Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_February_18 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 February	19 February >

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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

ACORD

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

May fail WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG. Missvain ( talk) 23:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: A notable cross-provider organisation defining messaging standards in its industry. I have added a couple of book references to the article. AllyD ( talk) 08:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: I am personally flabbergasted (probably an inappropriate reaction for an editor) that anyone would think that ACORD fails the WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG tests. As a software vendor and consultant to the North American insurance industry for the last 30 years, I have personally known of ACORD as one of the leading standards bodies in the various insurance spaces. Hey, look at https://www.acord.org/membership/Pages/OurMembers.aspx - these companies all use ACORD...do companies like Aegon, AIG, American Bankers, American Family Life Assurance Company of America (yes, AFLAC of the duck fame on television), American General Life, Aon, AXA - look, I am still in the "A"s! - do these names mean nothing to whoever proposed this article for deletion?

(Shaking my head in disbelief)... William J. 'Bill' McCalpin ( talk) 04:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: Article should not be deleted, but IMPROVED - this organization has received significant coverage from independent sources; a quick Google search reveals that. ACORD is of strong relevance to the insurance industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.243.152 ( talk) 03:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per Mccalpin clearly passes WP:GNG and per this this . clearly notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 08:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Sonny Wilson (singer)

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

Okay I had a prod but a ref was added. But it seems this person has a page kind of which is a redirect (see Sonny Wilson), not sure if he is notable yet to have his own page or not. Wgolf ( talk) 23:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 22:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, does not appear to meet notability standards. Nakon 03:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G7, per the request of the article creator. Mojo Hand ( talk) 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Kasterborous.com

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

non-notable podcast/website, could not find reliable independent sources Deunanknute ( talk) 23:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep -I am sorry you feel that this website is not notable, I have dug these few links up even the BBC have mentioned it on their site.

Thanks Kelvin 101 ( talk) 16:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The first two only barely mention the site, the others are not sources that establish notability. There needs to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG. Deunanknute ( talk) 17:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

In comparison though Doctor Who: DWO Whocast and Doctor Who: Podshock do not seem have reliable sources either. It must be reliable or it wouldn't be used as a reference in a book Torchwood Declassified: Investigating Mainstream Cult Television Thanks Kelvin 101 ( talk) 13:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm perfectly comfy with those two other articles getting brought to AfD. In the meantime, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 22:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete with extreme prejudice: I'm a bit baffled that an editor with over 6,000 edits and 400+ page creations needs reminding of the notability guidelines. The GNG, of course, requires "significant coverage" from multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources. The only sources in the article are the website itself; of the one Kelvin 101 put up here, IMDB as a user-submitted site isn't a reliable source, the BBC America and Wales Online sources runs afoul of the guideline stating that a source consisting only of quotes from someone associated with a subject can't support the notability of the subject (and in any event it doesn't discuss the subject at all), the Salt Lake Comic Con source certainly isn't reliable even if it didn't redirect to the subject's website (which it does), and a website counter doesn't qualify as a reliable source either. (It's not impressive that the website gets only ten times as many monthly page views as my obscure personal blog.)
Honestly, Kelvin, if you haven't familiarized yourself with the requirements of the GNG, it's high time. In the meantime, if you can find reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail, let us know. These casual mentions don't qualify. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Per WP:CHEAP, Redirect/Merge into Doctor_Who_fandom#Webcasts_and_podcasts. Pax 02:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete (no redirect) - a section under fandom ought to discuss the subject of websites etc in general terms. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 08:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I forget to add reason - per lack of GNG as described above. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Deschloroetizolam

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

Consensus at WP:PHARM and WP:CHEMS is that chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound. Deschloroetizolam is not a pharmaceutical drug, but rather a designer drug only sold online. The made-up names "deschloroetizolam" and its purported synonym "diazolam" are intended to sound like the name of a benzodiazepine pharmaceutical, but these names are only used in online recreational drug forums - they are not used in the scientific literature, patent literature, Google Scholar, etc. The first reference is a patent that may mention this chemical compound (I can't find it though), but if so, only as one of about 400 other chemically similar compounds. There is nothing that distinguishes this one from the hundreds of other non-notable ones mentioned. There are no reliable sources (or more specifically WP:MEDRS-compliant sources) from which to build article content. Designer drugs certainly can become notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but this one is not ... at least not yet. Per WP:N and WP:V this page should be deleted. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 22:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Appears to be one more attempt to insert non-notable designer drug articles on Wikipedia. When they gather news coverage is soon enough. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 00:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep, God damn you all to hell, KEEP. (This molecule, while a "designer drug", is an actually distinct compound with a known structure, not simply a marketing label plastered over something with a different scientific name (let alone a proprietary secret). The precise moment Wikipedia begins deleting "hard science" subjects (in particular chemistry) is the beginning of the end, the long slide into an oblivion full of porn-star articles and bereft of actual knowledge. (Yes: I have seen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals, and think the very premise of hosing these types of articles is just the most horrible idea ever.). Merge into Designer_drug#Thienodiazepines? A last resort poor precedent (as it will lead to more, and AfDs will proliferate). Delete? *No*. Pax 03:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- There is not a single source in the article. Instead of looking up TouTube videos, spend time sourcing the article. That you can't seem to add any sources speaks louder than your curses. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 04:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- Pax, your argument is not based in Wikipedia policy. Just because this is "an actually distinct compound", that doesn't make it an acceptable Wikipedia topic. It must meet the notability and verifiability guidelines just like the pornstar articles you complain about. ChemNerd ( talk) 14:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete this and all the others. Non-notable chemical with no literature references of any depth. If we had an article for literally every molecule that's ever been synthesized, we'd be drowning in them. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 09:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: There is nothing notable about this chemical compound and there are no reliable sources to use to write an article with verifiable content. ChemNerd ( talk) 14:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Marinello Schools of Beauty

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

Fails notability per WP:COMPANY. – S. Rich ( talk) 22:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary and non-secondary reliable sources, but none that appear to give in-depth or significant coverage of the subject of the article in question. Therefore, failing WP:GNG, I support deletion of this article at this time.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete As already noted. Subject doesn't pass our notability threshold as I couldn't find any in-depth coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:NORG Jim Carter 12:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) – Davey2010^Talk 02:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Starmax

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

Insufficient coverage in the media, possible advertising Verbal.noun ( talk) 21:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. I don't really know how to find Korean sources, but there are a few English-language ones. This article says it was the first film-related company to register on KOSDAQ. This article says it's one of the biggest video distribution companies in South Korea. This article isn't much more than a trivial mention, but it does talk briefly about its holdings and who owns it. This article is much more in-depth and describes some of its history. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep one a number of mostly very dubious deletion listings--see my note on the noms talk page. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per having sourcable notability, even if in Korean. I would suggest the new editor who chose to nominate this perhaps gain a bit more experience and work on his reserach skills before sending topics to AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - rather questionable deletion listing, there seems to be quite a bit of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I'd also agree with MichaelQSchmidt's sentiment: Verbal.noun, perhaps gain a bit more experience editing articles before dabbling in deletion discussions. All the best in editing, -- ceradon ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 18:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

Craig Dillon

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

Subject is not notable as media personality, the only significant coverage about the subject is an alleged scandal. Recommend deletion as essentially WP:BLP1E. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, completely agree with above. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment The previous AFD from 2006 of the same title was a musician, unrelated to this person. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete nothing has changed since last AfD to suggest notability. LibStar ( talk) 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment As FreeRangeFrog points out, the previous AfD was about a musician with the same name, unrelated to this article. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 03:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete I've done a lot of work on this article, but after reviewing WP:BIO, I just don't think he has enough mainstream coverage outside of that one scandal. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 03:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete for now. It seems as though this scandal is the only thing that got picked up by reliable sources. I don't know enough about YouTube or YouTubers to really say whether this is a low profile individual, but WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME discourage these kinds of articles. If he breaks into the mainstream, then we can have an article on him. Right now, it seems like this going to be nothing more than a bulleted list of incidents of YouTube drama and scandal. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Do Not Delete After reviewing the edits user FreeRangeFrog seems to have a bias against this article, deleting a lot of credible and sourced information, especially about Dillon's complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about an online newspaper. So can we assume FreeRangeFrog represents them or is affiliated with them in some way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.220.45 ( talk • contribs) — 161.74.220.45 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not Delete I've also done a lot of work on this article with StewdioMACK and it seems interesting that it was nominated for deletion by someone with a bias against the subject. Dillon is a very well known YouTube star and is currently the Largest Openly Gay YouTuber in the UK, this is a very important article and its essential that young LGBT teens have someone to relate to and discuss relevant issues with; especially in a time when LGBT suicide rates are so high, users finding this article could be helped by Dillon's work. He has played a large role in the lives of many young people, and his work deserve recognition. Dylan.Windsor ( talk) 16:47, 24 February 2015
Do Not Delete Agree with above, I have an inside knowledge of the YouTube world and I can confirm Dillon is very well known, and not just for the scandal. He has just been announced as the Host of the 2015 Porn Awards and only yesterday he addressed the LGBT Leaders Conference in London. Dillon has a large profile and after only recently coming out his profile in the LGTB community is growing rapidly. Deleting the article would be a mistake, it will only be rewritten next month as Dillon's profile grows even bigger. YouTubeGirls ( talk) 17:12, 24 February 2015 — YouTubeGirls ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment YouTubeGirls is incorrect. Nowhere has Dillon been announced as the host of any '2015 Porn Awards', as far as we can tell. Nor was he a speaker at the LGBT Leaders Conference in London this week. Dillon is not listed as a Speaker on the conference's website: http://www.lgbtleaders.co.uk Nor is he pictured in any photos from the event on the conference's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.414842375358945.1073741831.315483938628123&type=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.232.107 ( talk) 02:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Do Not Delete Deletion has been requested by someone with extreme bias against Dillon, probably a Journo involved in the Complaint made to the IPCC. Dillon is very well known in the gay world, as a member of the LGBT community this I can confirm. Dillon has an article in the upcoming Gay Times Magazine and there are rumours we're going to see him on the cover of attitude magazine next month, all unconfirmed of course but I agree with the girl above, deleting the article would make no sense. There is a lot of buzz around this guy especially with him being the biggest openly gay YouTube star in the UK! bigger. LondonLGBTmagazine ( talk) 16:02, 24 February 2015 — LondonLGBTmagazine ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment There are no rumours, 'unconfirmed' or otherwise, that Dillon will be on the cover of Attitude magazine next month. As far as we can tell, the only instance of this 'rumour' appearing anywhere, ever, is LondonLGBTmagazine's 'Do Not Delete' comment above. 'There is a lot of buzz around this guy,' claims 'LondonLGBTmagazine' (who, are we to presume, is Dillon himself or someone linked to Dillon?), 'especially with him being the biggest openly gay YouTube star in the UK!' Except, even that isn't true. Not by a long chalk. Dillon has a modest 50K subscribers, compared to, for example, openly gay RoseEllenDix's 323,000 subscribers! Other openly gay UK YouTubers who are larger than Dillon include MalumTV (87.8K subs), TheRealJazzBertie (85.6K), xJamie1x (79K), TrentAndLuke (64.8K), etc, etc.

