  | 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 page has been tagged as not meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies since 2011, and I agree. I think it is time to delete this page. While Carpenter may be an interesting in a genealogical way, he is not noteworthy as leader in the LDS Church (there are hundreds of thousands of Bishop) nor is he noteworthy as a Utah pioneer (there are hundreds of thousands of Utah Pioneers). Unless someone can improve this page quickly it should be deleted. -- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk/ contribs) 16:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete here [6] is a link to his entry in Andrew Jenson's LDS biographical encyclopedia. Some early bishops functioned as local judges, but I think that had phased out by the time he was bishop. He was head of the Glendale Irrigation Company and on the school board, but considering the size of Glendale, Utah that is not enough. This is not a notable person. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 07:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG KEEP - We have an individual of minor historical importance listed in a LDS Biographical Encyclopedia about 1901 or so and again in 1913 in Pioneers and prominent men of Utah. In 2009 he is noted in the O.N.E On-line Nevada Encyclopedia regarding The Muddy Mission. The subject has also been mentioned in Daughters of the Utah Pioneer Magazine a few times (1949 & 1968 and maybe more - it is a hard search). In 2013 an article is posted on line about [ John Stilley Carpenter 1849 - 1925] and while this is a secondary type reference, it shows continued interest in the person. In reviewing several genealogical sites, he shows quite a few times, but that is incidental.
    WP:Bio This person meets the minimal requirements for WP notability. For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.
    WP:ANYBIO 2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. IE Such as being a pioneer or bishop or both and being historically documented.
    Please remember certain positions considered today as trivial, must be seen from the historical perspective. The community of Glendale (Berryville) Utah failed on its first attempt. This person helped the re-settlement of Glendale. The irrigation effort was the life-blood of the community and their farming economy. The lack of water (and Navajo conflict) helped cause the first settlement to fail. What the subject did then had an impact today. The same for the school board to a lesser degree. Glendale today is much larger and robust today that when it was first re-settled. Jrcrin001 ( talk) 08:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29, which states: "For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." The article has reliable sources per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:RS that provide significant coverage. Why take down a perfectly good article and reduce Wikipedia's span of coverage of people from all walks of life? Cohee ( talk) 10:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This nomination seems to smack of recentism, in other words it seems like the complaint is that the Google test doesn't work. I'll also note that comparing the current prominence of an LDS Bishop in the 21st Century is not the same as what it was like in the 19th Century where congregations were much larger in many cases. In this case you could make a comparison that being a bishop in Glendale was comparable to being mayor at the time in terms of social prominence. Still, the rationale for notability is more that of a founding settler of a particular town in Utah which most certainly is notable by itself. The point is that he is an important historical figure for southern Utah, hence notability concerns are met. I would also suggest that an exhaustive search of available sources has not been done with regards to this individual either. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 13:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The problem is that at no time has Glendale been a significant enough place that being mayor of it will make a person notable. I will point out the claim "there are hundreds of thousands of bishops" is not fully correct. At present there are just under 30,000 wards and branches, the total number of LDS bishops ever might exceed 100,000, but there were not nearly so many in the 19th-century. Still, we have never agreed that they all merit having an article. Not even all 19th-century stake presidents merit articles, although since many also served as members of territorial legislatures and the like they often do. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
You are missing the point. Just using the LDS Biographical Encyclopedia (about 1901)and Pioneers and prominent men of Utah (1913) did not come to even half of the some 900 or so Bishops estimated to have served from 1848 to 1900. They had to meet more than one criteria to make those books. Rinky Dink town mayor/bishops were not included by themselves. It is the combination of pioneer (twice in this case), bishop, leader and such that made the subject notable in history and documented by others before us. I agree with user Robert Horning above that the article in question is just a stub or start of what might be found on the subject. I have changed by postion from KEEP to STRONG KEEP. Jrcrin001 ( talk) 00:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment: Only volume 1 of the Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia can legitimately be used to establish notability, as volumes 2 and 3 were at least partially vanity publications, where people could pay for placement of text and pictures. As for Pioneers and Prominent Men of Utah, criteria for inclusion was in part that the person have immigrated to Utah between 24 July 1847 & 30 December 1868, qualifying them as Mormon pioneers; there are many people in this category that are not notable to WP standards. The "Prominent" criteria was only for those that came to Utah after the railroad, which Carpenter did not (came to Utah in 1857). -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 18:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Jrcrin001's research and comments (i am not checking, but maybe this was since added to the article; the article might now be in better form than when nominated). Seems interesting/important, and there are multiple sources specifically about him. -- do ncr am 23:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 05:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Jehovahson Alghar

Jehovahson Alghar (  | 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 notability WP:N. Sources generally fail WP:RS. Those that don't seem have little relation to the subject of the article. The article is likely an autobiographical WP:PROMO by a WP:SPA. Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:BLP. There are one or two reliable sources but that doesn't mention the subject even once. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 09:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

RCW Heavyweight Championship

RCW Heavyweight Championship (  | 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 notable minor championship. The promotion was deleted previously. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 21:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - yeah, if the promotion is not notable enough to have an article, how can its championship be more notable? Zero mentions of this championship in F4Wonline, SLAM!, PWTorch, Wrestleview and PWInsider. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 13:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If the promotion isn't notable then how could the championship be notable? LM2000 ( talk) 17:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

RCW Cruiserweight Championship

RCW Cruiserweight Championship (  | 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 notable minor championship. The promotion was deleted previously. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 21:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - yeah, if the promotion is not notable enough to have an article, how can its championship be more notable? Zero mentions of this championship in F4Wonline, SLAM!, PWTorch, Wrestleview and PWInsider. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 13:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If the promotion isn't notable then how could the championship be notable? LM2000 ( talk) 16:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

RCW Tag Team Championship

RCW Tag Team Championship (  | 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 notable minor championship. The promotion was deleted previously. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 21:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The company that the championship represents in up for speedy deletion. Even if that company was notable, WP:NOTINHERITED, as this fails WP:GNG. LM2000 ( talk) 01:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Just for the record, the main article has now been deleted. LM2000 ( talk) 21:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - yeah, if the promotion is not notable enough to have an article, how can its championship be more notable? Zero mentions of this championship in F4Wonline, SLAM! and PWTorch. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 13:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland

William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland (  | 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 following link to this supposed person has now been deleted from article Fitz: " Anthony Trollope's 1862 novel Orley Farm which features the fictional rakishly aristocratic figure Lord John Fitzjoly". Jolly/Bowland appear to be part of a connected series of hoax articles. Lord John Fitzjoly was a fictional character in Trollope's book.( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 16:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)) reply

  • Comment - I completed the nom, copying the rationale from the talk page of the article. 6 an 6 sh6 20:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I repeat my query/comment on the article's talk page: "Does this pseudonymous character merit an article? I also cannot help wondering (with a view to WP:YOURSELF) whether User:Manorial, the creator of this article and its principal contributor, is perhaps "the Lord" himself. And might Stephen Jolly be a further alias?)" 45ossington ( talk) 08:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Please see LORDSHIP OF BOWLAND. William Bowland is not a fictional character. (UTC)

  • Delete - for those who might be confused this "lordship" does not in fact give the title holder a position in the peerage of the United Kingdom, and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. The rest of it is really slightly embarrassing. If properly identified, the subject might meet WP:PROF but without positive identity it's impossible to tell. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 17:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Feudal lords who are not members of the House of Lords are not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As written, minimal notability, and the referencing is very poor (the links I've tried don't seem to contain the information claimed). Hchc2009 ( talk) 15:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article is clearly self-promotional and pure fantasy. If I may slightly alter the point made above so as not to set a precedent: Feudal barons are of very great historical interest, of great rarity and are certainly notable, for example the Berkeley family of Berkeley Castle who have been feudal lords of Berkeley for many centuries, but have only recently lost their separate peerage title Baron Berkeley to a female line. However, purported feudal and manorial titles "bought off the shelf" for a couple of thousand pounds by a fantasist are of no legal or historical validity and are of no interest to anyone other that the persons who buy them. WP is not the place for such self-promoters. Such fantasy articles sourced from self-submitted press-releases to free-copy-hungry local newspapers and self generated "official websites" are worthless, and detract from the many valuable articles on such topics sourced from serious historical publications. I suspect the article Stephen Jolly too has little basis in reality, and that this supposed person is also user:manorial and the self-proclaimed lord of Bowland. The message manorial left on my talk page 6 March certainly suggests he has some "inside info" on this hoax: Stephen William Jolly, a Cambridge don, is Lord of the Forest of Bowland, according to the Manorial Society. He is known as "William Bowland" within the Forest (check with the Forest Archive at Slaidburn; contact Helen Wallbank). His son, Henry, has the name "Fitzjoly" as William Bowland's natural child. Please check facts before proposing deletion! Manorial. Fitzjoly happens to be a fictional character in Anthony Trollope's 1862 novel Orley Farm. Coincidence? Fantasy, not facts, thus not suitable for WP. I support deletion of this article. ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 17:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)) reply
    • I'm striking the vote, not because it's not valid, but because you're technically the nominator, so it's a duplicate. 6 an 6 sh6 09:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hunter Ansley Wryn

Hunter Ansley Wryn (  | 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:NACTOR. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - roles to date to not meet WP:ENT, and there does not appear to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG.  Gong  show 20:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Connor Dylan Wryn

Connor Dylan Wryn (  | 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:NACTOR. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - roles to date to not meet WP:ENT, and there does not appear to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG.  Gong  show 20:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Sean Francis (writer)

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

Unsourced BLP, although if you check the history there used to be a single reference about his daughter. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker talk 19:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I have not been able to fund evidence that either this writer or his "best known" book are notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The "best known" book is self published through Lulu which for a fee will list on B&N and Amazon websites. Other than that can't find anything. -- Green C 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 14:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Piedmontese Wikipedia

Piedmontese Wikipedia (  | 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 version of Wikipedia; the article doesn't include any third-party sources. eh bien mon prince ( talk) 18:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The fact that there are 57,000 articles could be challenged, but has not been challenged. It's a new article, appropriately tagged for addition of sources. I have to believe that this is notable, and that there is coverage in Piedmont and Italy, in Italian and Piedmontese, of this Wikipedia. Let it develop.-- do ncr am 23:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, it seems that other language wikipedias have English entries, I can't see a reason why this one would be any different. Bali88 ( talk) 06:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their deletion nomination and there are no outstanding delete !votes. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 18:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Ivaylo Brusovski

Ivaylo Brusovski (  | 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 indication that subject is notable according to WP:CREATIVE, WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. Even his IMDB is almost empty: it says he directed one film, is filming another, and had a minor role in a Sam Mendes film. Can't find substantial coverage of him online using English or Bulgarian spelling: references given only make passing mention of him in local theater and film work. Ruby Murray 18:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related article about one of his films, which makes no indication of why the film is notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (films). I can also find no substantial coverage of it online:

Veseto and the black and white happiness (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ruby Murray 18:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Bulgarian:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep While we're not likely to find much English language coverage on a Bulgarian filmmaker whose main body of works were done in Bulgaria and without English-language release, searching under the proper spelling of his name appears to show notability under WP:FILMMAKER is met and the article sourcable with a bit of work with translation. [7] His body of work under WP:CREATIVE appears verifiable, and I am not at all impressed by a claim of non-notability due to an "unreliable" IMDB not listing this Bulgarian filmmaker's works. WP:CSB anyone? Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Allow me to clarify: I certainly wasn't saying that IMDB should be used as a yardstick for notability, quite the opposite. As noted above, I did search for his name in both Bulgarian and English, and what came back was mostly in Bulgarian. This was mostly brief mentions of his name in long lists of directors at film festivals. I could find no substantial pieces about him: just passing mentions. However that search link you provided above did turn up this and this and this. I'm not sure what went wrong when I tried to search yesterday, but it looks as if I might need to withdraw the nomination. Ruby Murray 15:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Nomination withdrawn - MichaelQSchmidt is right - there's substantial coverage about him in what appears to be WP:RS in Bulgarian, and he appears to be nationally known there. Still can't quite understand how I missed those references the first time I searched, but there it is. I'll make amends by improving the referencing of the article using the references found. Ruby Murray 10:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Nandor Guelmino

Nandor Guelmino (  | 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 MMA fighter - did manage two top tier fights but both were losses. Not likely to make three. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

VloggerFair

VloggerFair (  | 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:GNG. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete  This is the kind of non-notable that is covered by WP:Deletion policy.  In Google searches it is hard to find anything at all from after the event.  [8] is an exception, but there is no indication of lasting effects.  Google news has literally nothing for either "VloggerFair" or "Vlogger Fair".  Unscintillating ( talk) 04:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, last year was the first year of the event. However, major companies like Yelp, Ford, and Intel sponsored the event. Google news has nothing, but try doing a regular Google search. Not all news websites are indexed in Google news. Dnywlsh ( talk) 23:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Please see also the 2nd and 3rd sentences of my post.  Except for the one article, everything else I found was promotional efforts from before the event, which are covered at least in part by the policies WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:CRYSTAL.  Even if a few local media had picked up the story, this would still be a problem with the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.  Beyond that, the notability guideline WP:EFFECTS is an issue.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\  talk / 03:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Gatineau city councillors

Luc Montreuil (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pierre Philion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alain Pilon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Louise Poirier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Simon Racine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alain Riel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Denis Tassé (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frank Thérien (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– ( View AfD · Stats)

Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding consensus, city councillors are not notable enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN in most cases, except for two specific circumstances: (a) the city is a major, internationally famous "world city" with a population approaching or above a million people (and even then, this criterion extends only to that city itself, not to smaller cities within its metropolitan area — so the fact that Gatineau happens to be adjacent to Ottawa, a city which does meet this criterion, does not boost the notability of Gatineau's city councillors beyond that of any other city the size of Gatineau itself), or (b) the person has established notability for something more than just being a city councillor alone (e.g. going on to serve in the federal or provincial legislatures; emerging as a national or international spokesperson on a political issue; or passing a different notability rule, such as the ones for writers, sports figures or businesspeople.) None of these people actually meet either standard, however; all six are "notable" only as city councillors in a city not large enough for its city councillors to count as notable.

Additionally, most of these articles cite only primary sources (i.e. the city's own website) which cannot demonstrate notability at all, while a few cite only local news coverage which fails to demonstrate that they've gotten past point b above. Either way, none of them are sufficiently sourced to demonstrate that the person has actually gotten past WP:POLITICIAN in any substantive way. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Local councillors rarely have notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Gatineau City Council already exists and that is sufficient. I suppose we could redirect some of the titles there - the more "popular" I looked at get 10-20 hits a week. But that decision can be made later at an editorial level. For now, deletion is fine. Stalwart 111 11:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Members of city councils are only very rarely notable as such. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Feel free to use {{ Db-disambig}} in the future for cases like this. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Koji Ogata (disambiguation)

Koji Ogata (disambiguation) (  | 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 WP:2DABS. Hatnote on primary is in place; this pg is superfluous. Boleyn ( talk) 16:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • I'm not sure the artist is the primary topic. I suggest moving the dab page to Koji Ogata instead. -- Kusunose 15:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: unnecessary dab page. Pam D 15:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User:Kusunose, thanks for your opinion, can you explain your reasoning and back it up with viewing figures etc.? Boleyn ( talk) 17:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔ 17:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc 21 19:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Raytown Police Department

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

Small city (30,000 population) police dept. No possible notability . No non local reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ♔ 17:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. The source "Raytown Police Department: The First 60 Years (1950-2010), by Ret. Sgt. Bruce T. Varner, (2011)" seems to be significant. Yes it is local, and to be used with care, but it sounds like legitimate documentation, and there are other sources used, too. -- do ncr am 17:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
giventhe authorship, I doubt it is independent. It seems to be privately printed, and is in a total of two libraries. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Raytown is a major suburb of Kansas City, Missouri. Not the biggest, but lots of business there. LionMans Account ( talk) 03:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Nice article with decent sources, but how is it notable outside of Raytown? Why isn't merging appropriate? 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as suggested, without prejudice to later re-creation. Bearian ( talk) 20:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A small city has a police department. I assume that they also have a fire department, an ambulance service, waterworks, a road department, sanitation, etc., etc. *To their credit*, this PD seems to have generated no substantial, independent coverage at all from any reliable source. It's like a well-done genealogy of a nice family with no notable members, and I am unwilling to expand our scope to this degree. I would agree with merge, but I don't see anything worth transferring over, and redirect unnecessary. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 00:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as, oh, i don't even know what to call it. Police-cruft? Pictures of the shoulder insignia? Such scintillating text as, The elected marshal of the City of Raytown is responsible for the operation of the RPD? Perhaps we could find out if the marshal has a dog, and if so, what breed (reliably sourced, of course)? I know I'm supposed to keep my arguments to wiki-policy, but this stuff is just absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy to User:Btvarner/Raytown Police Department and then delete the article. The level of work that has been put into this article is admirable, but the Raytown PD isn't notable enough. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 17:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable Secret account 19:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Rudrakoti

Rudrakoti (  | 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 local shrine. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 17:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - we could consider transwiki-ing to Wikivoyage or something but I can't see how this has a place here. Stalwart 111 11:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Crossfire Wrestling

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

Unsourced, not notable, minor independent promotion HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 17:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The only reliable coverage I've found only details the company's closure... I don't think that's a good thing. LM2000 ( talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - article has 1 primary source and 0 secondary sources. With the company being inactive it's not going to become more notable in the near future. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 23:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Robbie Mireno

Robbie Mireno (  | 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 notable wrestler. His career is 3 lines. He never wrestled in major promotions and haven't notable roles at independent promotions. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 17:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - a wrestler with minor success in minor promotions is not notable. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 23:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Substantial (rapper)

Substantial (rapper) (  | 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 has no reliable independent sources to substantiate the claims to notability, which are in any case weak. Guy ( Help!) 10:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete absent actual reliable sources being found - he has no substantial impact on the international music scene from assiduous searching, but maybe there are strong Japanese sources? Collect ( talk) 13:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Please review the account, the article has references sources from sites such as VH1, and MTV. Substantial is an important person as a performer and activist, and the numerous sources back that up. Enough information has been compiled from 3rd party media including magazine scans. I believe this page was nominated due to another user removing a large majorit of the information. Peace In Mississippi ( talk) 01:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep easily passes the low wiki notability guide of wp:gng with the current external reports. Looks like revenge deletion here , where anon users here seem to hate any editing by real life people attempting to improve their bios and if they catch on to that the wiki users attack and if possible the anon wiki users delete the article altogether. Mosfetfaser ( talk) 01:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • This AfD page is for discussing the article only, and not any theories about Wikipedia cabals. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 01:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, as I said, Keep easily passes the low wiki notability guide of wp:gng with the current external reports. Mosfetfaser ( talk) 01:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Might you name some of the reliable sources making him notable? I assure you facebook, WP:SPS and commercial sites selling records do not actually qualify for the purpose. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 01:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak-ish Keep. This guy is reasonably well known in underground hip-hop circles, so I'm surprised I couldn't find much in the way of really decent coverage, but I think he still meets WP:MUSICBIO through the independent coverage that I did find: [9] [10] [11] [12]. — sparklism hey! 14:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply
And a couple more: [13] [14]. — sparklism hey! 14:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply
And you feel "okayplayer.com" meets WP:RS? It looks like a blog from over here. Collect ( talk) 14:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Good question. Okayplayer is a bit more than a blog; in the hip-hop world they're a pretty big deal. Here is their staff team page (at least one of whom has an article here). I did a quick G-search for "okayplayer reports" and turned up a couple of hits: Spin [15], Fact [16] and (ahem) East Bay Express [17]. So other (reputable, reliable) sites seem to consider them reliable. Granted, I'm not overwhelmed by that, but I think it's enough for them to be considered reliable here. — sparklism hey! 19:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 1000 21:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Jubilee Debt Coalition

Jubilee Debt Coalition (  | 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 promotional article; the article for the USA equivalent, was jut deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jubilee USA Network DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason
Jubilee Scotland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This was a very notable and successful campaign. Unfortunately, some of the implementation of its achievements may have been less satsifactory. Notability is not temporary. Possibly the organisation might be merged with its campaign, but plain deletion should not be an option. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply

UCLA Women's Rugby

UCLA Women's Rugby (  | 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:GNG with lack of coverage in WP:Independent sources. PROD was contested, adding a reference from Daily Bruin, UCLA's student newspaper, which is not independent. This is an intramural sports club, generally not receiving coverage like college sports at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) level. — Bagumba ( talk) 02:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Bagumba ( talk) 03:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Club team with no indication of notability or significant independent coverage. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 13:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with the IP editor but I think that there isn't a single reliable source to make a club team notable at all. Ashbeckjonathan ( talk) 17:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect to UCLA Bruins#Rugby. Not separately notable, but deserves a mention at the UCLA sports page. If the result here is redirect, I will undertake to carry out the merge. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    Without WP:INDY coverage, mention at a redirect seems promotional and not advisable.— Bagumba ( talk) 19:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 16:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Space Desia

Space Desia (  | 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 reliable sources listed. A quick google search turned up no news about the band or their songs.   — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, does not meet requirements, nor does it meet WP:GNG. Google search turned up nothing at all. Quoting from NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." mikeman67 ( talk) 21:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't think there's any reason why this information cannot be listed on the band's main page. Bali88 ( talk) 03:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Birbal_Jha#Publications. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Celebrate Your Life

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

Seems to fail WP:NBOOK, being sourced only to a single (anonymous?) review and a nice personal letter from a University of Oxford professor. McGeddon ( talk) 08:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • delete - one review is not significant coverage. Academics get plenty of free books from authors and publishers in their field, and while the letter acknowledging the book is positive, it does not make the book notable. -- bonadea contributions talk 08:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Well, at least single source is needed for---, is the review by (anonymous?) legitimate matter and reason for deletion?, secondly, the letter of a professor of the University of Oxford is an official letter and that is published too. Justice007 ( talk) 08:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The problem is that it's incredibly common for people to write up small blurbs and the like, usually for the purpose of putting it on the book jacket. The letter doesn't really count towards notability since it's really just someone thanking the author for sending him a book. It's not actually a review, it's a personal correspondence. The writer may expect that a snippet might be placed on the jacket as a blurb, but only with her explicit consent- which isn't actually on the letter. In any case, this letter doesn't count as an actual review. Now if the professor were to publish a review in one of the various places that would be considered a reliable source such as a peer reviewed journal or even one of the official student newspapers of Oxford, then that would count towards notability. But until that happens, this letter does not count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Basically put, letters like this are standard fare. Most will receive them in some form or fashion, as it's the polite thing to do. Because they're so commonly distributed to various authors and publishers, we need more than this to show that it's more than just a polite brushoff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Birbal_Jha#Publications. The article for the author needs a LOT of work to clean it up and remove all of the puffery, but for now this would be a reasonable redirect to the author's article. I'll try to clean it up, as its current state makes it look fairly non-notable and promotional in tone. I think that there is notability here for the author, but not enough to justify a separate article for each of his works. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I've cleaned the article so there shouldn't be any BLP with the author's article now. There is notability enough for him to pass GNG, I believe. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Don't think it meets WP:NBOOK requirements. I also do not think that Oxford letter means much: the site it's published on doesn't appear very reliable, and even if authentic, I don't think it can be considered "published" or a "work." mikeman67 ( talk) 20:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Birbal_Jha#Publications, per Tokyogirl79, although I'm not 100% convinced that Birbal Jha himself is notable. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 00:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anyone finds some decent sources that cover Bendewald directly, I am willing to restore this. I can also userfy the article on request. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Mason Bendewald