Delete not a notable WP:BIO other then the negative info Bentogoa ( talk) 18:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Dillon is not a notable media personality. Indeed, this article appears to have been written by Dillon himself, or by a close associate. (1: The article's creator and principal contributor is a Dylan.Windsor, although this may be a coincidence. 2: Dillon has family in Windsor, UK. Maybe this is a coincidence, too? 3: A YouTube channel called 'Dylan Windsor' – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzWmO6BhfawMDX3NJkn5lFw – was established in Feb 2013, its only activity to date having been to like/thumb-up Dillon’s YouTube videos. Another coincidence?) Creating/writing a Wikipedia article about yourself, though not forbidden, raises serious WP:NPOV concerns, especially when the only significant coverage of the subject is in relation to various sex abuse allegations. WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME further discourage these kinds of articles. (NB. so far, all the 'Do Not Delete' comments on this AFD page are either from 'Dylan.Windsor' himself, or from accounts – such as 'YouTubeGirls' and 'LondonLGBTmagazine' – that have, curiously, made no other edits outside this topic.) Also, many of the assertions in this article – and even assertions on this ADF page, made by those arguing 'Do Not Delete' – are demonstrably untrue, eg. the repeated claim that Dillon is 'currently the Largest Openly Gay YouTuber in the UK'. (He isn’t. Not even close. Dillon has a modest 50K subscribers, compared to, for example, RoseEllenDix's 323,000 subscribers! Other openly gay UK YouTubers who are larger than Dillon include MalumTV (87.8K subs), TheRealJazzBertie (85.6K), xJamie1x (79K), TrentAndLuke (64.8K), and many more.) Other claims in this article, some of which have since been deleted, range from the faintly ridiculous ('Dillon has been referred to as "The Prince of WeHo" and "The Prince of SoHo" in local media' – no reliable sources cited) and the opportunistic ('Dillon hosted the 2014 Student Pride Awards' – he absolutely did not, and 'Studentpridepress' themselves deleted that claim from this article), to the misleading ('Dillon launched legal proceedings to sue his ex-partner' – this never happened; Dillon merely threatened to) and deceitful ('many YouTubers, especially those in the LGBT community, were seen defending Dillon [when he was accused of sexual assault]’ – again, no sources cited. There appear to be no actual instances of any notable YouTubers, LGBT or otherwise, defending Dillon – presumably because none were willing to defend someone accused of sexually harassing/raping six people between the ages of 15-19, and/or because very few people are even aware of who Dillon is, further suggesting that this article really should be deleted. 86.134.232.107 ( talk) 23:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Per NOTTABLOID, TNT, BLP1E, and more alphabet soup. Randykitty ( talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Amanda Rosenberg

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

I recognize there are references, but I think this crosses over into NOT TABLOID. Her role in GGlass is not sufficiently important for that to make it her notable, and the other material is in my opinion a classic example of BLP1E. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG. As a google executive ^[1], her role in GGlass and breaking up Brin's marriage is two different things. WP:BLP2E is not policy. The NYT article says basically that she, Sergey and their politics are the reason Glass was canceled. Google Glass is extremely notable and influence influences the direction of wearable technology. The Dissident Aggressor 01:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: It seems that the censors are succeding to keep the more remarkable material out of the article such as her influence on the downfall of glass, her ambition and some of her more controversial viewpoints, despite being extremely well sourced. If that information is supressed (as it has been), then the sources that were written about those topics are irrelevant - hence reasons she would pass WP:GNG are dismissed. In that context, there is no reason this person would pass any of our notability guidelines. The Dissident Aggressor 15:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- I agree that attempts to improve the article to address the concerns voiced in the "delete" opinions seem to have been disrupted. I won't go so far as to characterize anyone as a censor, even if they might be lapsing from WP:CENSOR, as I believe all the lapses were well-intentioned lapses.

Frankly, in the nine years I have participated in AFD, and the hundreds of AFD discussions I have participated in, I have never seen quite this pattern of editing.

In this edit on User:ErikHaugen Erik Haugen seems to have gone on record that the article should be merged. But they didn't voice a delete or merge opinion here. Instead they made numerous excision of material they didn't like, material that I think you and I agreed established that Ms Rosenberg was known for more than a signle event. Several other contributors have made significant excisions that seriously undermined efforts to demonstrate that Ms Rosenberg was known for more than a single event -- instead of voicing a delete or merge opinion.

Usually people who favor merge or delete merely voice their opinion in the AFD, or on the talk page, and allow those who favor a "keep" a free hand to try to address the concerns voiced by the "delete" camp.

A few years ago there was a particular disruptive contributor who accidentally said, in an AFD, "I favor keeping this article, but only if it is my preferred version that is kept. Otherwise I favor delete." User:Sherurcij explained to him that, when we have acknowledged that a topic is notable, we don't get to pick and choose whether it is kept or deleted, based on whether it looks like our preferred version is kept. To try to keep only our preferred version, and to otherwise delete an article because our preferred version is not the version being kept is a huge lapse from WP:NPOV. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I think you're misunderstanding my position. If folks are intent on keeping all the negative crap published about this person out of the artice (as they seem to be), then you're left with just a Product Marketing Manager of a failed product. She is only notable for the negative crap, and there's plenty of it (contributing to the failure of a product, "sleeping her way" to prominence, racist comments). If it weren't for her relationship with Brin and the impact of all that, nobody would have ever heard of her. The Dissident Aggressor 23:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe I am misunderstanding your position. The way I see it, a responsible administrator should ignore the clearly non-policy compliant arguments. Claims of NPOV, for instance, several of the delete arguments here are based solely on NPOV, and deserve to be ignored. Others are clearly instances of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and should also be ignored.

An administrator may do a simple nose count, and not comply with their obligation to discount bad arguments. But that wouldn't make those bad arguments valid.

As for "negative crap" -- some people who don't like the article have characterized material as negative, when, whether the coverage was negative or positive was a value judgment. For instance, someone called my coverage of the $48,000 per year fees for her high school as negative. Others might see it as positive, that her family had enough money to be able to afford to send her as an exclusive school.

I don't see the Google Glass project as a failure, even if never breaks even. It is a significant enough project that if the Apple iGlass is what everyone is wearing, ten years from now, people will still remember the Google Glass as a promising, ground-breaking project. Are you familiar with the work on user interfaces at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Centre? (Xerox PARC) That was over 30 years ago, but those in the know still honor the excellent work there, even if the uninitiated attribute the Apple Macintosh's use of a pointy-clicky mouse to their own design.

Sometimes the failure, or apparent failure, of a first attempt, results in the second attempt being even more successful than if the first attempt hadn't failed. Who knows, maybe Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, won't catch up, and Google's second attempt will transcend the first attempt. In that case, if she actually played a role in the product being shelved, it wouldn't be a negative.

Way back when heroic airline pilot Sully Sullenberger managed his heroic landing on the Hudson River, there were a dozen or so very dogged contributors who tried to get his article deleted as an instance of a BLP1E. I spent a couple of hours searching for references that established that Sullenberger had measured up to our notability criteria, prior his heroic landing. It took hours to winnow through the copious references google tossed up to her heroic landing, and find the few, but sufficient references that established pre-existing notability. Ms Rosenberg is in the same position -- there is so much coverage of her WRT the affair that it would drown out references that established pre-existing notability. However, I think that even if the closing administrator doesn't ignore the non-policy compliant nature of the delete arguments, new references to Ms Rosenberg will emerge, as her career progresses.

As for her being a "home-wrecker", why doesn't the responsibility lie on Brin?

I am surprised to read you call her comments racist. I was sure that her comment was a joke, not to be taken the least bit seriously. I found her YouTube video quite funny. And I thought her comment being a "chew" was funny too. Geo Swan ( talk) 01:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

- Contributing to the failure of Google Glass would be notable if it were in a reliable source. I would be glad to add that to the article in a neuteal tone if you provide the source. A tabloid article about anonymous posters saying she "slept her way to the top" does not establish her notability, and I have to second Geo Swan on the question of who is the homewrecker. If we anonymously post these comments online and they are picked up by a tabloid, maybe we can add it to his article. In the meantime a Google division marketing director who contributes to the failure of a product is newsworthy at the cost of this development and its noteworthiness (Glass). I suspct there are good sources on ths area, Wired level. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 18:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Merge to either Google Glass, Sergey Brin, or both. No significant coverage except for WP:ONEEVENT and personal-life fodder. Agree with the assessment of WP:NOTTABLOID. Her 15 minutes does not confer encyclopedic notability on her own, in my opinion. Softlavender ( talk) 02:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC) She does have coverage so I'm not really sure at this point. Softlavender ( talk) 02:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

First in the news in 2013 and still in the mainstream news (New York Times) in 2015 isn't 15 minutes and it isn't even 15 months. Perhaps you'd like to recalculate how many minutes that was. The Dissident Aggressor 07:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't mean to be mean about this, but I think this merge suggestion is an example of a fundamental problem with the urge to merge articles on topics that can stand on their own. Specifically User:Softlavender has suggested merging, but has suggested multiple target articles to which this article should be merged. So far as I am concerned any AFD where multiple merge targets are suggested should ring warning bells that the topic really does merit a standalone article after all.
Ideally, our main coverage of a topic should be in a single article. Other articles should provide just enough coverage of the topic to provide context near where they link to the main article on the topic -- enough so the reader knows what they will be getting into . When we allow multiple articles to each have meaningful coverage of a peripheral topic we open ourselves up to a maintenance nightmare. To take Ms Rosenberg as an example, suppose we agreed she did not merit a standalone article, but we made sure all the information about her, scattered in the other articles that were related to the topic of Amanda Rosenberg started off being consistent, entropy being what it is, that scattered coverage would grow inconsistent, or even contradictory.
In my opinion, any topic worthy of a wikilink is probably worthy of a standalone article.
An additional problem with merging the information about Ms Rosenberg into either Google Glass or Sergey Brin is that some of the worthwhile information in the article about her, like where she went to University, would be considered off-topic in the related article. And, in this case, as with almost every AFD I have come across where someone suggested multiple merge targets, the information that would end up being considered "offtopic" differs, depending on which target article the closing administrator rules it should be merged to. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Further to User:Softlavender's suggestion of merging to multiple related articles. SL suggested merging to Google Glass, when that article doesn't currently say anything about Ms Rosenberg. It merely contains a link in the "see also" section. No offense, but this causes me to question how much serious thought was put into this suggestion.
The article on Hugo Barra did not contain any coverage of his relationship with Ms Rosenberg. I added some coverage. I'd like to read SL's explanation as to why he or she recommended merging to the Brin article, but not the Barra article, or even the article on Anne Wojcicki. The Google romantic triangle of 2013 is related to the article on the Google Glass product, and to all four principals. It might be best if all the articles had only enough coverage of the affair to provide context for readers to the link where the details were discussed. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete The New York Times piece includes only a passing mention of her. That Daily Mail piece is gossip garbage. And so on. I see no significant coverage in reliable sources of her as a person that can provide the basis for a BLP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep -- After spending some time looking at the references about her I think Ms Rosenberg would meet our criteria for inclusion, even if she hadn't had affairs with any other Google executives. She is a talented woman in a relatively senior position in a field where senior females are rare. Some articles wrote about her, in that context alone. As I looked at those references I considered adding more, but frankly, I thought the article already clearly established that she measured up to our inclusion criteria. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
WRT WP:BLP1E -- very few of the individuals here who have standalone articles devoted to them have measured up to our inclusion criteria due to a single event. For almost all of our biographical articles separate events each contribute to a cumulative notability. The article mentioned Rosenberg attended Marlborough College, which I had never heard of. I googled "Marlborough College" "Amanda Rosenberg"] -- and found it is a very expensive and exclusive UK public school. The Telegraph (UK) has characterized it as a "seed bed for grooming alpha consorts", listing eleven high-profile grads, talented in their own right, but best known for who they were romantically paired with. That list of grads included Rosenberg, the youngest on the list, and:

Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge;
Pippa Middleton;
Princess Eugenie of York;
Samantha Cameron, award winning fashion designer and wife of PM David Cameron;
Frances Osborne, author and wife of George Osborne the UK Chancellor of Exchequer;
Sally Bercow, reality show Big Brother UK participant, and wife of the UK Speaker John Bercow;
Georgina Chapman, actress and wife of a notable Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein;
Amanda Harlech, "long-term partner of Jeremy Paxman";

Attending the same small school as other famous people does not convey notability all by itself. The school has graduated about 3600 young women since they became eligible to attend, in 1969. Merely being listed on a list of all those 3600 young women would not convey very much notability. But a notable publication elected to name her on a list of less than 0.3 percent of the school's grads. I suggest this establishes yet another "event", freeing her of the stigma of a "one event" accusation. I see it as an exclusive list, conveying significant notability. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: The school she attended is not a valid AfD argument for inclusion, neither is "She is a talented woman in a relatively senior position in a field where senior females are rare." Nor is it true that "Some articles wrote about her, in that context alone." She has some coverage because of her personal life, and some passing mentions because of the "OK Glass", or the combination of the two (all mentions anywhere are because she is good gossip fodder}. But there is no indication anywhere that she would have merited coverage simply for being "a talented woman in a relatively senior position in a field where senior females are rare." In fact, females are not rare in marketing positions, tech or otherwise, and there are plenty of women in senior positions at Google, far more senior than Rosenberg; they don't get articles for that. Softlavender ( talk) 00:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