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

cannot find any independent coverage that could be used to source this biography nonsense ferret 00:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Vanity/promotional bio. Article provides a few primary sources. There does not appear to be any useful secondary sources out there. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 00:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 06:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO. Fails notability guidelines as well. mikeman67 ( talk) 21:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I found some sources: Variety, Philadelphia City Paper, The Morning Call, Film Threat. I can't find anything related to his directing the P90X videos, as the Google results are dominated by mountains of worthless spam and blogs. The Film Threat article is a review of a short film he directed, and the others are coverage of his short-lived film festival. It could be argued that the film festival stories are not about him personally. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Paul M. Leonard

Paul M. Leonard (  | 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 apparent reliable sources to show notability John from Idegon ( talk) 04:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 06:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

*Weak keep. The sources are literally external link sources (IMDB and the NYT movie database). With better sources, even simply one, his claim-to-fame work on Galactica would be notable enough. The Emmy noms cement that. — Wylie pedia 16:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails most all reasons for keeping. — Wylie pedia 15:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article sounds like blatant WP:PROMOTION, and certainly would need to be rewritten if kept. It appears that User:APFChange, the page creater and central contributor, has posted the same bio on IMDb as well [18], which isn't allowed under WP licensing terms and is a clear WP:COPYVIO. It looks like the account is a WP:SPA unfortunately. Off topic, but it also appears the name stands for A Passion to Change LLC, which is a company that offers social media services. It is possible this editor has a WP:COI. As for the Emmy claim, you can see on IMDb that none of the awards lists Leonard as a recipient, so unless someone can show otherwise, those awards don't demonstrate any notability for Leonard. It is original research to claim that it was Leonard's work that led to the awards. Finally, "co-producing" is not the same as "creating" or helping to create a TV series. Therefore, he doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER. Absent addition sources (of which I could find none after searching), I don't believe he meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. mikeman67 ( talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. As it stands, I agree with Mikeman67's analysis: the subject did not receive any of those Emmy nominations nor are any other award noms or wins shown at IMDb, and so far there's insufficient reliable source coverage. Here's an interview article about him from the Moody College of Communication at the University of Texas [19]; however, while we often use alumni publication articles like that for factual information, we don't usually accept them to show notability. Here's a brief mention in Entertainment Weekly of him as a member of a Comic-Con panel about Battlestar Galactica. [20] If better reliable sources can be produced I'm open to changing my !vote. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 00:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Hello all, This is APFC Director of Business Services, I want to thank you all for any and all help you have given so far, The gentleman that you all have been dealing with has since left the company, As a official rep I want to thank you all and apologies for his actions, we as a company never have done wikipedia pages, this was a asked favor. Which we now see is not something we should be dealing with. So please do not let the poor judgement of one of our ex-employees reflect the same views and attitude of our company. -- A Passion For Change LLC ( talk) 04:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Director of Business Services for APFC reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a soft delete, and the article may be restored by a request at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Ram Singh Arman

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

Try as I might, I can find no reliable sources for this guy - loads of mirrors and Books LLC etc but nothing of merit. The only cited source is an ashram established after his death by someone influenced by him. Appears to be a hagiography of a minor religious figure and fails WP:GNG. Sitush ( talk) 15:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 06:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is a soft delete, and the article may be restored by a request at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Joost van den Broek

Joost van den Broek (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced BLP The Banner  talk 20:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Does that equate to being non-notable? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Not necessarily but not impossible (Dutch article was removed in 2007 for not being notable enough.). My first concern is the breach of WP:BLP. The Banner  talk 11:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 06:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If somebody wants to add a one-liner about him in the party article, by all means. I would recommend not recreating a redirect until it is included (wiht a source) however. kelapstick( bainuu) 21:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Dilip Kumar Pandey

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

Subject appears to be a minor functionary in a political party. No evidence of notability. Sources hugely fail WP:RS. PROD was removed. Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Information is limited in article and with time people will add more information. Person is spokesperson of a party and all sources are reliable which is wrongly quoted by User:Ad Orientem may be check by Administrators/ reviewer. GKCH ( talk) 05:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In deference to GKCH I took another look at the sources. I still think they are trivial and do not establish notability as it is understood in WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. But if a consensus says otherwise I will be happy to listen. Maybe I am missing something. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 05:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 05:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is no doubt that the AAP is a notable party in India. I'm not sure that it follows that being the official spokesperson of a party is itself grounds for notability (in many cases, party spokespeople are merely PR employees and do not occupy decision-making roles, for instance). The sources prevented in this bio are either not independent (coming from the AAP itself), or do not discuss the person in any depth (usually just quoting them in relation to some other matter). I don't feel it meets WP:BIO or the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC). reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: Add a one-liner on Aam Aadmi Party about him being spokesperson and redirect it there. He isn't that notable yet for standalone article. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 05:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Person is notable, please give some more time to expand stub. 182.68.14.9 ( talk) 10:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The cited sources that are independent of AAM are only passing mentions, which isn't enough to prove that Pandey passes WP:GNG in my opinion, and his position isn't enough to warrant a pass of WP:POLITICIAN. If a mention can be worked into the Aam Aadmi Party article then I would be fine with redirecting, but otherwise deletion seems the way to go. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is no doubt that person is notable. Yes we can add some more information to article. For more cite we can check google. 117.198.121.235 ( talk) 16:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is a soft delete, and the article may be restored by a request to WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Sari Gama Gama Gama

Sari Gama Gama Gama (  | 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 credible assertion signifying the notability of the article. No appropriate refs. Only one and that too to you tube (not allowed). Thus proposing its deletion under criteria A7. Might have nominated it for speedy deletion if it's category (television-related articles) was listed in A7. Also, the article seems to be a borderline advertisement, and is clearly not written neutrally. Also it can be clearly seen that the article contains (in fact its based upon) original research. King Of The Wise ( talk) 03:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable notable notable. No media coverage. — Wylie pedia 16:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep, I would be extremely careful with articles like this, as it is likely that sources exist in the Tamil language, which obviously most of us here can't read. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC). reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 15:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Nikolaev Massacre

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

Львівське ( говорити) 03:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into World War II if sources can be found. The only ones I'm finding online cross-reference Wikipedia or are unreliable, but if it's as notable as it seems like it'd be, there's probably a mention of it somewhere. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have expanded and added two references to the article. These atrocities were the subject of testimony at the Nuremberg Trials and the responsible Nazi officer Otto Ohlendorf admitted these and other mass murders, and was hung. The incident was described by eminent historian Martin Gilbert in his monumental one-volume history of the Holocaust. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems like quite a significant incident. PatGallacher ( talk) 23:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment 35,782 non-combatants summarily executed? Yes, I would agree that this qualifies as a "significant incident". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It is a short article, now with references, on an important topic. It is not appropriate to merge to the World War II article. If it turns out later that there is an appropriate merger target, such as a comprehensive list of World War II massacre incidents, a future merger proposal could/should be handled at the article's Talk page. -- do ncr am 23:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion about a possible move can continue on the article's talk page, perhaps via a requested move. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Joe "Tiger" Patrick II

Joe "Tiger" Patrick II (  | 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 PR stunt; the contents of the article are all remarkably trivial. . The sources are similarly PR, but we don;t have to be another one of them.

Accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Mike moral ♪♫ 01:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. — Mike moral ♪♫ 01:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • delete a non-notable person involved in a publicity stunt. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • keep This article is about a notable event. This was not done as a publicity stunt. This article was created using numerous news articles (including some big name newspapers across the united states) about the subject and the reasons for the walk across America. I researched for hours when creating this article and believe that the many references I used and the topic and the subject are in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines. My vote is to keep. Tattoodwaitress ( talk) 15:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • We do not create articles on people notable for one event. This is a biographical article, not an event article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
      • This article is not just about one event. There is actually two events noted in the article. Hence the two sections titled "A walk for people lost in 9/11 attacks" and "A walk for U.S. service members killed in the war" And I do agree that the content can be worked on and added to as well. Tattoodwaitress ( talk) 22:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The content can be worked on some but still notable topic. -- Green C 04:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 13:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 13:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep though article needs more BLP information rather than focusing on the notable events.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The ongoing Afghanistan memorial walk and memorial quilt seem notable, and there are sources. I think it could be moved to Afghanistan war memorial walk and quilt by Joe "Tiger" Patrick II or some such descriptive name, rather than being presented as a bio about him, but that is a proposal for the Talk page. Even with a different focus in the title, the article could include a section on prior walk and a section on bio of Mr. Patrick. But, for this AFD, anyhow, Keep. -- do ncr am 23:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

As the subject of this wikipage I agree I am not a notable person, however I humbly suggest the walks do merit notation as they impacted many during their completion. I have just now figured out how to add or edit content and to be honest have avoided reading my wiki and any articles found on the web as it is still "raw" and too soon. I understand the subject of a wiki shouldn't be able to scrub or direct content on their page to keep it correct and bias free.. but if I could suggest the creation of a page for "One Man's Walk" which is really two walks that might make more sense. I am thankful this page was created for me (unsolicited) as it enabled family/friends of US Servicemen and women who were deployed or on the memorial panel easier to send info/links ahead of the walk to other families. Hundreds of people saw the panel as a direct result of the wikipage and I am grateful. The walk still has a final leg to be considered complete, and that's will come after OEF is over and no more faces can be added to the memorial panel. Thank you for your consideration. Tiger Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerPatrick ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Tiger I for one am grateful for your input and thoughts regarding this wiki article and am hoping that we can get more input on this. As suggested above by another editor I agree that some additional information and I quote "BLP information" would be good. (BLP stands for Biography of Living Person). I will research and see what I can find that may be added to this article now that more time has passed there may be some additional sources out there containing information that can be used. I will also see if I can recruit some members to put there two cents in regarding this vote for deletion or keep to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Tattoodwaitress ( talk) 01:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Despite extended efforts from the creator of the article to save it, consensus is clear. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Agnieszka's Dowry

Agnieszka's Dowry (  | 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 poetry publication, with a high degree of promotionalism. The references in the article aren't--just look at them: apparently Brown University has a copy of an issue, the Electronic Poetry Center at UBuffalo lists it, as does Mom's Writers Club ( [21]) and a bunch of other directory-style websites. Google Books adds directory listings such as this one, but produces nothing of any substance. Google Web adds more links and directories, but again, no substantial discussion or even a mention in a reliable source. The text itself is promotional enough, really, to warrant a speedy nomination, but since the creator (and editor of the journal) is in hot water at ANI right now I thought it would be more fair to let the community deal with this. Drmies ( talk) 00:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply

☛ Forgive me. if writing here out of turn is a gross violation of Wikipedia rights and an indefinitely blockable offense :), but I felt compelled to make a rebuttal, having cleaned up the article and its sources, so here goes:
  1. text itself is promotional enough, really, to warrant a speedy nomination ➝ removed. Care to reassess?
  2. sources were pruned, updated, most were removed.
  3. one source establishing notability (according to Tokyogirl79 down the page, an opinion I concur with) was added
  4. Brown university does not "apparently have a copy of an issue". This is a gross mischaracterization of the state of the world. It was almost a lie at the time you nominated this article, and with my providing a link to the elaborated library record, it is now refuted. Brown University clearly has every issue of Agnieszka's Dowry ever printed. Moreover, Brown University keeps it under lock and key, permitting only by-appointment visitation. It is clearly thought by Brown University to be worthy of inclusion in a notable collection of small press Americana, and the fact that it is at Brown in this capacity is a mega-plus in establishing its notability on English Wikipedia. So, please take that mischaracterization back.
And that would be all, for now. Cordially, -- Mareklug talk 20:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  1. The text is still promotional. Most of it looks like it could have been cut 'n' pasted from the journal's website. That said, you should probably focus your efforts on establishing notability.
  2. At least two of the remaining need to be removed. See below.
  3. "[P]ossibly help show notability" does not mean "establish[es] notability". We don't include sources that are only passing mentions.
  4. Having done a fair amount of research in these kinds of archives, I can tell you from personal experience that they're filled with non-notable books. That's not a bad thing: archival books can have immense value and significance independent of wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, the fact that only six libraries hold the print version correlates well with non-notability. Adding holding information to the references is not appropriate, and that cite should be removed.
Garamond Lethe t
c 16:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  1. Thank you for your level re-assessment. Could you explicitly say which refs are to be chucked?
  2. Also, I agree about there being plenty of non-notable stuff in such Americana omnibus collections, and a cursory perusal of random entries that come up when one clicks the collection link, bears this out, so no special knowledge or having used them is required. :)
  3. However, independently of that, I still argue that Agnieszka's Dowry is notable among librarians (the Brown reference establishes that, showing the full 13 volume collection), critics (we have Sara Russell and Annette Hyder, both not fly-by-night critics, unlike the references removed already), reviewers (the Kansas academic book appears to be one -- I need to get my hands on it; but interlibrary loan timeframe will exceed the AfD window surely), and of course, notable poets, some of whom 20-10 years ago placed their early work in it, and today are famous. Caron Andregg comes to mind. I can easily produce others. Don't be discouraged by their red link status on English Wikipedia. Our poetry coverage is a tad less complete than our Idols (TV series) or pokémon ones...
  4. I will indeed try to unearth RSes that incontrovertibly establish notability.
  5. At any rate, if and when you delete this lovely part of Wikipedia, or perhaps userify it as a subpage for me to keep hacking at (leaving behind gigabytes of dross in main space coming not even close in merit to the social value and encyclopedic value of Agnieszka's Dowry article), it will have been in the best possible shape, far better shape than when put on AfD a few days ago, for which I thank everyone -- and fit for future undeleting. :)
  6. I also disagree on your promotionality assessment pertaining to the present state of text, its style, content, coverage. By now it is all itemized, dispassionate facts, only the salient ones. So what if the write-up on Wikipedia may fit the official website. I take that as a compliment, having written the official website content eons ago. I hope that the official website does not contain garbage. Truly. I took out all the adjectives out of the Wikipedia Agnieszka's Dowry article. I redacted all the fluff, and the frankly sloppy writing of mine, unworthy of me, on Wikipedia or off Wikipedia. If facts left behind are promotional, Dear Goddess, what is not? -- Mareklug talk 09:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • As to promotionality: Prairie Schooner has been around since 1926 and (according to worldcat) is held in 618 libraries. UNebraska put out a history back in 1955. It's a big deal in literary circles. For all that, the meat of the article is all of five sentences.
Another example: The News Letter of the LXIVmos. Very obscure, didn't quite last three years. Yet it was important enough that both an index and a facsimile edition have been published. That article is all of eight sentences.
You're proposing a far larger article for AgD. That's fine, if you had the sources to back it up. You don't, so the article comes across as having been written by a student who forgot to study for the exam and so will fill up the empty page with as many facts as she can recall. We're supposed to be summarizing reliable sources, not duplicating them. If I was going to make this article AfD-proof, the first thing I'd do is cut it down to 200 words and only add to that when I could source each additional sentence. All of the lists should be cut, as well as the ephemera ("No thank-you notes.").
Hmmm.... ok, I've got 30 minutes before my first concall. Let me take a stab at rewriting it....
Garamond Lethe t
c 15:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete—The case isn't quite as simple as Drmies makes it out to be, but I agree with the conclusion. The citations include a two-paragraph notice at the Poetry Magazine Review and a more in-depth article at Poetry & Chapbook Review (urls are via wayback machine and blacklisted). In my opinion, that's two substantial reviews away from notability. If the article is kept, the promotional tone ("Idiosyncratic submissions sought" as a header?) needs to be removed. Garamond Lethe t
    c     00:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I can't find the PMR review--it's not linked in the article, is it? I didn't see the other one, true, but those references are a bit messy. Anyway, that Poetry & Chapbook Review article is very friendly, to put it mildly, and I have some questions about reliability--you know, I'm sure that a certain amount of, well, what shall we say, mutual backscratching has been known to allegedly occur. Anyway, thanks for digging into it. Drmies ( talk) 01:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
      • The URLs are spelled out in the citation in the article. They're the last two or three. Garamond Lethe t
        c         16:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as essentially unsourced promotion of non-notable periodical. BMK ( talk) 02:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Vindictive, piling-on, ignorant Wikipedians don't deserve to have this article. I am sorry that years ago I tried in good faith to add meaningful content to Wikipedia on this particular score, way before the idiotic COI thing came up in an ill-conceived and witch-hunting way became an albatross around all our necks -- I added here an article about something truly original and well-regarded in the literary community. Non-notable, eh? What the blip do you know about literary presses? What do you know, technically, about the historical significance of constructing hypertext that on one hand presents an almost inscrutable graphical experience in the GUI, necessitating hunting with the mouse for clickable links, and on another, has been cleverly tuned for the Lynx textual browser to never need a keystroke other than space bar tapping, interrupted occasionally by an "enter/carriage return" -- two keys! -- to traverse the entire multi-page installation, thanks to the topology devised (linked circular lists, one per room, several rooms to an issue, an issue under construction aka a partial editorial artifact available for viewing as part of the magazine, comprising a published part and a in-the-processs part? Or, what do you know about AgD's literary reputation and standing for its content and selectivity? Anyway, just delete Agnieszka's Dowry and let's be done with it. As for the editor being in hot water, the editor is about to hang a "retired" sign on his user page on at least one if not four WMF projects at once, thanks to the steward Vito. The editor just needs to tie a few lose ends such as provide promised sourcing for the first (and only) BLP of a Hopi silversmith on any Wikipedia. Probably just spam and self-promotion -- the nominator wrote as a DYK comment about not wanting to put it on AfD just now (!). Whaaaa? In the words of a The Smiths's lyric, " Frankly Mr. Shankly", I sing in your general direction :) : and sometimes I feel more fulfilled/making Christmas cards with the mentally ill. Carry on. -- Mareklug talk 03:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Could not resist doing a quickie 4-minute Google search, an operation that clearly eludes all of you Dear Wikipedians:
➞ and finally, this:

  • A book on hypertext that has Agnieszka's Dowry in its own title

    Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the links to import into a bibliography manager.

    MLA
    Websites, Art. "Artcyclopedia, Pixiv, Art Blog, Deviantart, Net. Art, Paper Project, Gfxartist, Agnieszka's Dowry, Sagan 4, Art. Net." (2010).

    APA
    Websites, A. (2010). Artcyclopedia, Pixiv, Art Blog, Deviantart, Net. Art, Paper Project, Gfxartist, Agnieszka's Dowry, Sagan 4, Art. Net.

    Chicago
    Websites, Art. "Artcyclopedia, Pixiv, Art Blog, Deviantart, Net. Art, Paper Project, Gfxartist, Agnieszka's Dowry, Sagan 4, Art. Net." (2010).

    Over and out. -- Mareklug talk 03:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Please remember to assume WP:GOODFAITH on behalf of others and be polite when trying to make a point. Sometimes people just miss things and sometimes they do see sources like these and they fail WP:RS in some form or fashion, which is why they didn't list them here or try to argue for a keep. Now offhand some of the sources do look usable, such as the Poetry Life & Times, but others such as the blog entry can't show notability. Most blogs can't, so this isn't a slight against the person writing it. When it comes to some of the book sources, the problem is that they're all trivial mentions that are either routine "thanks for the help" mentions or they're possibly an advert in a magazine. There are also some brief mentions in relation to something someone has done, but none of them are really the sort that would give notability. The only one I saw that could possibly help show notability was this book, but we'd have to know the context to really tell you if this is a good in-depth mention or just a brief one-off. There was another one that mentioned it insanely briefly, but it's a trivial mention at best. Now when it comes to this book, this series of books were part of a now infamous series of works put out by Books LLC, who tried to charge hundreds of dollars for reprinting Wikipedia articles. It's far from being a reliable source to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
For what it is worth, no one has EVER lodged an ad on behalf of AgD or A Small Garlic Press. We just don't do that. One problem is that by Internet standards AgD is ...ancient. There used to be a lot of interesting reliable sources, academic online ones, such as Walter Annenberg School of Communications at UCLA, which listed the "prestigious" literary magazines, and AgD was there. Also, a University of Texas website that reviewed the AgD for its novel aspects and quality of poetry. Where will we find these things? Do note that AgD rejects more than 99% of all submissions it gets. The current issue was started in 2008 and is barely 1/3 full ...in 2014. AgD is a fossil, and no one at Wired or Salon will bother themselves with it. The thank yous from notable poets in their published notable poetry books are the best we can do, these are echoes. It is what it is. An ex-parrot at Wikipedia. Just like it's principal author. Cordially, -- Mareklug talk 05:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Neither vitriol nor acting like a WP:DIVA is going to halp your case. BMK ( talk) 17:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your true observations. The are so chez wikipedia it makes my heart gling gló. -- Mareklug talk 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, we vindictive, ignorant and mobbish Wikipedians are so darn cute and provincial. I'm surprised you don't jump through my screen to give me a big hug and bring me back to show me off to your friends. "Have you ever seen anything so utterly darling? And this one has even learned to use a knife and fork!!" BMK ( talk) 23:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
As Tokyogirl observed, many of the linked Google Book snippets are just not helpful--thank you notes and mentions (like the one in Haiku in English). The bit from A View from the Loft appears to be an announcement of sorts (I ordered it through ILL, just to make sure). The Literary Magazine Review snippet and the one from Choice are worth tracking down and I requested them through ILL--I hope they can get them, since Mareklug chose to give us Google results (and thus no article titles) rather than an actual list of Works Cited. As for the old "what the hell do you know about literary journals", well, one could counter with a. more than you think and b. what the hell do you know? But rather than respond with more acid, I'll see what comes in from ILL; until then, I see no reason to change my mind. Drmies ( talk) 21:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
OK, one review is in: John Roche, "Poetry on the Internet: A Survey" (Choice (2003) 40.8: 1287ff. The magazine gets three sentences--on the one hand, only three (which is about the average for the few dozen sites of all kinds that are reviewed); on the other, they're really positive sentences. Drmies ( talk) 22:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Mareklug's sources and reasoning and Tokyogirl's careful dissection thereof. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: I cleaned up the article making it a) not promotional in tone, b) more lucid, c) shorter. I hope to do the same to the sourcing before the article gets deleted. -- Mareklug talk 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: I pruned the refs, added one that Tokyogirl79 endorsed as maybe affording notability (I think so too), and updated the most substantial reference, Brown University with a link to its catalog entry corroborating AgD as being a *notable* American Poetry collections holding, comprising of all issues, viewable by appointment only. That library record specifies where each issue is located, and provides a link to online version which is accessible to anyone searching the library with “Agnieszka’s Dowry”. Such searching is open to the public. If that does not make AgD notable, I don’t think there is anything out there to be found that will be more substantive. But let me look some more. As for the existing interview link, this is what the “about” link says about that literary publication: "Poems Niederngasse is based in Zürich, Switzerland, and originated as a small English language print magazine in 1996. In August 1998 PNG began its online presence with no other purpose than to give one more opportunity for poets to be heard.” The last published issue appears to be Issue 84 January/February 2008, and the magazine in its Swiss incarnation, which is when Annette Hyder was active there, interviewing, was published simultaneously in English, German and Italian. More here: http://web.archive.org/web/20090529081900/http://www.niederngasse.com/Departments/staff2.html -- Mareklug talk 19:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Holdings are rarely considered signs of notability, unless a couple dozen or hundred academic libraries, for instance, have copies of a certain book. Drmies ( talk) 21:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply
You may be mistaken about this for the case of specialized collections, and this is one. As far as Harris Collection of American Poetry and Plays (Brown University). Periodicals treats it, we are talking about 13 books that Brown asked for, paid for, and locked away. The library does not make any of them available under interlibrary loan, and neither can one order any online, to be readied to be viewable at such and such place at such and such time at such and such library. One must petition the special collections librarian, and make an appointment well in advance. There are not many specialized collections of Americana held across the world; this is one. LOC has all the volumes too, also non-circulating. As does Utah State Library. And not to put a too fine point on it, but you wrote "rarely are", and this is the very "rarely'" when they are. Then there is the American Haiku Society with its own specialized library collection at one university only, and Agnieszka's Dowry is explicitly listed for that: http://www.worldcat.org/title/specimen-collection-of-haiku-periodicals-titles-a-g/oclc/58949187 Anyway, I sternly suspect you had no inkling what you were really deleting, after all this came to light. -- Mareklug talk 09:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
If all this is true it is rather surprising that one can't find a mention of that special status anywhere. I suggest you keep your stern suspicions to yourself. Drmies ( talk) 22:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Special status at Brown? Click on the link next to BY APPOINTMENT, and it tell the story as I quoted it above, listing categories of access, and what BY APPOINTMENT entails. I suggest you improve your online research efficacy. -- Mareklug talk 09:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
"By appointment" means it's a smaller archive without enough users to justify full-time staff. Larger archives (such as the Harry Ransom Center at UT Austin) are large enough to support multiple full-time staff and appointments aren't necessary. The non-loan provisions are due to the difficulty of replacing the material, not (necessarily) its value. None of this has anything to do with notability, of course. Garamond Lethe t
c 15:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