All those individual articles of media coverage add up to easily pass WP:GNG in total. We've got folks saying she's only famous for 1 event, then folks saying that her sustained media presence for 2 years doesn't add up to WP:GNG. At the end, she isn't WP:BLP1E and she easily passes WP:GNG. It's clear folks just don't like it. The Dissident Aggressor 14:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

User talk:Softlavender your reply here starts of with a typical "strawman" response. Rather than reply to the substance of my counter-argument, you invented a different, but similar, and easier to refute argument. Please understand that KNOWINGLY using a strawman argument is seen by many as deceitful and a breach of our policies on civility and collegiality. I am going to assume that your response only gives the appearance of you employing a strawman response, and that, for some reason, you didn't make the effort to actually read what I wrote.
Everyone agrees that merely attending a notable school doesn't make its alumnae notable. Something like 3600 young women graduated from Marlborough. Several newspapers reported that female graduates of Marlborough were wildly disproportionately represented among the wives of highly placed men. The Telegraph selected eleven women as the archetypical examples of this phenomenon. That list included two princesses, the wives of two most senior UK cabinet members, and Ms Rosenberg.
This is the phenomenon you should be addressing. Verifiable and authoritative sources felt she met their criteria for notability, so that they didn't leave her in the group of 3589 unnamed female grads of Marlborough. Geo Swan ( talk) 14:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete The article is a clear violation of WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV etc. Take, for example, the section entitled "Race Relations", consisting of the sentence "Rosenberg described herself as being a member of the "master race that is the Chinese Jew or Chew."[6][14]" Should be immediately deleated. There are references in the cited articles that allude to an 'internet profile' where she apparently used some poor taste in describing her background, but they are taken out of context and given wildly undue weight to their coverage in the press (nonexistent). This is an overwhelmingly negative article clearly written by someone with an agenda, neither neutral nor encyclopedic. Aside from the undue weight, etc., the article is very poorly written and gossip oriented. That said, the topic is one that was noteworthy and covered by reliable sources; that does not mean that this horribly written attempt should meet Wikipedia's standards. Wintertanager ( talk) 22:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note that this editor has few recent edits (last 9 months) outside of Rosenberg's ex-boyfriend, Hugo Barra (as the article creator) his employer Xiaomi (where s/he whitewashed Rosenberg's info out and one other article. Most likely a paid editor with a clear connection to Barra. The Dissident Aggressor 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Uh, no that is not the case at all and I resent the unsubstantiated allegation. I don't appreciate your attempt to silence another user bringing up completely fair and reasonable issues with your page. I am not the one who flagged this page for speedy deletion, and I don't like being warned to 'Stop' by you on my personal page. I don't want or need to be bullied. If I have said or done something incorrectly, give me the benefit of the doubt and I will reciprocate. I am judicial and fair in my assessments. I believe, for instance, that this subject warrants neutral and encyclopedic coverage in Wikipedia. I also believe that this article falls far out of the standard of Wikipedia's biography of living persons, gives undue weight to numerous issues, and is poorly written. If you feel I am biased because I contributed to Hugo Barra's entry (and hence know a great deal about and am interested in this topic), then I am happily not to make any edits of any kind and let others decide in the spirit of Wikipedia. That said, don't try and silence or bully me; I don't appreciate it one bit. Wintertanager ( talk) 23:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Nobody appreciates you whitewashing Wikipedia for your clients or buddies. Please review WP:COI. The Dissident Aggressor 23:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm doing no such thing, thank you very much. No one appreciates you writing irresponsible articles below the standards and failing the mission of what wikipedia is intended. This is a living person - understand that she is of public noteworthiness but we have a responsibility to create a neutral, encyclopedic perspective and this, sir, ain't it. Wintertanager ( talk) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

So your beef is that we shouldn't publish notable quotes by the woman? Nobody is making them up and they're presented in pretty much the same context as all of the articles that reported them. You could publish the full quote but I don't think it changes the context one bit. Publicly talking about the existence of a master race is pretty damn significant. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and they have been supplied. These quotes have been published by numerous reliable sources. The Irish Independent (a fully reliable source cited) is Ireland's most widely distributed newspaper and is one of 4 sources supplied - all of which present pretty much the same context. The Dissident Aggressor 00:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Let me give you an example of a NPOV for this very subject. In Sergei Brin's wikipedia entry, the Amanda Rosenberg relationship is described as follows "According to the New York Times, Brin left his wife after he started having an affair with a subordinate employee, Amanda Rosenberg[24] which caused a major rift between Brin and co-founder Larry Page because he viewed their relationship as an ethical issue.[4]" That, to me, delivers relevant information in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, providing a reputable source for the reader to dive further. Contrast that with the Xiaomi entry (which you just restored, congrats to you): 'Barra has declined to comment on the unfortunate timing of the thorny situation regarding the Google relationships'. Using words like 'unfortunate' and 'thorny' are neither neutral nor encyclopedic, distorting the presentation of facts in a manner that unduly biases them to the reader. Wikipedia has tons of explicit recommendations about this, particularly for living persons. When you make a section entitled 'Race Relations', it unduly elevates anything within it above and beyond whatever source from which it originated. It makes her seem blatantly racist, which I think is a huge distortion of the facts and hardly neutral. You seem very keen to identify someone who 'whitewashes' in your words, when I think the real problem in Wikipedia is editors like you who seem to love to paint as unflattering a portrait as possible without any regard for that person's rights. Report the facts, report what is relevant and newsworthy, and report it in a neutral tone. I think that is a very reasonable position; sorry that you seem so vitriolic, sophomorically so, in condemning a perfectly warranted point of view. Wintertanager ( talk) 00:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I've removed what I believe is the objectionable language from Xiaomi and agree that it was inflammatory. It wasn't my language and unfortunately we got some bath water back with the baby. The Dissident Aggressor 01:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

User:Wintertanager I think the closing administrator should discount your opinion, on the grounds that your justifications for deletion aren't valid grounds for deletion.

Do you understand that WP:UNDUE expands to WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight? That you cited both suggests you aren't really familiar with NPOV.

The policy on the neutral point of view does not say articles that contain passages that do not comply with our idea of neutrality should be deleted. Rather, just like the on policy original research, it says that those with a concern over passages they think do not comply with the policies should be removed or rewritten.

So, the obligation these policies places on individudals, like yourself, who have a concern, is to either try to fix the passage that triggered their concern themselves, or to clearly explain their concern, preferably on the talk page.

With regard to BLP, administrators are authorized to delete articles that are clearly "attack articles", on sight. But you aren't claiming this is an "attack article", are you?

If all you are claiming is that Ms Rosenberg is a case of the ambiguous definition of a person known only for a single event, then I think you should have said THAT. DissidentAgressor and I both explained why we didn't think BLP1E applies. If you are claiming BLP1E I am disappointed that you didn't choose to respond to our explanations as to why BLP1E doesn't apply. Geo Swan ( talk) 05:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

User:Gene93k Thank you for your kind suggestion to discount my opinion. I'm getting used to that around here! I am familiar with NPOV, and bring up undue weight in particular because I think it is in gross violation here. To answer your questions: you say 'those with a concern over passages they think do not comply with the policies should be removed or rewritten.' That is exactly what I attempted to do - remove a portion of a biography of a living person that I felt was not NPOV and carried undue weight in the article relative to its significance in the sourced article. Now, when I attempted to do that, I received a threatening message on my page from the author, The Dissident Aggressor, telling me that I should 'Stop' and that my actions were equivalent to 'vandalism', and that I had 'whitewashed' an entry for Hugo Barra (that I'd spent hours working on, researching, carefully crafting sentences in accordance with WP's goals, etc.). Having received said message, I decided to refrain from making changes to the page because if there is even a hint of a conflict of interest (i.e.; I am the author of Hugo Barra's page), it does not seem correct for me to be the one editing the page. However, if not me, then someone should, because this page has multiple issues. You say 'But you aren't claiming this is an "attack article", are you?' Uh, yes, I am!!! I most certainly am. I believe the structure, tone, and content of this article constitute an attack on a living person and should either be deleted or sternly rewritten. Who knows, I may be wrong! But when I read this page, it doesn't appear to neutrally represent events of public interest. It follows that old trick of using references to justify undue weight and tone in writing. I am happy to give numerous examples, and I'd be even happier to edit the page myself, but that doesn't appear to be an option considering the extent to which I have been bullied (Don't appreciate that one bit). You say, 'So, the obligation these policies places on individudals, like yourself, who have a concern, is to either try to fix the passage that triggered their concern themselves, or to clearly explain their concern, preferably on the talk page.' Okay, I am now doing that. I have explained why I am not editing the page, and will now go into more detail about the issues and concerns I have. Wintertanager ( talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

To continue, here are a few issues. The page begins innocuously with 'Education'. It states that Roesenberg attended Marlborough College, 'an exclusive and expensive British Public School' for which 'Annual fees for boarders, like Rosenberg, were $48,000 per year, which happens to be "seed bed for grooming alpha consorts",' It is a very unflattering, selectively negative portrait that could be summed up as 'Amanda Rosenberg is a rich private school girl groomed to be an alpha consort'. I don't think that is encyclopedic or relevant, is tacitly sexist, and reads like a tabloid. (The sentences, incidently, are poorly constructed; it seems to have been written in a hurry).

The article continues with her career. After one sentence describing her position, we read 'After the story of her affair with Brin became public, she was transferred "out from under his supervision."[5]' That seems out of context - what happened before then? This section focuses only on her having an affair, except to add a quote describing Rosenberg as a "style-savvy hipster" - “My muse Amanda looking great in the frames I designed for her,”. So now we have a rich private school girl groomed for an alpha consort, a shallow, style-savvy hipster whose career consists of an affair. What I'm driving at is the tacit message the structure and tone of the article presents: a negative, unflattering portrayal that reads like a tabloid. As a reader I have no idea who she is or what significance she had of public interest. We then conclude with the 'Personal Life' section, that describes Rosenberg's 'two overlapping romantic relationships after she started working at Google.' that were said to 'have made other employees uncomfortable.' (Why do we return to this topic here?) That's literally it - no wait! We then conclude with her describing herself as part of a 'master race that is the Chinese Jew or Chew'. No context with that bombshell, nothing. So now she's racist on top of it all. About as utterly negative as one could get - I actually don't think I could have pulled anything more negative out of the numerous articles than what is presented on this page - nicely done. It is literally a summary of the most negative aspects of the press she has received. I believe in a case such as this (involving an affair, etc.), particular care must be taken to present the issues neutrally (none has been taken here), to protect the person's rights, to present the info fairly, etc. I actually do think she is a noteworthy enough person to warrant an entry, but that entry needs to be neutral and encyclopedic, and this absolutely is not. It is a great example, again, of using 'references' to veil an incredibly negative portrayal that in no way represents her public noteworthiness (indeed, after reading, one knows virtually nothing about the actual story). I think, on these grounds, it should be removed, but defer to other editors to make that decision. Respectfully, Wintertanager ( talk) 19:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Excuse me, but if you "...actually do think she is a noteworthy enough person to warrant an entry..." why shouldn't the rest of us regard this as a "keep"? I think if you ask other contributors, they will confirm for you that no one, not even Jimbo Wales, gets to say, "I think this topic is notable, but I will only agree to its continued inclusion in the wikipedia if my favorite version is the one that is kept." Geo Swan ( talk) 01:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete If there is an article that violates the not tabloid policy, this is it. Too much of the article is gossipy and tabloid to have any place in Wikipedia. She may be worth mentioning in the article on Binn, but not in a stand alone article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- To support my view, the NYT only mentions Rosenberg in one paragraph, and the only public action it attributes to her is organizing the Diane von Furstenberg fashion show. I am sure that "helping" to organize one fashion show as a marketing director does not make someone notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  - Excuse me, but do you think cherry-picking a single reference, when the article cites something like a dozen references, is a valid, policy compliant reason for deletion? Don't some of the other references cover Ms Rosenberg in great detail? Geo Swan ( talk) 00:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - it doesn't really matter why someone came to the public's attention, what matters is the quality of coverage afterwards. Here there are several real biographical articles (e.g. IBT) which establishes notability. The tone/tabloid issues can be fixed via editing - its not like its impossible to say "person X attracted attention for dating person Y" in a neutral manner. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 06:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle ( talk) 09:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep several sources suggest she meets the WP:GNG.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep because of her prominent relationship with Google Glass but DELETE all the gossipy crap about "her relationships attracting attention" etc. That is not noteworthy. The Daily Fail should be avoided at all costs, but Vanity Fair and IBT are decent. Wikimandia ( talk) 14:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- Delete I didn't realize the Google Glass project was DOA as it is. Wikimandia ( talk) 15:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  It isn't dead. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 20:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  - User:Wikimandia, no one is working on the Manhattan Project, or the Pharonic Pyramids right now either. Are you suggesting we should have started to delete content on those projects, if the wikipedia had been around then, once work on them was suspended?