First cut

I've made a pass through the article removing what I considered to be promotional language and non-encyclopedic detail (as showing was going to be simpler than telling). I have not addressed the WP:RS issues. Please feel unusually free to revert these changes if they're seen as impeding the discussion here. Garamond Lethe t
c 15:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, if your drastic cut saves the article from deletion, so be it. But you only wrote about the topology and briefly sketched the content. Content that you did sketch omits any mention of "Letters to Agnieszka" which synthesize/conjure Agnieszka as the author sees fit. That seems important enough to retain, even if only in a very very very pithy way. Moving along, the software engineering that went into the design is completely omitted. Nothing about being able to traverse the thing in a textual browser without hitting a tab or using a mouse, essentially via repetitive 2-key stroke. That is completely, ridiculously idiosyncratic. No one has ever implemented such a way to browse a heavily graphical web installation, ever, poetry magazine or no. Finally, on a formal point, LOC was very interested in our application for an ISSN for the web installation and reusing it for paper issues. No one has ever done that. We talked to them for weeks about it, and in the end they reached deep into their own requirement bag and told us how to make that happen -- through the Created timestamp. Again, no one has ever done this in 1995. LOC has never before given out an ISSN that is reused for web and paper (paper also gets ISBN). So, you tossed all that. Unfair. If the article is ever EXPANDED to a GA or, gack, an FA/, all that would have to be re-added, by the very definition of what constitutes a GA or an FA. So, help me see it some other way, but basically you lobotomized a decent version of a longstanding Wikipedia article to save it from an asshole process. Sorry to be frank, but it is what it is -- political expediency. -- Mareklug talk 01:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Asshole process or not, Garamond Lethe and I have been editing such articles for years. All the stuff you say isn't of any kind of relevance here unless reliable, secondary sources make it so. Garamond's edits actually makes it a lot more likely that the article is kept because--may I speak frankly? you usually do--an enormous amount of fluffy, self-promotional, excessively detailed, and frankly wankerish detail has been trimmed, and now we can finally see the forest for the trees. Garamond trimmed a list of God knows what, and you're unhappy, but now we can finally see that there are in fact a couple of possibly reliable, in-depth, and helpful references.

Your magazine will not become notable per our definition because of all these really cool ISSN blah blah thingies; it will be deemed notable because we have found reliable sources that mention it as important. So, I added a reference with some information from a highly reliable publication, Choice. You're welcome! I might even change to "keep", depending on what ILL delivers to me--but if I do, it won't be because of your arguments; it will be in spite of your words and your attitude. Political expediency my ass--this was good editing. Asshole process my ass (and mention of "FA" really shows you don't know what you're talking about): you should thank Garamond on your bare knees for what they've done for your article. Drmies ( talk) 03:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I hereby thank Garamond on my bare knees, my bare ass, and my bare whatever. And I thank you, Drmies, for finding Choice ref. -- Mareklug talk 00:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisting

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Relisted to allow editors to determine whether the cleanup and source addition by Garamond Lethe changes what would otherwise be an unanimous "delete" outcome for lack of notability.  Sandstein  08:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I've cleaned up the article a bit in regard to formatting, but I'm still not convinced that it passes notability requirements. I am, however, cognizant that poetry is a rather under-appreciated and marginalized literary form, and that outlets which are notable in the poetry world would look paltry and un-notable in a more mainstream genre. For this reason, I'm checking with a friend of mine, who happens to be a published poet and also a presenter of poetry in New York City, for his opinion. BMK ( talk) 10:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Based upon the comments of my friend: "AgD is a literary product looking for readership. I can’t really tell if there is any substantial readership. No sizeable following on FaceBook. No reviews written about it show up with a Google search. No Amazon reviews. I don’t know what Wikipedia’s criteria for listings are but, at least at this point, AgD’s listing seems mostly promotional." BMK ( talk) 18:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - coming to this fresh, basic notability seems to be lacking here. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 1000 21:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Rail-Veyor (material handling system)

Rail-Veyor (material handling system) (  | 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 a near copy of the deleted article Rail-Veyor. That article was deleted as having been created "by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". This article was created by a related sock puppet as investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dompreston/Archive. Some of the sources make me think that this company could be considered notable, but since it appears to have been created by someone with a CoI, I propose it for deletion. SchreiberBike  talk 04:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article is reasonably well written, not excessively promotional, and well referenced. The topic is notable. WP:DENY applies to trolls, not sockpuppets. Although the editor is blocked, the encyclopedia is better off with this article than without it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it's not the usual promotional bollox!, well written & well referenced. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 15:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to No Place for Disgrace#Re-release. Tone 15:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

No Place For Disgrace 2014

No Place For Disgrace 2014 (  | 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 notability (see WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC). Sources fails WP:RS. PROD was removed. Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Notable band. Article just needs better refs (like 90% of all Wiki articles) Mr Pyles ( talk) 05:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The burden is on the article's creators to add said references to verify notability. Simply saying something is notable does not make it so. Do you have any of those "better refs"? Stalwart 111 07:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I did a quick Google and did not find anything that established notability. But I will also admit that I am not infallible. Sometimes I miss things and I did not spend hours looking for sources. If someone comes up with good sources that establish notability I will be more than happy to withdraw the nom for the original No Place for Disgrace. This one though, doesn't have enough to justify a stand alone article. There would have to be some strong evidence for notability independent of the original article. Otherwise I would suggest a merge and redirect. On a side note and just for clarity, we are talking about albums here, not a band. I have no idea if the band is notable or not. But band notability doesn't confer WP:N on their albums. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 08:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Offhand I'm leaning towards merging the information into the main page for the earlier album, as most of what I am finding tends to mention this in relation to the earlier album. Any changes to the album's crew, song list, or lineup can probably be fairly easily covered in a subsection in the main article. In any case, I also wanted to say that a band's notability does not extend to their albums. You still have to show that the individual albums have received enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. Part of this is because it's fairly common for musical performers to have a large output of music that get little to no coverage, despite the performer(s) being rather well known. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to No_Place_for_Disgrace#Re-release. I've merged most of the information into the main article and offhand, there just isn't enough individual coverage to really merit this re-recording having its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

No Place for Disgrace

No Place for Disgrace (  | 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 notability (see WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC). PROD was removed. Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Notable band. Article just needs better refs (like 90% of all Wiki articles) Mr Pyles ( talk) 06:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The burden is on the article's creators to add said references to verify notability. Simply saying something is notable does not make it so. Do you have any of those "better refs"? Stalwart 111 07:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I did a quick Google and did not find anything that established notability. But I will also admit that I am not infallible. Sometimes I miss things and I did not spend hours looking for sources. If someone comes up with good sources that establish notability I will be more than happy to withdraw the nom for the original No Place for Disgrace. The 2014 redo though, doesn't have enough to justify a stand alone article. There would have to be some strong evidence for notability independent of the original article. Otherwise I would suggest a merge and redirect. On a side note and just for clarity, we are talking about albums here, not a band. I have no idea if the band is notable or not. But band notability doesn't confer WP:N on their albums. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 08:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I've found some coverage for the album, but I would recommend that the re-recording get merged into this article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Tokyogirl79's additions; sufficient coverage to warrant an article.  Gong  show 21:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a notable album by a notable band, with references. MetalDiablo666 ( talk) 00:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Keep ( non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 21:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Russian invasion of Crimea

Russian invasion of Crimea (  | 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 is a POV fork of 2014 Crimean crisis with a POV title. It makes the statement

On 26 February 2014, Russian-speaking gunmen in Russian military uniform, said to be Russian soldiers, established a checkpoint between the major Crimean cities of Sevastopol and Simferopol.

which is supposedly supported by articles on the CNN and Globe and Mail Web sites. What CNN actually says is : "A CNN team in the area encountered more than one pro-Russian militia checkpoint on the road from Sevastopol to Simferopol." The Globe and Mail says that a Russian flag was flown at one checkpoint, and that there was an armoured personnel carrier there, but says that the armed men there called themselves "volunteers". Neither says they were wearing military uniforms.