I don't think you advanced a policy compliant argument for deletion, and I believe your delete opinion should be ignored. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

User:Geo Swan, the ONLY reason I thought Amanda Rosenberg was just barely notable was for coining the phrase "OK Glass" combined with being a familiar "face" in marketing the device. However, Google Glass is dead as it is (by which I mean the latest is they dumped everyone on the project and are starting over again from scratch); therefore, that phrase is not going to become part of the popular lexicon. "OK Glass" as a beta command phrase is barely worth a sentence in the article ABOUT Google Glass itself, except for the complaints that it limited the usability of the product by people with speech problems who couldn't say it. Her lasting contribution to Google Glass being non-existent, Amanda Rosenberg does not deserve a Wikipedia article until she actual does something notable. Being someone whose "relationships have attracted attention" does not meet the basic definition of notability. Wikimandia ( talk) 00:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

From a purely computer science/user-interface point of view, surely just coining the memorable term is notable whether the project was mass-marketed, or wasn't? If Apple brings out the first mass-market wearable computer, they will either use "OK Apple Glass", or they will use something else. Either way the term she coined will be re-visited.

I offered the example of Karl Marx love-child, above. High profile affairs are, sometimes, trivial and truly beneath notice. But Karl Marx love-child had a real effect on politics, just as the Brin-Barra-Rosenberg love triangle is said to have had a real effect on commerce. Even if it didn't shelve the Google Glass project, high profile commentators speculated about whether it did. That a billion dollars in future earnings might be involved that lifts appropriately neutrally written coverage from trivial tabloid-fodder to material we should cover.

Are you aware that individuals who strongly favored merge or delete made many excisions that had the effect of obfuscating that Ms Rosenberg was not an instance of BLP1E? Geo Swan ( talk) 01:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Geo Swan: No, coining a phrase that never entered the mass lexicon is not notable. It's not even a memorable term particularly, I vaguely recalled it. If it itself was such a memorable term than it probably would be deserving of its own Wikipedia article instead of just being a redirect to the product article. Additionally, Google has not "shelved" the product - as I already explained, when I said the product is "dead as is" I meant it's being completely reworked according to reports (See Google Glass article which includes some updates I added after researching the current status of the product). Considering the complaints about the vocal command being problematic for speech-impaired people, future editions likely will not rely on/will not market itself on a single command phrase. The reason it is being completely redesigned from scratch is because of the many, many technological bugs, limitations and general suckiness of the prototype, not because of Amanda Rosenberg, who only worked in marketing and had nothing to do with the functionality of the product. And the idea that Apple will bring out its own product and call it "Apple Glass", much less use the hot phrase "OK Apple Glass", is downright ludicrous. I'm sure whatever "excisions" were made were because they did not belong in a BLP. Once again please read WP:BLP to refresh yourself on why writing about living people is not the same as writing about dead people. Wikimandia ( talk) 18:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- You say you researched it, and you reached the conclusion the project is "dead as is", not shelved, but "dead as is". May I remind that there are projects that never made a dime, and yet are very important from a historical point of view. As I pointed out already, the work of Alan Kay and his colleagues at Xerox PARC was extremely significant, and it does not matter that they never earned a dime for Xerox.

You wrote: "If it itself was such a memorable term than it probably would be deserving of its own Wikipedia article instead of just being a redirect to the product article." Wow that is sure an example of "all or nothing" thinking. I want you to stop, and think, for a minute, on how we calculate the notabilty of articles, in general, and how we calculate the notabilty of individuals.

We have some exceptional rules, to try to ensure that we have complete coverage of certain classes of individual -- like those awarded the Victoria Cross. Special purpose notability guidelines supercede the GNG and BLP1E. An individual who is awarded their nation's very highest bravery medal have always been considered notable, even if they are only known for one event, even if we know almost nothing aout them, except they were awarded this medal.

But for 99.x percent of individuals it takes adding up more than one notability factor to conclude an individual measured up to our minimum notability criteria.

No one is claiming that coining "OK Glass" establishes Ms Rosenberg's notability, all by itself. But, without regard to your personal opinion that it confers zero notability, many different newspapers independently credit her with coining the term. And because multiple RS independently credit her, that makes it notable. Even if some genuine experts in human factors went on record and asserted her coining the term was trivial, her coining the term would still convey some notability, because RS had gone on record crediting her. But that is not the situation here, is it? Here we have you -- a non RS -- saying it was trivial. And here, sorry, because you are a non-RS, complying with policy absolutely requires you to ignore your personal opinion. Real RS thought it was significant enough for them to spend newspaper column inches, and this conveys notability.

You wrote: "The reason it is being completely redesigned from scratch is because of the many, many technological bugs, limitations and general suckiness of the prototype, not because of Amanda Rosenberg, who only worked in marketing and had nothing to do with the functionality of the product."

As above, no offense, but you are not an RS. Your personal opinion should play zero role here. WP:VER says "verifiability, not truth". Your personal opinion may have personally convinced me, if we were discussing the real truth over a beer. There may be RS that agree with parts of your opinion. (I doubt any RS would say the product has "General Suckiness".) Nevertheless, you have looked at the references, and you know that RS do contain the opinion that news of the affair played a significant role in Google's change of plans with regard to the project.

Please make a greater effort to read what those you disagree with wrote. Please make a greater effort to respond to what those you disagree with actually wrote. You wrote: "... the idea that Apple will bring out its own product and call it "Apple Glass", much less use the hot phrase "OK Apple Glass", is downright ludicrous." That someone will bring out a wearable computer is not "downright ludicrous". When they do that product will have a user interface. That interface will be compared with the historic Google Glass interface. Covering the historic Google Glass interface, in appropriate articles, is not "downright ludicrous", it is good, policy-compliant contributions of encyclopedic content.

You wrote: "I'm sure whatever "excisions" were made were because they did not belong in a BLP." If the excised passages were genuine lapses from policy those making the excisions should have been able to explain exactly how they thought those passages lapsed from policy. But they didn't do so. Geo Swan ( talk) 14:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: Yikes -- if there was ever a WP:NOTTABLOID candidate, this is it. There's nothing in this article demonstrating any notability at all, and it's dominated by her love life. Since when did Wikipedia turn into E! Online? Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:TNT: Other editors have valiantly struggled to remove the puff, and all that remains is fluff. Pax 04:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

That's because there's nothing there except fluff. I tried myself and gave up - there's just nothing to write about. Wikimandia ( talk) 19:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Too true. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 14:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: Seems to be WP:NOTTABLOID or WP:BLP1E, but not pass WP:GNG. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 04:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Agree with TNT comment above, appears to have contained a lot of malice towards this woman, and it seems not right under BLP notices to maintain this even in an archive. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 14:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

AFD References

^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2864134/I-hate-spending-money-admits-multi-billionaire-ex-wife-Google-founder.html

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 07:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 07:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 07:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) – Davey2010^Talk 02:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hugh Crawford (sheriff)

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

Contested prod, not based on reliable sources. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I am not disputing that this person would be notable if the content could be verified, but I don't think it can, the only two sources are not reliable. One is a work from the early 18th century, incredibly dated. The other is the Clan Crawford website, which does not appear to be a reliable source or based on reliable source, it repeats family legends of various verifiability. PatGallacher ( talk) 19:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

What is it about the "dated" work that makes it unreliable? I haven't read it myself, but if the only issue is the age of the source, I don't see why that would make it unreliable, especially since the subject died 400 years before the source was published. Not accepting old sources seems to run against WP:NOTTEMPORARY. 137.43.188.89 ( talk) 14:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - There is plenty of source material to write a fully verified stub, for example, [1], [2], [3]. I see no reason why these might not be reliable, despite some of them being quite old. (note: Hugh Crawfurd is an alternate spelling) 137.43.188.89 ( talk) 15:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep: I'm sold. How is a work considered unreliable just because it's from the 18th century? Given all the crap that comes out in today's tabloid press, 24-hour news cycle and the blogosphere, I'd be more inclined to trust older sources. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per the others. We've no reason to doubt the veracity of Crawfurd as a historian and genealogist. Pax 04:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. Knight and sheriff. The date of a work does not invalidate it as a source. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep The three additional sources should be incorproated into the article. He clearly meets notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

MTV Year End Countdowns

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

Interesting to some, but this list has been unsourced for years and I couldn't find where the info could be verified much less find coverage in reliable sources that indicate that this topic is notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

This edges on copyvio in reproducing so much of what are presumably copyrightable lists. I'm having trouble finding whether we have an article on the regular parent show ( it doesn't look like it, if that would be the right title), which might be a proper place to list the #1s for each year end countdown, but nothing beyond that. postdlf ( talk) 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, old unsourced, unverified list. Nakon 03:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - completely unsourced, and unencyclopedic list. -- ceradon ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WordPress#Themes. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

WordPress themes

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

Questionable WP:GNG. No reliable, independent sources, just blogs or tutorials, and Wikipeida should not resemble an eHow article, as Wikipedia is not a manual. That this sub article was created by User:Snehilsharma ( talk, wiki-article), self-described Internet Marketing expert with history of COI and apparent promotion with additions by a closely affiliated PR agent, and citations to sites like sideincomeblogging.com make me wonder if there is a cottage industry of creating wiki articles with sneaky links to sites that generate revenue per page-views ("Make money from home! Describe intricacies of a popular website and profit!"). Any legitimate encyclopedic content should simply be added to WordPress --Animalparty-- ( talk) 19:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree with Animalparty. I vote for deletion. Seanwal111111 ( talk) 00:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I think we can improve the content and remove any useless citations or links instead of deleting the entire article. A well written article on WordPress Themes will definitely help WordPress developers particularly beginners. I think improving it is better than someone rewriting the entire article again.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect WordPress#Themes Adequately covered there with no need for a split. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 04:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to WordPress#Themes. Nakon 03:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 03:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Midlothian Scottish Pipe Band

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

Not really notable - Grade 3, not much by way of sources. Ostrichyearning ( talk) 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. makes adequate claims to notability and is not an easily sourced topic. Lack of sources is not necessarily alone a reason for deletion. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 19:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: What the hell ... lack of sources is ABSOLUTELY a sound reason for deletion. WP:V holds that if sources can't be found for an article, the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, period. It's a weird minority view on Wikipedia that if there are excuses why sources don't exist on a subject, WP:V and WP:GNG should be suspended in the subject's favor. Nope: it means that an article can't be sustained. I didn't find anything myself except casual mentions explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE -- "The Midlothian Pipe Band is also scheduled to play at the county fair on Friday" sort of thing. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 03:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Studio Banana Things

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

Overtly promotional, fails WP:ORG. The CNN and CNBC articles make no mention of Studio Banana Things and instead describe one product as a jokey novelty item or gag gift. Blackguard 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

delete - only temporarily notable for one product. Similar to WP:BLP1E. Deunanknute ( talk) 21:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 19:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 03:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Walking Papers

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

Hardly passes the WP:MUSIC notability test. To the point the disambiguation page that probably deserves this namespace (the one with all lowercase is a redirect) doesn't list this album! igordebraga ≠ 14:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

No claim made in the article passes WP:NMUSIC at all — in fact, the writing tone is teetering right on the edge of being deletable as a WP:NOTADVERT violation — and the article's only "reference" in a single deadlinked source which was never an especially reliable one in the first place. So nothing here adequately demonstrates that the album qualifies for its own article. Delete and repurpose as dab page per nom (although the album should be added to it, with the band itself as the line's bluelink.) Bearcat ( talk) 23:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 19:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Ad Noiseam

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

No evidence of notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Just my 2 cents : there are tens of Ad Noiseam artists who have their Wikipedia page, and it seems that the whole team finds it "relevant" and "notable", because these pages still exist and no one has talked about deleting them recently. Why would their label be irrelevant or unnotable? I try to understand. 85.171.44.43 ( talk) 10:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Ad Noiseam has revealed so many noticeable artists, and has released so many high quality releases (184 today to be exact) that its place is evident here, in an informative site that everyone reads. David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpolkiujhy ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, just - lots of bluelinked artists, and the fr: version of the article includes third-party press coverage of the label itself - David Gerard ( talk) 13:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- Just a note, many of the bluelinked artists don't actually link to appropriate articles (" Wilt", " Larvae", " Detritus" " Needle Sharing" etc.), and of those that do, several appear to have had their own notability contested at some point. – NuclearDuckie ( talk) 03:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  - ahahaha, that could do with fixing. But mostly, that third-party coverage - David Gerard ( talk) 15:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: Ad Noiseam has been a notable label for a while, is still releasing great music, and has artists attending big festivals. More label specific articles and interviews could be referenced. -- MilkMiruku ( talk) 22:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 18:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Bellyitch Blog

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

Debatable notability of the creator as presented in the 'Media influence' section, but I don't believe the blog itself passes WP:N, particularly WP:NWEB. Sam Walton ( talk) 17:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete this article seems largely a backdoor biography rather than about the website itself, of which I see no notability in any of the sources. -- kelapstick^(
bainuu) 17:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
comment - I removed the biographical info that doesn't belong, and I'm on the fence about the notability. If the sources are valid, keep. Deunanknute ( talk) 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

delete - changed based on no new evidence of notability Deunanknute ( talk) 19:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Sam ^Sing! 00:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Sarah Althea Hill

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

This is the equivalent of a BLP1E. Hill married a guy, and then spent the next twenty years fighting the courts to prove it. Scandalous? Maybe. Notable for anything else? No. Primefac ( talk) 18:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep A book search reveals many sources including this, this, this, this and this. While I realise other stuff exists, I don't see much difference regarding the notability claim to, say, Christine Keeler and I don't think we can do anything about WP:BLP1E for someone who died in 1937. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep: Looks like good sources to me, and several of them. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Even if this person was notable for only one event, the event itself was notable per WP:EVENT. Antigng ( talk) 09:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Notable to me, and well referenced.--00:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 ( talk • contribs)
Keep - "The case set legal precedent" - that's as clear as a claim to notability as they get. Our "biographies of living persons" policy obviously doesn't apply to a long dead person, but even if it did that would only mean the article should be renamed at most. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted - A7 by C.Fred – Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Ventom

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

No indication of notability. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 17:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. This is going on way too long. Admins, just because it's easier doesn't mean you should hit "relist" three times when there's been more than enough comments on the discussion. Someone needs to actually take action on this and it might as well be me. Stifle ( talk) 12:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Embassy of Tanzania, Moroni

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

Fails WP:ORG, part of a sprawling series of embassy articles with no third party sources to establish notability. Similar AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Harare.

Also nominating:

LibStar ( talk) 04:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete all on the same basis as the other AFD and in line with consensus there. These all duplicate information already available at List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. Very little of the information from these articles would be worth merging (like the street addresses of non-notable buildings). St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. Ali Fazal ( talk) 12:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. At the very least, the sources in the respective articles can be used in the list article, which presently has only one source. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

a merger or redirect would not be consistent with the other AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Harare. LibStar ( talk) 13:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong Delete - No REAL information. Jackninja5 ( talk) 15:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect all to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania as somewhat plausible search terms. Redirects are cheap anyway. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 07:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC). reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ṫ Ḧ ^{the fury of the nature} _{given flesh} 15:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect all because there's no real information, although I don't see why these couldn't warrant their own articles. I mean, there are lots of articles like Embassy of France, London, for example. If each of these were expanded with just a bit of real information and some photos, they could justify their existence. Liam987 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Leila Abukar

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

A WP:ONEEVENT case; an unsuccessful candidate for state political office, with all of the coverage centred on that fact (with the possible exception of this one, which alone does not, I feel, put the candidate outside the ONEEVENT situation). The Centenary Medal, while a worthy honour, is does not confer inherent notability per WP:ANYBIO. Frickeg ( talk) 23:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg ( talk) 23:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 00:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - Abukar was already a prominent figure prior to running for office. In 2001, she was awarded a Centenary Medal by the Australian government for her work. The Centenary Medal is one of three specifically Australian commemorative awards. That makes it a well-known and significant award or honor per WP:ANYBIO. It was originally presented to individuals who made a contribution to Australian society or government. It is now only open to centenarians, so it is by definition limited [4] [5]. Commemorative medals on Wikipedia are usually not considered to warrant a category unless they are awarded for merit, such as the Centenary Medal [6]. If elected to office, Abukar will also become the first Muslim in Queensland's Parliament [7]. Middayexpress ( talk) 00:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- OK, first of all, the election was on Saturday, and Abukar lost (as she was always going to). If she had won, sure, she'd be good. Secondly, the Centenary Medal does not qualify under WP:ANYBIO. There are over 15,000 recipients (almost all of whom were awarded in a single year, 2001), and explicitly include things like "community volunteers" and "local government". Given that we have solid past consensus that the OAM ( 21,000 recipients since 1975) and even the AM ( less than 10,000 recipients since 1975) do not qualify under ANYBIO, I cannot see how the Centenary Medal (which clocks in at number 60 out ot 69 on the order of precedence, well below AM at 15 and OAM at 27) can possibly be included. Frickeg ( talk) 00:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- Note also the discussion currently running (coincidentally) which clarifies the Order of Australia stuff. Frickeg ( talk) 00:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. The Centenary Medal is not something that would make for notability on Wikipedia, and the vast, vast amount of its recipients would never pass WP:GNG. Take that away, and she's just an unsuccessful election candidate, whose articles are routinely deleted all the time. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 01:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Merge. As I see it, nobody is complaining about the article content, simply the notability of having the article as a whole. I think it's a waste of people's effort in creating the article in the first place if we just delete it. Given the reason for questioning notability is the "one event" principle, why don't we do as sugggested and move the contents of this article into the relevant event, say, Electoral results for the district of Yeerongpilly in the section for the yet-to-be-created section on the 2015 election and make LA a redirect to that section? This seems a good place to preserve content about failed candidates who don't warrant their own article. For each election, here's some info about the candidates followed by the results. That way, the article can easily be recreated as an article if subsequent events warrant it (the failed candidate may stand for election and win on another occasion), and does not waste the contribution of those who contributed to it in the first place (given we have a global editor decline, I am not in favour of deleting content that appears to be accurate and well-sourced as I think it is seen as a kick in the guts by those who contributed and reduces motivation to contribute again). These comments are intended to apply to any failed election candidate, not just LA who is the subject of this particular AfD. Kerry ( talk) 01:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- I am not a fan of this approach: I think this would be a huge case of undue weight in any of the electorate articles. I wouldn't mind a vastly summarised version of it going into Electoral results for the district of Yeerongpilly and the not-yet-created Results of the Queensland state election, 2015: we discussed a while back adding some text content to these pages by having a paragraph or so about each individual race for more in-depth coverage, and I thought that worked well the couple of times someone bothered to do it. But this is a fairly long article, and if it doesn't stand on its own, there isn't really anywhere appropriate to put it. I'd be borderline about keeping the article if all the references weren't solely in the context of her election candidacy, but as it is I don't think there's a place for it on Wikipedia. Maybe we need an Australian equivalent of Ballotpedia. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 14:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- I don't think it's undue weight to put it into Electoral results for the district of Yeerongpilly. You can't have an elections without candidates! And the present format of just tables of numbers is very dry and Wikipedia is not a stats book WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Real people stand for election, I think having something about the candidates and/or issues is what makes it an article. Not being in Yeerongpilly, I never encountered LA in her campaign but I find her story (now that I have read her article thanks to this AfD) to be a fascinating one. Isn't it part of telling the story of this country and particularly of the electorate of Yeerongpilly that a third of them would happily have had her as their representative in state parliament despite being a woman, a Somali, an Islamic, and a refugee (all of which are "minorities" in the Queensland Parliament)? To the extent we have people willing to contribute (which is the limiting factor in practice), I think we should be trying to tell the "story" of elections as a story of candidates and local issues as well as the numeric results. Kerry ( talk) 23:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  - As I said, I am quite okay with having a hugely-summarised version of this in those articles, as part of a discussion of the other candidates and the local issues, and with appropriate weight given to the others as much as to Abukar. She may be interesting personally (and as said if the independent coverage were stronger or there at all I'd gladly support keeping an article), but I really can't see a place for something like the article as it stands. The problem is this - while real people stand for election - in an electorate that's been around for fourteen years, there are a lot of real people who stood for election, and an article this long would turn those pages into a list of biographies on questionably-notable people instead of an article about the results. Take the 2012 race, which features Libby Connors, a Greens candidate who is probably more notable than Abukar but probably not enough to get her own article: should we make a race where the LNP fluked taking a seat off the ALP about the life of a mildly interesting Greens candidate? Abukar is no more significant this time around. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 00:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:BASIC. Multiple, independent reliable sources have covered her not only with respect to her candidacy but also with regard to her earlier work "on the Council for Multicultural Australia, and the Refugee Resettlement Advisory Council, as well as being a respected campaigner against female genital mutilation" as in this Brisbane Times article from which that quotation is drawn. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 20:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per statements made by Middayexpress and the IP above. AcidSnow ( talk) 04:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - It is ironic that Abukar's notability is questioned, while apparently not that of her far less notable political opponent Mark Bailey. Yes, Bailey won the Yeerongpilly seat and that in itself is notable; but his notability apparently doesn't go much beyond this election, unlike Abukar. Besides her community and governmental work and various awards, Abukar was also a prominent campaigner for women's reproductive health. Middayexpress ( talk) 17:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Even her articles readership is far greater than his. It's almost a 3:1 ratio. AcidSnow ( talk)

What nonsense. Bailey passes WP:POLITICIAN, so his notability is not in question. As for readership, his article was created months later than hers, and she is up for deletion which easily explains the discrepancy. Once again we have the claim that she won "awards", but I've only seen evidence of one. Is there any evidence at all that she is a "prominent" campaigner for women's health? Because I sure haven't seen it. Frickeg ( talk) 19:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Bailey is indeed notable since he won the seat. Despite this, it is rather telling that his readership was roughly a third that of Abukar's on the very eve of the election. Even prior to the electoral race, Abukar was the more prominent figure, having been a member of various national Councils as well as a respected campaigner against female circumcision (noted in the relevant link-thru), and received a Centenary Medal from the Australian government for all her work. That Abukar won other awards is also established [8]. Middayexpress ( talk) 20:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

OK, that article says "several awards", but frankly I wouldn't be taking them into consideration until we know exactly what they are. If the Centenary Medal is the most significant, chances are they're pretty minor. Meanwhile, if she was a notable campaigner against circumcision (or for or against anything else), then there would be coverage of her before she became the candidate for Yeerongpilly, which there just isn't. (Meanwhile, the Bailey comparison is still pointless. His article didn't exist on the eve of the election, because he wasn't notable then.) Frickeg ( talk) 22:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Update: actually, looking into it, Bailey is a former Brisbane City Councillor, which means not only was he probably notable pre-election (Brisbane CC is Australia's largest council, and its single-member wards cover areas similar to state electorates), he was and is far more notable than Abukar. So this argument is doubly pointless. Frickeg ( talk) 22:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