It also says "The UN Security Council held a special meeting on Russia's aggression against Ukraine", with a Yahoo News story cited. The story uses the phrase "the escalating crisis in Ukraine", only using the term "Russian aggression" when quoting the Ukrainian government. — rybec 07:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

KEEP. There is a difference between both conflicts. The 2014 Crimean crisis is a civil conflict, while Russian intervention in Crimea is military one. Starting March 1, both countries have practically entered a war. 24.201.209.74 ( talk) 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

The Russian Foreign Ministry on it's website, says that its' troops stationed in The Crimea are protecting certain locations, according to agreements. [22] This doesn't make it an occupation. There have been no reports of resistance in The Crimea, I would therefore struggle to call this either an invasion or a war. I would keep the article but change the language to be less provocative.-- Jimmydreads ( talk) 07:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

This article should either be deleted or merged with 2014 Crimean crisis and have POV issues cleaned up, per my comments in said article's talk page. It doesn't take a keen eye to see that this is a POV fork representing western-Ukrainian views of the crisis. Plenty of reliable sources use terms like "Russian aggression" and "sovereignty" etc. but this is not the same thing as an outright military invasion/war. LokiiT ( talk) 08:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

On March 1, two Baltic Fleet anti-submarine vessels entered the Sevastopol Bay. [1] Russian Army has been increasing its presence without consulting with anybody. Unmarked, unindentified, armed men and military vehicles were allowed by the Russian border service to cross the borders into Ukrainian territory, the Russian legislative allowed military action in Ukraine. What more is needed to constitute an invasion? Psubrat2000 ( talk) 08:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - A military action is wholly separate from protests and political upheaval that preceded it. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 08:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but with the new title and focus. This is all over the news, just google it. Poeticbent talk 08:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/01/us-ukraine-crisis-warships-idUSBREA200VA20140301
  • Merge into 2014 Crimean crisis, there has been no formal invasion per se. Just unacceptable movements of Russian forces already in the Crimean peninsula. There are too many goddamn articles related to the Euromaidan and this topic is becoming EXTREMELY difficult to navigate, reduce the amount of articles if we can... -- Kuzwa ( talk) 09:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Wait, subjectivity is allowed on this page? Okay, well, in that case, I don't agree with you. Every page has its own purpose and the fact there are so many is because they're all illustrating the chaos happening in Ukraine right now. But that doesn't make the current events less of an invasion, and Russia not being at war with Ukraine. 24.201.209.74 ( talk) 09:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Doesn't matter, see Suez Crisis. For how this page should look... -- Kuzwa ( talk) 17:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
War has already broken out. 24.201.209.74 ( talk) 10:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
this is the most peaceful war I've ever heard of. LokiiT ( talk) 13:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge with 2014 Crimean crisis. This seems a POV fork from 2014 Crimean crisis. The latter is a much better article. Otto ( talk) 10:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A military intervention is separate from protests/riots. Different interwikies. NickSt ( talk) 11:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as the main page section is growing by the minute, it is better to have another article about the Russian military intervention. 60.229.178.55 ( talk) 11:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Psubrat2000 and Kudzu1 above. 87.61.168.145 ( talk) 13:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The crisis has clearly taken on the characteristics of a military conflict as several Ukrainian military units in Crimea have been placed under siege by Russian troops and pro-Russian fighters and Putin obtained the parliament's approval for direct military intervention. -- Kober Talk 13:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy merge with 2014 Crimean crisis. It's really not conducive to finding information if it's split into so many different articles. IMO we already had a problem like that with Euromaidan topic. The crisis and the invasion are directly connected, right now it is impossible to treat them separately. Lokalkosmopolit ( talk) 13:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
For example, we have one comprehensive Russo–Georgian War article, not separate articles for the initial Georgian assault and then for the Russian reaction. It would be illogical to have it otherwise. Lokalkosmopolit ( talk) 13:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to 2014 Crimean crisis per Kuzwa above, the formal order has not been issued so far by Putin, who is the commander-in-chief of the Russian military. Brandmeister talk 14:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
How can anybody possibly tell that Putin has not yet issued any order to invade the Ukraine? He may very well have done so already, only secretly. The Russian armed forces may be preparing themselves by now. 87.61.168.145 ( talk) 15:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Both articles have merit separately. This article is about the use of Russian military against the Ukraine. JOJ Hutton 14:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy merge. Same topic. Have the debate over the name of the article at 2014 Crimean crisis. — goethean 14:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
No, it is not the same topic. We simply don't know yet if Putin will intervene in only Crimea, or in all of Ukraine. 87.61.168.145 ( talk) 16:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Temporary keep. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't yet say how these events will unfold and what relationship they will have between each other. It could go towards an all-out war with Russia, annexation of Crimea, Russian withdrawal, and many other possibilities. I think at this point in time we just don't have enough information yet to decide on whether to merge or keep them split. CodeCat ( talk) 14:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Corn cheese ( talk) 14:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Articles have similar subject but there is a need for a dedicated article on Russian military involvement. This involvement could not be adequately covered in the 2014 Crimean crisis article which is primarily about civilian unrest. Tomh903 ( talk) 14:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a lot of people making their political evaluation on the situation based on disinformation. The decision of invasion was adopted and there were Russian Special Operation units of the Black Sea Fleet before the decision that tried to take over the Ukrainian military installations. A fact that is not being broadly recorded in the western media. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 15:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article tells almost everything about the Russian intervention in Crimea, so I think this could be a helpful article. As the two states are on the brink of a war, it would be good to have the article ready, instead of creating a new article when a war breaks out. So that is why i don't want this article to be deleted. Keep me informed. -- Babestress ( talk) 15:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Babestress reply
  • Merge to 2014 Crimean crisis as a fork.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 15:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to 2014 Crimean crisis, Both articles cover basically the same material. Obviously the one page may grow to an extreme length if it does blow out to a massive war but at this time it is localised to Russia and Ukraine. Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 16:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong KEEP—this may have been debatable from c. 26 Feb through 1 March, but now, on 2 March 2014, when many worldwide media outlets and major nation-states are calling it just that—a Russian military intervention in the Crimea—it would be a major disservice to Wikipedia readers to not have an article on this event. Wikipedia is not censored. The military intervention activities of any government ought to be covered in Wikipedia, as long as notability is demonstrated and verifiability is shown by the inclusion of reliable sources, of which this article has plenty. This is not merely a "crisis" and any move/merge to the other title would mislead. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 16:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or rename 2014 Crimean crisis to 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia has already invaded. Multiple countries have condemned them for it. Every major media outlet in the world is covering the war. Crisis is a misleading euphemism that understates the severity of the event.-- Rurik the Varangian ( talk) 16:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As with the 2011 events in Libya, the external intervention and the conflict itself deserve separate articles. Note also that even the different roles played by the US, NATO, and a couple other countries like Canada have articles devoted to their parts in the war. Orser67 ( talk) 16:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but rename to something more neutral, like 2014 military intervention in Crimea or even 2014 political violence in Crimea. VR talk 16:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
And what's going to be the difference between 2014 Crimean crisis and your suggested article 2014 political violence in Crimea? Lokalkosmopolit ( talk) 16:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Rename to something more neutral? But this is factually a military intervention. Euphemisms and supposed 'neutrality' does not make bad things less bad – they merely obscure bad things. 87.61.168.145 ( talk) 17:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the intervention may soon be more notable than the crisis. More should be done to distinguish the two.Information about the apparently independent actions of Crimean protesters and militias, both pro- and anti-Russian, is quite plentiful. All the finer details of the military intervention (involving individual Russian units or Ukrainian bases) should go here, so the crisis page can make broader statements about how the intervention affected the overall situation.-- Martin Berka ( talk) 17:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to 2014 Crimean crisis, the POV fork complaint has not been fully addressed. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - things have changed a lot since the original user's arguments for deletion. The article is not POV: it IS an invasion. - 79.67.255.217 ( talk) 17:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it seems that there's a distinct boundary between the crisis (appointment of new PM of Crimea and violent protests) and the Russian intervention. Both are noteworthy events. Kiralexis ( talk) 17:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. DDima 18:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per evidence above. Fakirbakir ( talk) 18:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Martin Berka. This is a distinct part of the larger Ukrainian crisis. Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 18:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per evidence above. -- Kyknos ( talk) 18:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per above. This military intervention is a whole different animal from the political unrest in Crimea that preceded it. Pstanton ( talk) 18:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

NOTE—the article we are discussing here appears to no longer be named the Russian invasion of Crimea, which is the title of this page, and is the name given at the top of this AfD above all the comments. Rather, that article has been moved to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, which is what the Russian invasion of Crimea link redirects to. N2e ( talk) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

And then it was moved to Russo-Ukrainian War-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
True, but only for about ten minutes. That second move was quickly undone, as there was no consensus.
The point is that some of the editors providing opinions in the discussion above may possibly be offering opinions and rationale based on a mis-understanding of the current name of the article. N2e ( talk) 20:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Oil field families

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

Essay without enough sources to back up the claims made in the article. There's not enough here for a full article. — C.Fred ( talk) 06:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete currently WP:NOTESSAYish. Topic may be good for a thesis but the article is lacking any useful info.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think this can easily be deleted under WP:TNT. It's a general concept, though, so it's hard to judge the notability or prejudice that should be applied to future re-creation. I think the precedent would be something like Military brat, but I'm not really sure how something like that is classified and its notability assessed. We can probably cross that bridge when we come to it, though. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As is, it just isn't going to work. BUT, I googled it and apparently "oil field families"...it's kind of a *thing*. I included some more sources about the topic just in case some experienced editor has the yen to read through them and decide to create an article on the subject. If the show they mentioned comes to fruition, I think it may meet notability guidelines. There really seems to be a lot of online discussion groups on the topic. Someone might be able to do something with the topic. Bali88 ( talk) 03:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I edited the article to bring it more in line with what it should be and added a few more sources that might be useful. Imo, there is enough out there to write an article documenting oil field workers and all the things that go along with that. I found an article talking about how men are skipping college to work in dangerous oil fields. Another said that oil field work is increasing sex trafficking. I think there is enough for oil field families or oil field wives to have a section in it, if someone is interested in creating it. Bali88 ( talk) 18:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I still don't think it's notable/encyclopedic even if they are identifiable as a group. If you notice Army Wives is an article about the show, and there's no article about the concept of being an army wife. Same thing goes for Military wives, not article on "military families" or anything of that sort, even though the group of families of people in the military are almost certainly more of a recognizable group than families of people who work in oil fields. The best analogy I can see is Military brat / Military brat (U.S. subculture), which is effectively about the families of people in the military, but that's at least a very common term. It's not clear to me that even if it's got a little coverage that it deserves an article about the concept. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 22:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm not familiar enough with the topic to know how notable it is, but maybe some editor will pop up with an interest in the whole thing and surprise us. Oh, and to clarify, I don't think *this* article is enough. But if someone wanted to write oil field workers and include a section on the family aspect, I think it would fly.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Viriditas ( talk) 09:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Debbie Schlussel