And today's update: he's now the Minister for Roads and Energy. It's a silly comparative argument anyway. Frickeg ( talk) 11:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The Bailey comparison is certainly relevant since he ran against Abukar and his stub indeed existed before the election, as timestamps show [9] (btw, the comparison tool above compares the readership of existing pages). That said, the Crescent link does not assert that the Centenary Medal is the most significant award that Abukar has won; it just indicates that she has won several awards, among which was the Centenary Medal. On the other hand, despite allegedly being far more notable, Bailey appears to have won none. It's likewise fairly certain that Abukar was a respected campaigner against female circumcision since the other link explicitly indicates as much. She was already a prominent figure prior to the election; that's why she won those awards in the first place [10]. Moreover, while Bailey apparently sat on the municipal-level Brisbane City Council, Abukar sat on the Council for Multicultural Australia [11], among other national and statewide councils. Just so it's clear, I agree that Bailey is notable since he did, after all, win the election. It's the notion that he is more notable than Abukar that is not tenable. Middayexpress ( talk) 18:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

He is a cabinet minister. He is unquestionably more notable than Abukar at this point. But the comparison is still pointless; we are not talking about Bailey, we are talking about Abukar. (By the way, I created the stub and I know - it was created the day after the election (1 Feb 2015), as the timestamps clearly show.) Here's the issue: "multiple" awards are being used as an argument for keeping, but not a single source that I've seen says what any of them apart from the CM are. They could be awarded by her high school for all we know. And if Abukar was a "respected campaigner against circumcision prior to the election", then show me coverage prior to the election. Otherwise we are accepting an awful lot from the LNP's candidate profile, which of course talks up her achievements as it does all its other candidates (I'm not saying she's not a worthy person, but "prominent" and "respected" are subjective terms.) Lastly the AMC is an advisory body, and its members are not necessarily notable (indeed, many are not); I've already explained why Brisbane City Council is more than the usual municipal-level council. Frickeg ( talk) 19:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

On the pageview tool - I think it shows views of pages that don't exist? As in, someone ending up at the empty "Mark Bailey (politician)" page before it was created. Either way, per WP:POPULARPAGE, the argument is not a good one; and either way, since Bailey's views yesterday following his ministerial appointment were almost twice that of what Abukar has ever seen in a single day, it won't be long before he outstrips her completely. Frickeg ( talk) 20:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already deleted. G5, A7, B21X, etc. Drmies ( talk) 23:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Supertalent of the World 2015 Season 6

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

Year version that fails WP:GNG of a series that also fails WP:GNG. Mostly sourced by related sourced and written by a clearly involved editor The Banner talk 14:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed as promotional, copyvio, etc. Editor blocked as a sock of the one that produced Miss Supertalent of the World Drmies ( talk) 20:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Miss Super Talent of the World

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

fails WP:GNG. Mostly sourced by related sourced and written by a clearly involved editor. The Banner talk 14:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of Stanford University residence halls. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Freshman-Sophomore College

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

Not sufficient independent significance to necessitate its own page Asdklf; ( talk) 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge to List of Stanford University residence halls. Not separately notable. If this is the consensus, I will undertake the merge. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Has significant and interesting differences from traditional residence halls. Recognizing and explaining these differences and characteristics would not fit reasonably into the layout of the current page List of Stanford University residence halls, making a reasonable merger equivalent to a full deletion. -- EAR47 ( talk) 00:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Also note that Roble Hall and Florence Moore Hall, other dormitories at Stanford University, have similar pages which are regarded to have sufficient independent importance. -- EAR47 ( talk) 00:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

This article already has more information about FroSoCo than any of the halls on the List of Stanford University residence halls page (and comparable content to the main articles on specific halls, as stated above). Gneisss ( talk) 00:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The structure of List of Stanford University residence halls would require putting all the information on FroSoCo as a subsubsubheading (as FroSoCo constitutes part of Sterling Quad), which would result in an unwieldy merger. Gneisss ( talk) 00:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Roble and FloMo have much longer histories, and thus much better sourcing, that FroSoCo, which has only primary sources. However, Sterling Quad may well deserve an article of its own, which would be a better merge target that the list of residences. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge as failing WP:GNG. ElKevbo ( talk) 02:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Sterling Quad is newer than FloMo and Roble so not so much history; it is part of the Governor's Corner complex and all of which was built at the same time [12] so perhaps creating a Governor's Corner article might be a better place. BTW the FroSoCo program was started by John C. Bravman now president of Bucknell. BTW SLE is probably the closest kin [or rival] to it at Stanford. -- Erp ( talk) 03:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I have actually started working on an article about Sterling Quad. Give me a day or two. If I don't find enough sourcing for Sterling Quad I might expand it into Governor's Corner. Something there deserves an article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I believe FroSoCo is worthy of having its own page. The bottom line is, FroSoCo is its own independent residential college on the Stanford University campus. FroSoCo offers unique programs and has its own dean. It has a fairly extensive history that merits its own article. If Roble/Toyon Hall can have their own page, then FroSoCo should definitely have its own. Even SLE has its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.252.4 ( talk) 07:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Not to play the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS game, but you might note that while the ones you mentioned do have articles, many of Stanford's biggest dorms including Stern and Wilbur do not. It's all a matter of how much independent sourcing can be found about the subject. Our guideline is still WP:GNG. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: No original research is necessary (the information is well-sourced), and it does not violate WP:GNG Gneisss ( talk) 10:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Sure it doesnt require original research, but it does not fulfill GNG because those sources yes directly address the existence of the dorm, but do not in-depth cover its unique and notable nature. likewise, all but one are branched off the university's publications, so they only count as a single source. and again, the fact that it is on a map in the one independent coverage doesnt mean it's notable. Asdklf; ( talk) 23:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment I am working on an article about Sterling Quad, which would include pretty much all the information from this article. However, I am having trouble finding independent sources. Possibly it could be expanded again, to be about Governor's Corner. Any of you who want to help with this article are invited to come and edit it at User:MelanieN/Sterling Quad. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm not getting very far with that draft. It has the same problem as this article: lack of independent references. Everything is from Stanford itself with one story from the Stanford Daily. I am still recommending a merge to List of Stanford University residence halls. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Messinger, Eric (2010-07-15). "Hussain to become dean of FroSoCo". The Stanford Daily. Archived from the original on 2015-02-09. Retrieved 2015-02-09.
  The article notes:
  
  The Freshman-Sophomore College (FroSoCo) has a new dean, only the program’s second since its founding in 1999.
  Nadeem J.Z. Hussain ‘90, a professor of philosophy, has been tapped to lead the residential program, which houses freshmen and sophomores on West campus.
  Prior to Hussain, FroSoCo has had only one dean, its founder John Bravman ‘79 M.S. ’81 Ph.D. ’85.
  ...
  The FroSoCo program itself is in no danger of being scaled back in the wake of Bravman’s departure, according to administrators. Instead, according to Etchemendy, the University is looking into initiating more programs similar to FroSoCo in upcoming years.
2. Freeman, Kaden (2011-02-11). "Finding FroSoCo". The Stanford Daily. Archived from the original on 2015-02-09. Retrieved 2015-02-09.
  The article notes:
  
  According to the Stanford University Residential Education website, FroSoCo, or Freshman Sophomore College, “provides the vibrant residential intellectual community of a small, elite, liberal-arts college while providing enhanced access to the academic resources of one of the world’s premier research universities.” But where did this idea come from, and what exactly does that mean?
  The program was implemented during the 1999-2000 academic year by John Bravman, the former vice provost for undergraduate education at Stanford. Bravman wanted to add a residential component to undergraduate education at Stanford, and he did so by combining two traditional Stanford dorms—Adams and Schiff—to create the college. Bravman acted as the college’s dean until 2010, when he left Stanford to become president of Bucknell University. Dr. Nadeem Hussain ’90 took over Bravman’s position and now lives with his wife across the street from the college.
3. Carr, Katherine (2015-05-27). "FroSoCo dorm offers residents student-taught seminars". The Stanford Daily. Archived from the original on 2015-02-09. Retrieved 2015-02-09.
  The article notes:
  
  The berries were provided by James Ousey ‘16 at a small student-run class called “The Chemistry of Taste” that he taught at Freshman Sophomore College’s (FroSoCo) Sophomore Fellows (SoFo) program earlier this month.
  So far this year, seven SoFo classes have been taught on subjects ranging from calligraphy and podcasts to space exploration and murals. The student-run classes are about an hour long and are usually attended by six to 15 students.
  SoFos began in FroSoCo in 2001 to increase the intellectual vitality of the community.
4. Toman-Miller, Mary Ann (2012-02-14). "FroSoCafé". The Stanford Daily. Archived from the original on 2015-02-09. Retrieved 2015-02-09.
  The article notes:
  
  While Freshman Sophomore College (FroSoCo) may be known on campus for its quiet and studious environment, on one evening every quarter, FroSoCafé brings lively discussion in a special format to the West Campus dorm.
  Hosted by Nadeem Hussain, dean of FroSoCo, at his residence, FroSoCafé brings students together to discuss a variety of intellectual and personal issues at five to six cafe tables, each with its own unique discussion topic.
5. Oblinger, Diane (2006). Learning Spaces. Boulder, Colorado: Educause. ISBN 0967285372. Retrieved 2015-02-09.
  From https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/P7102cs22.pdf^WebCite:
  Freshman-Sophomore College (FroSoCo) GroupSpace: The third GroupSpace location is in the residence computer cluster of FroSoCo, home of 185 freshmen and sophomores interested in broad intellectual exploration of the liberal arts and sciences. The space is available 24 hours for FroSoCo residents and their guests. Seating for up to three is available in the same con - figuration as the Toyon GroupSpace. It is integrated into the existing computer cluster, which is equipped with eight PCs and Macs, a laser printer, a scanner, and whiteboards.
6. Barron's Guide to the Most Competitive Colleges. Hauppauge, New York: Barron's. 2001. p. 461. ISBN 0764112724. Retrieved 2015-02-09.
  The Google Books search snippet notes:
  The new Freshman/Sophomore College allows students to live and study together for two years. Physical Description Outside of the ...
  The rest of the text is cut off, but it is likely to be significant coverage because the next heading is "Physical Description".
7. Spiro, Ian (2005). Stanford University. Pittsburgh: College Prowler. p. 51. ISBN 1596581239. Retrieved 2015-02-09.
  The book notes:
  
  Freshman-Sophomore College (FroSoCo)
  Floors: 3
  Total Occupany: 185
  Bathrooms: Shared by Floor
  Co-Ed: Yes
  Percentage of First-Year Students: 50%
  Room Types: Two-room doubles
  Special Features: Lounge, Grand Piano, TV, DVD, VCR, Ping-Pong, Pool Table, Laundry; residents receive special funding for extra activities
Analysis of sources

The four articles from The Stanford Daily provide substantial history about Freshman-Sophomore College. One discusses the Sophomore Fellows (SoFo) program, and another discusses FroSoCafé. The book sources provide the independent coverage necessary to demonstrate that Freshman-Sophomore College is notable.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Freshman-Sophomore College to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 22:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Question, would we consider the sources from The Stanford Daily, a student run paper from the university itself, to be sufficiently independent enough to qualify as WP:RS in this case? My gut feeling would be no, but I'm happy to be corrected by someone with more detailed knowledge of the university. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 13:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC). reply

I was going to say the same thing. In the past we have usually held that reporting about a college subject in that college's newspaper does not establish notability (although it can certainly be used as a source of facts). If something is written about there but nowhere else - not even the newspaper of the nearby town - it suggests that the topic is of importance only to people connected to that school. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Freshman-Sophomore College has received significant coverage in several books in addition to The Stanford Daily articles. Per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Cunard ( talk) 20:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge into Stanford University or one of its many sub-articles. Subject has not received significant coverage in multiple non-primary or non-secondary reliable sources. Yes there is mention in secondary reliable sources, and there is significant coverage in at least one tertiary source, but one source IMHO does not met the requirements set forth in WP:GNG. Therefore, since its existence can be verified, and it falls within the scope of the article Stanford University it should be included in that article or one of its sub-articles. If more than one tertiary reliable source can be found that gives the subject significant coverage my opinion can be persuaded.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 06:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I'd argue that the book sources provide significant coverage about the subject—enough to meet WP:GNG. But a merge would be fine with me too. Cunard ( talk) 20:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge to List of Stanford University residence halls or an appropriate subarticle. Even if this special theme dorm technically passes GNG, it's not unusual or distinctive enough to warrant a separate article when there's room for the content in the broader coverage of residence facilities. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 18:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Natela Dzalamidze

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

This player is not notable by project standards; she has no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category, had no remarkable junior career (neither a Grand Slam champion nor ranked within the world's top 3), and there are no further claims that she is otherwise, at present, generally notable.

NB: This article was already in Category:Expired proposed deletions before the PROD tag was removed without reason, which is the only reason I'm taking this to a full AfD, despite the PROD tag being in place for eight days, as opposed to the usual seven. Jared Preston ( talk) 19:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 12:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Not notable by standards of WP:NTENNIS. Fazzo29 ( talk) 12:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Nothing notable here. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 18:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Harold HyunSuk Oh

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

Biographical article of a living person with no identifiable reliable independent sources Fiachra10003 ( talk) 17:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - this article is not even wrong, it fails verifiability. This person is not a major player in the energy law field, and badly fails the Prof test. Bearian ( talk) 23:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 12:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Lots of puffery, but no indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Sam ^Sing! 00:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Boxxy

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

second nomination, not durably notable, most of the article is announcements of self-published videos. This is the second nomination, several strong cases for deletion were made in 2009, and this article hasn't aged well in 6 years Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 11:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep as an extremely notable meme / fictional character, Passes WP:EN & WP:GNG, Are we going to nominate Earth next?.... Also the delete !votes are utterly pointless in every sense of the word - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion, Someone should close this as a clear Keep as it's not going to ever be deleted anytime this century. – Davey2010^Talk ~~13:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)~~ 21:53 22 February 2015 reply

I've moved this to third nomination as 2nd nom already exists, so obviously this is a third nomination not second, Cheers, – Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, its time of relevance has passed. Blah2 ( talk) 00:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete There's really no need for this kind of thing. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 01:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep. Lol, those may be the most absurd "deletion" rationales I've seen all week. 'No need' for pokemon characters either, but here we are just the same. This topic has an immense amount of coverage in major newspapers like The Guardian, the only possible reason I can see to delete would be for "unambiguous advertising." the page, however, is nicely written. Earflaps ( talk) 06:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep The subject is significant in the Internet culture. 138.199.65.225 ( talk) 09:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep References in the article show more than enough notability per WP:GNG.-- cyclopia ^speak! 21:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 03:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Roy Williams (boxer)

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

Non-notable boxer ( WP:NBOX. Essentially an unreferenced BLP - only the fight record. Peter Rehse ( talk) 10:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 10:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Lacks sources and winning a state boxing title is the highlight of his career. That's not enough to meet WP:NBOX. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete No sources to meet GNG and no achievements that meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa ( talk) 19:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 03:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Mirror short film

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

I can't find anything to show that this short film ultimately passes WP:NFILM. The film seems to exist, but it hasn't received any coverage in reliable sources or any notable awards. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: fails WP:NFILM. Seems to be a student project, with article created by one of the film's makers. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 10:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. I prodded it as it failed WP:NFILM, the director appears to be unknown, the studio appears to be unknown, the short is still to be release, and nothing has been added that changes my impression that it won't live up to NFILM. -- Sam ^Sing! 10:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Coffee per CSD G7. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Kizzie Alexander O'Callaghan II

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

No reliable independent sources for the alleged crime boss/crime family. FYI It was indeed me first nominating G3, then change to A7, and finally (silently) condoning the creator removing the A7 on their own. My mistake for the haste and not realizing both CSD doesn't fit. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 08:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete it is not so much "no reliable independent sources" that no sources at all. I got no relevant google hits at all (outside WP) for the title and no source is given, so unless someone comes forward with even a hint of a proof, this looks like a WP:HOAX. Tigraan ( talk) 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - if it's not a hoax, and I suspect it is, then it's so badly written that there really is no alternative but to burn it to the ground and start again. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 22:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as WP:HOAX. - War wizard90 ( talk) 01:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete probable hoax. Cavarrone 12:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 17:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Priya Sunuwar

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

Winner a non-notable beauty pageant. There are no secondary sources cited. Google does return some hits [13] none of which seam like reliable sources to me. Fails WP:GNG. Vanjagenije ( talk) 11:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

DELETE - She won a brand new pageant of extremely dubious notability (ie, not at all). Even if the pageant itself was notable, this person would only really rate a name-check on its page as the 2015 winner, with her page a redirect to the pageant page (unless there were other reasons for her to be notable). Mabalu ( talk) 14:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no news coverage. Consensus has determined that the Miss Sunuwar 2015 award doesn't fall under the catoegory of "well-known or significant award." ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Sunuwar Nepal) so fails WP:BIO as well. -- ceradon ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - no indication of significant RS coverage and the award she won has itself has been deleted. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 15:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 17:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

GeoResonance

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

Not notable. Only information in the company is own web-site and a few news articles they appeared in for making a claim that doesn't rise to the level of notability in and of itself. Sockatume ( talk) 15:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - This company get mentioned a whole bunch of times in relation to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Disregarding references which deal with MH370 leaves virtually no mentions; hence, I think this arguably a WP:BLP1E type situation. NickCT ( talk) 16:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - I'm inclined to agree with NickCT. Coverage of this company seems to revolve around the coverage of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight. (Though WP:BLP1E isn't exactly relevant since that pertains to biographies of living persons) Notability is not temporary. When the coverage of the Malaysia flight died down, as it has, coverage of this company died down as well. -- ceradon ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Basically a WP:NOTNEWS judgment (though not expressly cited); WP:BLP1E does not apply to authoring and having a book published. postdlf ( talk) 21:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Yashvardhan Shukla

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

This author was the subject of a brief profile in Outlook ( republished in The Hindu) last August, but one profile isn't enough to meet the notability standards. — Neil P. Quinn ( talk) 16:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete -Firstly, it is not a profile. It is an independent coverage in secondary, reliable source. Profile is something like a 'database' entry, no story but like a cv or resume. Coming to the point, Yashvardhan Shukla has received kind of coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources such as, - Dainik Jagran, The Hindu, Indian Express, The Navhind Times, Odhisha Samaya, Outlook.

Five out of seven sources (last fives), are re-print of any one among them. It appears to be a news story that went on newspapers from 26 August 2014 to 29 August 2014. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR -because none of the sources has published review/critical commentary on book authored. It fails WP:BIO too -for WP:BLP1E -being notable for only one event, authoring a book at the age of 13 (all sources are centered around -subject turns author at 13). Did I miss something? Let me know, I am open to amend my !vote. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 17:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I use the word 'profile' to mean a news article which profiles a specific person. In this case, I agree that the profile is a reliable secondary source (but only one, no matter how many times it's reprinted).— Neil P. Quinn ( talk) 21:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep -This particular author has a notable personality. He has been interviewed by News Express and DD National. His book's page on Facebook [14] has more than 3500 likes. His book has been identified by Google and is available on Amazon.in [15]. User:davidblues291278 — Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC) — davidblues291278 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 15:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Per Anupmehra - all of the news sources are basically drawn from the same article, which is a soft-news story put out by a wire service. Other references are sites directly connected to the author, simple database entries or clickbait-type sites. No evidence the book itself is widely read or reviewed, and the fact that the author was so young (the primary focus of that news story) does not in itself make him notable. Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) – Davey2010^Talk 02:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Max Schrems

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

I feel this article does not meet the Basic criteria for notability for people. Specifically, the only thing this person has done is launched a class action lawsuit against Facebook. The only major edit to the article is a single user. I have already proposed the article for deletion which was removed by this editor, claiming that google search results (for a common name) indicate notability, which goes against my understanding of Wikipedia's notability policy, so I am now bringing it to the AfD noticeboard. -- Padenton ( talk) 07:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. The template said it was all right to remove it providing an explanation was placed on the Talk page, which I did. Alongside the 340,000 hits on his name, the overwhelming majority on this individual (by page 10 they are still all on him), we can cite the multiple sources, including all the major news outlets and tech orientated websites, here at Slate for example. There's the two other wiki projects articles I mention, the German and the Danish. By no stretch of the imagination can this be regarded as a single issue article (and in fact there are two court cases pending, the CJEU case as well as the Vienna class action as the article lede makes clear). I'm not sure how viable the class action is, but I can assure the templater that the CJEU case is likely to be a landmark judgment if it is accepted. What is at issue here, the privacy issue, strikes at the very heart of the ongoing debate about public security in the face of terrorist attacks. Finally it's presently a stub and it's not unusual for stubs to be edited by a single user in the early days. If the templater feels the stub needs improvements, they are welcome to provide them.

Looking at the templater's contribution record I see a few edits stretching over the last three years, the last dozen or so related to Facebook. This would seem to be their first nomination for deletion. They are entitled to their 'feelings' of course, but I frankly find their intervention both vexatious and time-wasting. c1cada ( talk) 09:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

My contribution record is irrelevant unless you are claiming I have done this in bad faith. I do not deny I came across this stub while looking through a few of the articles related to Facebook, how else would I have come across this article? It says here in Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper #3: "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event". Again, the number of Google search results don't make a subject notable. A lot of Google search results are just spider websites that duplicate others. Then there's the fact that Google also includes results that are only partial matches. There's also a town in Austria called Schrems, it is also not a rare surname. 'Max' is short for 'Maximilian', the 3rd most common boy name in Austria, and quite popular elsewhere in the world. So your repeated claim that Google search results are all (or even mostly) about him is nowhere near likely. Furthermore, I admit I am skeptical that you have gone through and read every single link that you claim is about the subject. The future possibility of a landmark judgement if a case is accepted doesn't make it a landmark case before it is heard. Anyone can launch a lawsuit. And if it eventually became a landmark judgement, it would fit better in an article being named after the case itself (like the vast majority of legal articles on Wikipedia), not an article about a single person. Issues of privacy and public security in the face of terrorist attacks do not make one person notable. As for providing improvements to your stub, how would I do so, given that the only thing about Max Schrems is his involvement in this lawsuit which hasn't even begun? -- Padenton ( talk) 17:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

What I was suggesting was that perhaps you weren't very experienced in this kind of nomination. It's a fair point to make because whatever your beef about the encyclopaedic value of the article, the grounds absolutely can not be WP:NOTABILITY which starts with the bottom line: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" (observe by the way that is a relevant guideline I am quoting). Max Schrems has been multiply referenced in good quality secondary reliable sources and I provided primary sources in the external links as well. There's no question he's not notable. What you have done is move the gate posts with your "not a newspaper" concerns. Those aren't valid either. The German wikipedia had an article up on Schrems up for nearly a year before I made the article start in the English Wikipedia: old news thus. You may not have heard of Schrems before your recent 'look' at Facebook articles, but I damn well have (along with some 25,000 like-minded plaintiffs) and have been following the progress with interest. I don't believe I have more to contribute here, and I'll be surprised if you (genuiinely) have either. c1cada ( talk) 23:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. He was previously in the news in 2011 for demanding and receiving his records from the company; I found a 2012 Forbes article and expanded the article backwards from the current lawsuits. Meets GNG. Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep It might be a fine policy to have that anyone only mentioned in connection with Facebook is inherently not notable. However we seem to be stuck with a guideline that a topic is presumed notable if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and a policy that we should not have articles about low-profile living people only notable for one event. This guy is notable, is not low profile, and I count all this as more than one event. Thincat ( talk) 00:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - The sources available easily pass WP:BIO, and that there are several from 2012 and several from 2014 show sustained coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle ( talk) 09:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Carlos Galvan (rapper)

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

Redirect to Uptown (band) was removed by page creator. Carlos Galvan was redirected to Uptown as well. Non notable singer Gbawden ( talk) 06:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.— ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete fails to meet notability requirements for musicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Chocolate Chatthi

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

I'm nominating this for AfD rather than CSD because I know it can be notoriously difficult to find WP:RS for Indian-related topics. However, I can't find any mention of this drink in a regular Google search or on any of the customized Indian news searches recommended at WP:INDAFD. If someone can show some type of notability I will withdraw my nomination. - War wizard90 ( talk) 05:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 05:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 05:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete -Unable to find any reliable sources. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 23:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - seems to fail WP:GNG. Cannot find any sources at all. By extension, since I can't seem to find any sources at all, it also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- ceradon ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 18:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Battle of Pat To