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

Subject is covered by self-published sources or in passing reference. No indication of notability in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Aside from making incendiary comments on her blog, subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for writers. Viriditas ( talk) 05:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator. I am not convinced by any argument or source on this page that the subject is notable and should have a Wikipedia article. However, there is nothing I can do at this point, so I withdraw the nomination. People are seeing things in the sources that I cannot see. Viriditas ( talk) 09:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As I mentioned here, there's a ton of stuff about her at Google Books that has not yet made its way into the Wikipedia article. Considering the many obscure people who we've decided should have Wikipedia articles, this one would seem to easily qualify. Not that I like her incendiary comments, of course. Incidentally, there was this recent thread at BLPN. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep what and why? The link you provide doesn't show me anything. Please provide a specific "keep" rationale that can be discussed here, not a recommendation for me to look elsewhere. How, for example, does this subject even begin to meet our notability guidelines for writers? We have far more independent sources about television host Abby Martin who writes all of her own episodes for RT and has co-directed a major film and reported and published notable works on Project Censored and the Occupy movement. Yet, her article has been deleted three times from Wikipedia, twice on AfD and once on AfC, even though she meets a higher bar for notability than Schlussel, who does not appear to be notable for anything except insulting people from the confines of her blog. So, please address the facts here, starting with the fact that notable people like Abby Martin have been deleted for far less. Then, begin to tell me how Schlussel's Wikipedia article demonstrates notable coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Viriditas ( talk) 05:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the Schlussel article, of course. The version of the Abby Martin article that was deleted is here. I would have supported the deletion of such a meagerly-sourced article, and that was the outcome of the Abby Martin AfD discussion. Even now there remains a Wikipedia article about the TV show that Martin hosts, whereas deletion of the Schlussel article would leave no article about her blog. In addition to the many footnoted sources in the Schlussel article (leaving aside those for her own blog), I get 792 hits at Google Books for Schlussel, and I have suggested using them to upgrade the Schlussel article. Maybe I'll have to get on it. ("Abby Martin" is a more common name, and so many of those search results do not refer to that Abby Martin.) Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I gave you a fully sourced link to the AfC version of the Abby Martin article up above. How is Schlussel more notable than Abby Martin? Actually, how is Schlussel notable at all per our guidelines? The current article version shows she is not. She's a blogger who insults people and the majority of the article is sourced to her blog or other things, not independent secondary source coverage. Viriditas ( talk) 06:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I am not familiar with the AfC process, and it seems more relevant to focus here on the AfD process. According to the AfD rules, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." So, we should not limit ourselves to the current article version. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The current version does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Should I judge the article based on a future version that you might write? Hold on a minute, let me consult the precogs... Viriditas ( talk) 07:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • For starters, there's the Google Books search result that I linked to above. Anyways, I'll see if I can bring it up to a higher standard. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • OK, I took a look at the Google Books hits you linked to above. All that passing mention amounts to "look what this cute blonde Jewish blogger living in the heart of Detroit said about Muslims". And she gets her own Wikipedia article? Meanwhile, an actual journalist who has written and produced dozens, if not hundreds of reports, many of which have aired on her own television program, and who has helped direct a notable film about the Occupy movement and who has written articles for books published by Project Censored, can't have an article because...because...because...Debbie Schlussel is a cute blonde who says things about people on her blog? WTF? In what crazy, out of control, lawless, nonsensical world is a journalist who studied journalism and works as a journalist on her own television program and who has helped direct a major, definitive film about the Occupy movement not as notable as a minor, unknown blogger who gets publicity in gossip rags for insulting people? Is Wikipedia serious? Again, who is more notable here, Abby Martin, an accomplished journalist, television host and filmmaker, or Debbie Schlussel, an unknown blogger? Viriditas ( talk) 08:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Well, idiot assassins who manage to pull a trigger get Wikipedia articles, and come to think of it that's pretty much what Schlussel does, though not literally. Anyway, am I correct, Vriditas, that you think Abby Martin deserves a Wikipedia article? Then why not just take the version that was rejected by a single editor at AfC, and create it yourself without going through AfC? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 08:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Abby Martin exists solely as a protected redirect because the community has determined that she isn't notable and shouldn't be allowed to have an aricle. Can you think of any conservative biographical subjects that have been protected from creation? In any case, what is Schlussel notable for here anyway? Cullen says she's a notable conservative. Is there any evidence that is true? And judging by the criteria for what makes one a notable conservative, she doesn't appear to have met it. Viriditas ( talk) 09:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • You have now thoroughly convinced me that Abby Martin is a completely unrelated case. The second Martin AfD considered a lousy article with a total of four footnotes, resulting in deletion plus protection of the redirect. Then, the article was drastically improved but still rejected by a single editor at AfC. None of that is similar to what's happening here, except that you would like the same result, or rather you want us to continue having a Wikipedia article about Martin's.TV show but not an article about Schlussel's blog. I agree with Cullen. Even if the NYT did not have an entire article about Schlussel, it seems like there are plenty of high- profile sources listed in the footnotes, quite apart from the footnotes to her blog. Anyway, I would like to be quiet now and see what others think. Cheers, Viriditas. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 11:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • It's not unrelated. Abby Martin is a notable journalist, television host, and filmmaker. She has contributed significant work about the Occupy movement to that body of literature. Yet, she is denied an article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, we have Schlussel, an unknown blogger and unknown film critic who received coverage from a NYT media blogger when her press pass was revoked by a studio. This is not notable for a biographical article on Wikipedia as it refers to a one time event with no lasting historical importance. It's also been asserted that she is known for her conservatism, but outside of this media blogger, the conservative literature is silent on her contributions and importance. That's why I nominated her article for deletion. It is currently a puff piece constructed mostly out her own self-published blog entries as well as op-ed's and gossip sites unsuitable for a BLP. She does not appear to meet our notability guidelines in any way. Viriditas ( talk) 22:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Neither of those sources you cite demonstrates her notability, in fact they do the complete opposite, and argue that she's a minor blogger and unknown film critic who is mostly unheard of outside the blogosphere. Perhaps you should read them as they make the opposite argument you intended. So you have not demonstrated any notability at all nor have you shown how she meets our guideline for notability. I haven't argued that I like or dislike her at all here, so you must be confused. I've argued that the current version of her article does not meet our criteria for notability, and you've proven me correct in your reply. Finally, other articles do exist, but I haven't argued that either. I've argued that people like Abby Martin are far more notable but have been deleted for far less. Martin is a notable journalist with her own television show and with credits for directing a notable film and publishing notable articles and original content about the Occupy movement. But what we keep seeing is that contrary to the guidelines for notability, Wikipedia continues to promote and keep non-notable articles about conservatives, while biographies on the left are routinely deleted, and in Martin's case, protected from recreation. Yes, other stuff exists, but the deletion guidelines and rationales are the same. Yet in one case, a person is deleted, while in another they are kept. Has Wikipedia jumped the shark or has its conservative bias become more open and overt? Viriditas ( talk) 06:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • You say she is "minor" and "unknown". The New York Times devoted eight paragraphs to her and called her "a well-known conservative with an interest in Islam". (emphasis added). I will take the New York Times' assessment of her notability over yours, thank you very much. By the way, I see no evidence that the New York Times has ever discussed Abby Martin, nor has any other major newspaper or magazine given her significant coverage that I have been able to find. I happen to be liberal politically myself, and want us to have articles about notable activists and journalists of all political persuasions. That's NPOV. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Please tell me you are joking! Michael Cieply, an entertainment industry writer, not a political scientist nor an expert on politics, called Debbie Schlussel a "well-known conservative" in his NYT blog about the media. He also called her a "Michigan-based blogger and movie critic". And since when does having an entertainment industry blogger call you a "well-known conservative" make you notable? Never. And furthermore, if she is such a notable conservative, you should be able to cite authoritative experts on conservatism citing her as such. Instead, we have a 16,267 byte biography article with 33 references, of which 13 are self-published posts from Schlussel's blog, and the rest either mention her in passing or highlight her anti-Muslim blog postings in less than reliable and controversial sources that don't pass the sniff test, such as the Daily Mail and the Phoenix New Times. Long term consensus on the BLP board has maintained that the Daily Mail should not be used to cite controversial information in biographies. I also notice that there are several op-ed's in the article as well. There's no indication this subject meets the notability guidelines at all, nor has anyone been able to demonstrate that she has beyond a few incidents of gossip and bloggy mentions. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) or even WP:CREATIVE and tell me how her notability merits an article. Viriditas ( talk) 07:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Per WP:NEWSBLOG, "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process" In the specific case of Media Decoder, it is not "his" blog, it is instead a major feature of the New York Times' ongoing coverage of media news, it is under editorial control, and several staff reporters in addition to Cieply contribute to it. There is no doubt that Media Decoder is a reliable source, and significant coverage there confers notability. If Media Decoder ran eight paragraphs on Abby Martin, then she would also be notable. The current presence of lower quality references in the article does not render the topic non-notable. Instead, that should be an inspiration to clean up the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Nice tangent there, but you haven't addressed my point. Even if we accept this source, it still doesn't show notability, it simply reports on an event, and a minor one at that. It is asserted by this source that the subject is a well known conservative. I've questioned that assertion. If she is a well known conservative, then clearly, she will be well known for something related to conservatism. Has her blog won awards? Has she made a significant contribution? How does this meet the notability guideline? As far as I can tell, she's notable for appearing in unreliable sources about gossip and innuendo. She's not notable, as you seem to indirectly assert (albeit unknowingly), for her dispute with the film studio. Again, this is a minor story with no lasting historical value. On the other hand, journalist Abby Martin has contributed to a significant body of work about the Occupy movement, and she writes and appears on a notable television show. Viriditas ( talk) 09:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I simply don't understand why you keep trying to link the notability of Schlussel to that of Martin, as I see no reason whatsoever to link the two. We don't have a notability guideline for "conservative film critic blogger loud-mouthed combative anti-Muslim activists" all of which are aspects of her notability. People can be notable for being what you and I might agree are jerks. In my book, she's notable for all of that combined, because of significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources. In your view, she isn't for some reason, which is fine. So be it. Let's hear what other editors think. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • An excellent point. The problem is, only unreliable sources show she is notable for being a jerk. And no sources discuss her significance, importance, or historical impact. Viriditas ( talk) 23:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there are enough sources to show notability. -- Green C 19:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Where are these sources? They aren't in the current article. Why don't you do me a favor and show me one. Looking at the current article tells me she isn't notable for anything. Viriditas ( talk) 22:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • What did you see when you looked at the John Gizzi article in Human Events?  It is now a dead link.  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include:
 – NorthAmerica 1000 08:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Please read closer for comprehension. Schlussel is not the the subject of multiple reliable published secondary sources. Loook at the list you just posted: The Guardian citation is an opinion piece by Michael Tomasky about the reaction to Lara Logan's assault. Not reliable for a BLP. The American Spectator citation is a blog post by Aaron Goldstein about a personal feud between Goldstein and Schlussel. Not reliable (nor relevant) for a BLP. The Phoenix New Times citation is an opinion piece by Stephen Lemons about right wing nuts. Not reliable for a BLP. The Associated Press story is about a lawsuit filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations that tries to get Debbie Schlussel to stop using the name of their organization. The article says nothing whatsoever about Schlussel as a person and is good example of a WP:NOT#NEWS blurb that has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. There's nothing here for an encyclopedia article about Debbie Schlussel. I won't address the NYT piece because I already have several times above. It appears that nobody here actually understands the sourcing policies and guidelines and all the arguments for "keep" are based on this misunderstanding. Viriditas ( talk) 10:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NEWSBLOG, the sources I provided are reliable, although some do read as opinion pieces. I need time to think this over more before entirely reconsidering. NorthAmerica 1000 11:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Upon consideration, the subject meets WP:BASIC, per the depth of coverage about the subject covered in reliable sources. NorthAmerica 1000 13:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  As per the nutshell of WP:N, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not [part of WP:What Wikipedia is NOT].  We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles..."  This topic has attracted the attention of the world at large as shown in reliable independent sources, and has done so over a period of time.  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • That's hilarious. There isn't a single, reliable biographical source about the subject, simply because she has not attracted the attention of the world. She hasn't done anything notable to merit an article on Wikipedia, and the sources cited in this AfD demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt. Viriditas ( talk) 09:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • You claim that you have a position of reason, yet you resort to an appeal to emotion.  wp:Notability is not a matter of "doing" anything.  It is not defined by en:notable.  It is gauged by evidence from reliable sources.  Unscintillating ( talk) 12:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • There's no appeal to emtion here. I simply don't see a single reliable sources talking about her notability, her life, the significant things she's done, any anything else that makes a subject notable. All I see are opinion pieces, blog posts, and unreliable gossip sources. In any case, I see that there's a problem with the deletion process at large, and I will pursue it elsewhere. Viriditas ( talk) 09:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She seems to get a lot of attention. People will google her and want to read about her. I think that is enough reason to keep it. Bali88 ( talk) 01:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Clearly, no agreement in this discussion on whether serving as the non-executive mayor of a large and notable city like Madras/Chennai is an indicator of notability. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply

K. N. Srinivasan

K. N. Srinivasan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He was mayor of an Indian city for 1-2 years (not entirely specified in the article) and in the Indian National Congress. This is barely WP:NOTABLE, and I found absolutely nothing online, other than a few sites having this same article directly from Wikipedia. The only reference is a 1958 newspaper, and while that's not a bad source in its own right (although I didn't cross-check this), I don't think we'll ever get more references. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep He was mayor of a city with a current population of over 6 million people. Here is a source. Here is an article from The Hindu when he was elected. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for the sources, but as per @ Sitush: below, do they really establish notability? The second one's definitely a good source about his mayorship (if that's the right word), but that and the mention of him in the book really only support that he's mayor. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a member of Indian National Congress before 1980s, always relates with Indian History. Most of the Indian personalities which relates with Indian history lacks online sources. No doubt the person is WP:NOTABLE. Although it may lacks references but that does not always mean the person is not notable. Atleast one of the sources are reliable. Jim Cartar ( talk) 08:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It should be noted that any member or former member of a country's national legislature (such as the Indian National Congress) is automatically assumed to be notable, per WP:POLITICIAN. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note that the Indian National Congress is a political party so mere membership of it does not indicate notability, not without some specific status such as founder et.c. which does not seem to apply to him. But I agree that mayorship of Madras is notable. Imc ( talk) 16:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
My mistake. Thanks for the correction. I agree that a mayor of Madras should be notable, again per WP:POLITICIAN. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
@ MelanieN:, have you read that guideline? Madras (Chennai) is a big place but the office of mayor is not a "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". I feel sure that there are numerous newspaper reports in the archives but such reports exist for every mayor of every place in the UK (for example), regardless of the population. In this situation, it seems to me that it might be argued that notability is being inherited from the office. If we don;t have sources that discuss the guy himself in much detail then he's not notable. And if I'm wrong then that's another 250,000 crappy perma-stubs just from the UK alone. - Sitush ( talk) 02:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Actually the guideline I was quoting was WP:POLOUTCOMES. Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". I don't think anyone would deny that Madras is a city of "at least regional prominence". It's true it can be hard to find sources for people in the pre-internet age, but the general opinion at AfD discussion has been to assume that such sources almost certainly must exist for mayors of prominent cities - even if the sources are hard to find online. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Actually, we want concrete sources, not just what we could find in the future. Yes, it's a large city, but all the sources are saying is "Jane Doe is mayor of Cityville" (to put it in easier-to-compare terms), so without anything to back up the rest, I think that this should be deleted unless we can actually find more sources. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. I would fight against deletion of any biography of a mayor of San Francisco, the dominant world city of the region where I've lived for 42 years, and where the Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't advocate for keeping a biography of a mayor of a world city with a far greater population. To argue otherwise without a comprehensive search for articles in other languages would be a perfect example of systemic bias. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, I only know English and a bit of Spanish, nothing that'll help with the language bias, but it'd be great if we could get someone here who knows something that could help here! As for the mayoral issue, I think that's just a difference of opinion; I'd argue against a San Francisco mayor who was in about the same situation as Mr. Srinivasan here. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 06:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
@MelanieN, I've no idea why you referred to one policy when you say that you meant another thing but, hey, the OUTCOMES thing just list common outcomes, not policy or guidelines. And the internet age issue affects everything, not just people in South Asia. Red herrings, both.
@Cullen, yes, it may indicate systemic bias. Tough: such articles can always be recreated when suitable sources are found. We shouldn't keep articles ad infinitum on the off-chance that something might turn up. A (sourced) List of mayors of Madras article might be the best solution in this situation, at least for now. - Sitush ( talk) 11:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
There already is one. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I searched for Chennai in connection with sourcing but didn't do on-WP! Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 14:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The point is that you're putting your American perspective on what a mayor is. See below for an explanation of what it is in this case. The Mayor of San Francisco is the chief executive of the city. The Mayor of Madras was not. Merely an honorary position who dresses up in traditional robes and a funny hat and acts as the figurehead of his city for a year until someone else replaces him. That's not to say that such mayors can't be notable (a fair few were knighted or created baronets for their good works, for instance, and thus meet criterion #1 of WP:ANYBIO), but they're certainly not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per User:Cullen328. Shyamsunder ( talk) 09:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's my understanding that Indian mayors are like British mayors - merely figureheads who are elected for a year by and from the city council. They are not the chief executive of the city as they are in other countries and have no real power. If this is the case, then he is not notable by virtue of his position, as all long-serving councillors will become mayor at some time. We have already established that (non-executive) mayors of British cities are not inherently notable, so I don't think the situation is different for India. It appears that since 2002, Madras/Chennai has had an executive mayor, but this was not the case when Srinivasan was mayor, as the article shows, with the mayoralty changing every year. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm not finding anything of note here. There is an element of WP:OSE in what Necrothesp says but, on the other hand, the arguments in favour of keeping here seem to be thin. Unless sources turn do up, the "keep" argument looks to be based entirely on inherent notability and I don't think that applies. Perhaps it should apply but that is a different discussion. - Sitush ( talk) 14:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I don't really see how WP:OSE applies to my comments at all. If Indian mayors are essentially the same as British mayors and we have established by precedent and consensus over a number of AfDs that British mayors are not inherently notable then why would Indian mayors be inherently notable? It's only the inherent notability of being a mayor that's in question here. If it can be proved that he's notable for something else then that's fine, but I don't see how a bloke who's been elected mayor because he's been a councillor for a while and it's buggins' turn (which is how traditional Commonwealth mayoral elections basically work) can possibly be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
      • It is the inversion of OSE, ie: that something doesn't exist somewhere doesn't mean that this cannot exist. If consensus has been reached about British mayors then that's fine but this was guy not a mayor in Britain. I think adopting that argument would require some sort of meta-discussion as (presumably) happened wrt primary versus secondary schools. - Sitush ( talk) 15:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
        • I fully understand OSE, thank you, but he was a mayor on the British model in a system invented and promulgated by the British in a country that had until ten years before been ruled by the British and continued to use the same systems! I think you can fairly assume, therefore, that the same arguments apply and that holders of an office not considered inherently notable in Britain cannot logically be considered to be inherently notable in India. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
          • I should also point out that we have long held that in general local councillors are not inherently notable anywhere in the world. A mayor under the British system (which applied in India) is no more than a local councillor. He does not lead the council. He has no executive power. He does not really even stand for election. It is merely an honorary role held usually for no more than a year in recognition of a councillor's long service. He represents his city on formal occasions and usually chairs the council, but he is only first among equals. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. His position isn't quite enough to ensure an automatic pass of WP:POLITICIAN point 1, and the coverage presented isn't enough to show that he passes points two or three of that guideline either. My search for sources was also unsuccessful, so I am forced to conclude that he isn't notable. There doesn't seem to be a good merge or redirect target, so deletion seems to be the only choice left. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Mayors of such large and important cities are notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • But since the only thing he did was be mayor (at least as far as we can find), that doesn't really make him notable. " But he was a real mayor!" isn't good enough unless reliable sources can say that he did something else. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 21:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Again, a misunderstanding of what a mayor under the British system actually is. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, being a mayor of the 4th largest city in the 2nd-most populous country in the world is definitely notable. And for the record, mayors are definitely important actors in Indian politics, hardly symbolic figure-heads. Having been a member of the TN Pradesh Congress Committee is also a clear indication of notability, anyone with a minimum knowledge of Indian contemporary history would know that the PCCs completely dominated state politics in the 1950s. -- Soman ( talk) 00:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Universal Magazine Code

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

After a bit of googling, I am concluding that this is only a product code of magazine distributor Contrix/ Magazine Agent http://www.magazine-agent.com/ ( Special:LinkSearch/www.magazine-agent.com) previously known as uSubscribe.com, and that it is largely a U.S. magazine distributor (only one non-US magazine in the 32 magazines in section 'Food & Wine' is a strong clue), with the exception of these foreign titles. I cant see other organisations using this 'UMC', except pages like this where Magazine Agent is providing a subscription page for the magazine's website. Magazine Agent might be notable given the size of it (~700 magazines), so maybe we should move this page to that name and refocus it. John Vandenberg ( chat) 03:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Too idiosyncratic to warrant its own article. If there were an article on this distributor, this would warrant one sentence at most in such an article, if at all (seems more like a product number to me)... -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I could find no reliable sources for this topic. Even DBpedia just refers back to the Wikipedia article. Far from universal and fails notability thresholds according to WP:GNG. -- Mark viking ( talk) 16:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Walter and Tandoori. Here we see an example of productive and clear consensus-reaching. Kudos to all. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 19:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Walter's Christmas

Walter's Christmas (  | 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 has no references and no indication that it is notable. Also, the plot is not written in proper sentences. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No establishment of notability. Article also contains lifted content possibly from here or here. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Vote stricken. See below. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's a safe bet that the page was copyvio from the previous sources, given the film came out in 2011 and the page was created Feb 2014. Otherwise, I would argue those sites could be mirrors of this page. That said and aside, it still fails notability and lack of sources (which would probably be the aforementioneds anyway). — Wylie pedia 14:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Correct English title: (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: The IMDb page goes under the title Le Noël De Walter Et Tandoori, so I'm adding a "find sources" thing for that as well. Since this was part of a television series, it might be worthwhile to create an entry for the series itself and redirect there. Also, can anyone confirm that this film was originally broadcast in English and not French? Or was it a simultaneous release in both languages? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  • Correction, IMDb has two separate titles for the movie, one in French and one in English. The French title seems to be dated earlier, so I'm wondering if this wasn't released in French first and English second. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Also, it looks like there was a live-action version of the cartoon called "Walter 100%". ( [23]) I'm leaning heavily towards the idea of creating a page for the series/franchise as a whole and redirecting there, but I'm running into a language barrier. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The reference desk might be able to make sense of the French content. So the main contributor got the name of the film wrong? It doesn't appear to be Walter's Christmas, rather Walter and Tandoori's Christmas. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
It appears the contributor got his short title off the "official wbesite", which interestingly includes a trailer and poster with the full English name. LOL. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (Vote changed. See below) per shown as meeting WP:NF through found French language sources. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] and others. I fully support Tokyogirl79's idea of a later merge, specially as the series as a whole will have more sourcability than the one film. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This was indeed definitely a French-language series first, per the existing French-language article at fr:Walter (série télévisée). The series as a whole would probably be a valid article topic, but this individual film should probably just be a redirect to that instead of standing alone as a separate article. I'd be happy to assist with the French sources. Merge into a new article about the whole series. Bearcat ( talk) 22:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Until we have a franchise article, this one can be kept per available sourcing. Sadly, the French Wikipedia article on the series does not include any sourcing. Different Wikipedia, different rules. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Actually, what's really weird is that there was an article about the main series franchise, created on the same day as this one by the same user — but it got speedied for lacking a properly sourced indication of notability. Bearcat ( talk) 05:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Shame on the speedier. We rarely speedy film articles simply for lacking sources. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Update...one serving of Walter and Tandoori, now ready for delivery. Bearcat ( talk) 06:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to this new article. Excellent way to deal with an issue. I have struck my vote above. Barnstar well deserved. Thank you. . Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Good work, Bearcat, and the rest of youse. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect! Yay for Bearcat! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. This discussion is redundant to another discussion already taking place at Talk:Temporary foreign worker program in Canada for merging. Because the nominator isn't proposing anything deletion-related, I will close this discussion and let the merge discussion continue. However, it's been more than a week since the merge was first proposed and they say silence is consensus, so it may be advisable to just WP:BOLDly perform the merger right now at this stage. -v/r- ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 19:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Temporary foreign worker program in Canada

Temporary foreign worker program in Canada (  | 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 is a non-neutral point of view spin off of the main article Temporary_residency. This essentially duplicates the information found in Temporary_residency however provides it in as a quasi news report ("it was claimed", "were said to be") and also offers CBC reports as research. I propose we merge the relevant information into Temporary_residency and (delete) redirect this article. Mrfrobinson ( talk) 00:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. "Merge and delete", Mrfrobinson's suggested outcome, violates the CC-BY-SA License and the GFDL, without carefully noting who is responsible for the merged data. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Sorry I will amend my suggestion to merge and redirect. Mrfrobinson ( talk) 17:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_March_2&oldid=1142628287"