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

Article fails WP:RS and WP:V, as with the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao the article uses the same non RS dating 20+ years after the supposed events took place and the claimed casualty figures of 570 South Vietnamese killed or captured for the loss of 3 North Vietnamese is simply implausible Mztourist ( talk) 04:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete -- In the context of the Vietname War, I doubt that an engagement between one battalion on each side is that significant. Furthermore, I am extremely dubious of the objectivity of the press in a totalitarian state, which is presumably where the two newspaper articles cited were published. I find it difficult to beleive that such an engagement was not reported in newspapers on the other side, though they may well call it something else. If more sources can be cited, please let me know and I will reconsider my vote. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - It was an entertaining read, especially the part "our infantry lost to aviation and artillery support? must be a traitor in our ranks!". Remind me of good ol' USSR. More seriously, this fails WP:V and WP:IRS in every possible way before even considering notability - one single source that is very dubious. Tigraan ( talk) 13:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete because of the dubious source. If this were a solid source, it would be worth keeping; retrospective articles in reliable news media are definitely solid indicators of notability. Nyttend ( talk) 14:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:HOAX. No non-primary reliable sources verify the subject of this AfD's existence. Therefore, it is dubious that this event even existed.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

DJ Mark Campbell

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

Don't believe he meets WP:MUSBIO - lacks reliable sources and I believe he fails GNG Gbawden ( talk) 14:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - looks to be just a local DJ, I checked several google pages and the only third-party source I could find was a minor mention in The Stranger. Earflaps ( talk) 06:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

JNetDirect Incorporated

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

Delete: Does not qualify WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) @ 20:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquise) @ 20:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 20:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh 666 05:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Maleke

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

Tentative delete. I assume this article should fail WP:BLP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)

18:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by a subject of an article fails WP:BLP?. Sorry, are you in anyway familiar with the differences between WP:POLICY and WP:GUIDELINE? Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, WP:What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons are wikipedia's policies regarding content. In particular, WP:BLP is a WP:POLICY and subject of an article cannot fails a policy but its content may sometimes violate a policy such as a case of WP:COPYVIO but WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSIC and so on are guidelines that subject of an article can fail. In addirion, I don't think its appropriate to assume that subject of a wikipedia article is not notable. I think this policy should define the notability of a subject before bringing it here for a consensus to be reached rather than to assume that a subject of an article is not notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (gossip) @ 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep– Subject of the article meet WP:GNG. It has been the subject of multiple independent Reliable sources. I found this Vanguard Newspaper, The nigerianvoice, Thisday live Newspaper, ITV Radio Nigeria, NewsWatchTimes Nigeria Newspaper and this Nigerian Newspaper to point out few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Now it meets WP:BASIC.-- Antigng ( talk) 08:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Greeks in Saudi Arabia

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

As requested by unregistered editor User: 58.106.224.45 Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Requester wrote: 1. The article describes some non-notable Greek individuals who operated in Saudi Arabia. Their numbers appear very insignificant to be mentioned as an expatriate ethnic group of significance. If there are a handful of Mongols living in Australia, who are themselves of little note, impact, or influence, should they then have their own article on Wiki? 2. The one source that is used is very obscure. 3. Even the modern Greek expatriate population in Saudi seems non-notable, so i highly doubt more notable Greek communities would have been attracted to the region before the oil boom. Mainly, my argument is that even if we could find better sources, this community - whether historical or contemporary - just doesn't appear to meet notability standards. Thanks.58.106.224.45 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Consider delete or redirect - Article does not provide evidence of notability of the Greek community. If there is an article on non-Saudis in Saudi Arabia, redirect instead. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - the presence of non-notable characters in the article is a matter of WP:NOTCLEANUP. However, even if (individually) notable Greeks were present in Saudi Arabia in large numbers, this does not tell whether Greeks as a group are notable there (it would at best warrant an article Famous Greeks in Saudi Arabia). I would have !voted to merge with Greek diaspora had there been any relevant sources, though, and should the article make a credible claim about notability of Greeks as a group in SA, I would change to keep. Tigraan ( talk) 13:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh 666 05:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Haile Tilahun Gebremariam

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

Don't believe that he is notable. Is head of mission as notable as an ambassador? Gbawden ( talk) 09:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. He is definately notable. His position is as commander of the UN force in Abeyi, effectively governing the area. His past positions as Minister of State and commander of Ethiopian Air Force are definately notable, see http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sga1542.doc.htm . See also http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/28/world/ethiopia-base-and-2-towns-said-to-fall-to-rebels.html , https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.ethiopia.misc/4AzKToQaALw -- Soman ( talk) 21:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment, see also https://books.google.com/books?ei=dzjVVMSuB8bPaN3EgaAB p. 123. -- Soman ( talk) 21:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Clear Keep as a general officer per WP:SOLDIER and as a minister per WP:POLITICIAN. I appreciate these details weren't in the article when it was nominated. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 02:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep; the defence minister easily passes WP:POLITICIAN. I strongly doubt that Gbawden would have nominated this for deletion had it been in its current condition when it was nominated. Thanks to Soman for improving the article significantly, as it definitely didn't demonstrate notability when it was nominated. Nyttend ( talk) 14:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep, as a general officer and as a nation-states minister/secretary of defense/war the subject is notable per WP:SOLDIER & WP:POLITICIAN.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 18:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Vazquez Hermanos Circus

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Only one of the references could be regarded as an independent source, and that one does not constitute sufficient coverage. (A PROD was removed without any reason being given.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 11:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: The article is atrocious but I think there's enough to get past WP:GNG, the source in the article plus: [16] [17]. I'll clean up the article if it's kept. Vrac ( talk) 13:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. Per Vrac, and other examples of English-language sources include [18] [19] [20] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 18:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 02:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Carolyn Mackenzie

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

WP:BLP, relying exclusively on primary sources like her own Twitter and her bio on the "our personalities" section of her own employer's website, of a person whose main claim of notability is as a local television news anchor in a single media market. This is not a claim of notability that entitles a person to an article under WP:JOURNALIST, if properly reliable, independent sourcing isn't there to support it — if a television journalist is associated with anything below the national news division of a national television network, then you need a "more notable than the norm" claim (e.g. winning a notable journalism award), or a volume of coverage substantive enough to vault them over WP:GNG, to get them into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - Additional sources have been added. Magnolia677 ( talk) 00:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You added two sources, of which one is a journalism school newsletter and the other is a "celebrities show off their homes" puff piece in a newspaper's Homes & Condos section. And you're still relying on a "PR bio on the website of her own employer" for source #3. So no, you're still at exactly zero valid sources — Wikipedia requires verification of notability via reliable, independent and substantive media coverage, not merely verification of existence in absolutely any web page you can find that happens to have her name in it, to keep articles about living people. Bearcat ( talk) 01:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 21:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Joseph Matheny

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

Article was PROD'd and possible interest-conflicted sockpuppet editor removed PROD without changing any article text or explanation. Maximilianklein ( talk) 22:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 3. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Subject seems to satisfy WP:GNG. Article needs much work, but that is not a deletion criteria. Safiel ( talk) 05:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Below is my analysis from the Talk page: This is the third time (by three different authors), that this page has been suggested for deletion in 9 months. Below are some data points:
- Setianson's contributions are mostly about this article or books written by the subject of this article. (deletion indicated (strong), this is probably WP:SPIP)
- The most recent proposal is by an editor that has only one edit. (deletion not indicated (weak))
- Kinsella's book is based on a Master's Thesis. I work in academia and getting a book published from a Master's thesis is not hard. (deletion indicated, Amazon rank is #3,701,112, which is low. I have book that has sold less than 1000 copies and it is #1,938,778. Yeah, Amazon rank is not a perfect, it does give us some information.)
- The McMahon/Games citation is not online and searching for that title brings up pages authored by Matheny at the top of the list. (deletion indicated (weak))

Upon reflection, I don't feel that Matheny is notable, see WP:AUTHOR. If he is, then I have a very long list of people who are far more notable. Cxbrx ( talk) 16:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Article needs some better sourcing, but subject seems notable at the very least for Ong's Hat. I would say merge to Ong's Hat, except it seems likely a second claim for notability could be made via his other materials, so we would end up just splitting them again. Earflaps ( talk) 08:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Requiem (Killing Joke album)

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

Does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley ( talk) 23:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - So far I've found just one review for the album: AllMusic. That might not be enough to establish notability on its own, but it's a start. — Torchiest ^talk_edits 11:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep with the review from AllMusic establishing notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The Allmusic review can at least let this survive as a stub. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Soft delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Stanley R. Zupnik

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

non-notable per WP:BIO Deunanknute ( talk) 22:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I agree on non-notable, but it's certainly true that there are not enough quality sources readily available. Two sources I found on Google books (which are not actually accessible, even though they are searchable), seem to indicate that he was the builder of Rosslyn Station (from Subway Magazine, Spring 1974, as cited in The Great Society Subway by Zachary Schrag). If there were good sources on this, I think we'd have to say he was notable. Regardless, I understand the reasons for deletion. If this occurs, we should delete his entry on Żupnik disambiguation; his dead link there was the reason why I created the page. Jeremiah ( talk) 18:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jaw) @ 21:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - based on past outcomes, producers are almost never notable merely for producing one or two films. Their notability is not inherited from the film they financed. Bearian ( talk) 23:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Magasco (Musician)

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

Non notable musician biography. TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (indicate) @ 21:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Sam ^Sing! 00:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Thomas P. Dooley

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

Autobiography of an apparently non-notable person, no in-depth coverage in any of the sources cited. It's a common Irish name, so there are plenty of hits on Google or G-books, but they don't seem to be this person. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1 with a h-index of 25, by my count (and filtering out the people who are not him). He may also pass other WP:PROF criteria. The article needs a serious cleanup, of course. -- 120.23.39.0 ( talk) 21:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 21:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, with the serious cleanup suggested. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 16:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Weak delete. The self-published books obviously don't count. He has a respectable h-index, but in a very high-citation field, and not all of his well-cited papers list him as corresponding author. It's not clear what an "endowed chair" at the Southern Research Institute really means - they do competitive research in some areas, and he's published with their affiliation, but they describe themselves as a nonprofit university-affiliated CRO and a quick look around their website didn't turn up any mention of endowed chairs. Neither of the two companies mentioned seem to have attracted any coverage whatsoever beyond directory listings. His current company is just a compounding pharmacy. (Irrelevantly, "PanX" as a treatment for panic sounds like a Futurama product, not a real pharmaceutical. And it's hardly groundbreaking innovation: http://panx.us/tps-info.pdf.) In all, he might squeak over the WP:PROF line, but lack of independent coverage of any of his diverse range of activities plus the promotionalism makes me lean toward deletion. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Death at the Chapel

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

This does not appear to have enough supportive references to qualify as Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley ( talk) 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (pronounce) @ 21:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW. No use in dragging this out. Nom should familiarize themselves with WP:ACADEMIC. Randykitty ( talk) 12:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

John Aber

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Person is not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I've added more information about this well-known ecologist. Please check again. Thanks -Jocelyn^{Talk to me} 12:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocelyndurrey ( talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong keep per WP:PROF#C5 (holds a "University Professor" title, meaning that UNH thinks he's among their best four professors) and #C1 ( Google scholar profile lists five publications with over 1000 citations, an order of magnitude more than what I would expect to meet this standard). — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Conclusive Keep. To add from WoS; >140 papers with citation counts 2440, 1480, 1410, 847....(h-index 80) conclusively passes WP:PROF c1. It would be good form for nom to withdraw this AfD to save the valuable time of other eds and I'd like to suggest nom adhere to WP:BEFORE in the future. Thanks! Agricola44 ( talk) 16:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Snowball Keep: Besides his notability, which the previous commenters have already proven, I'd just like to note that the article meets the rest of the other criteria for keeping that I can think of, as well, such as referencing and content. Cooljeanius ( talk) ( contribs) 23:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep, per Eppstein. I also do not understand the nomination. The Indian culture of self-promotion makes it difficult to assess Indian academics (who have a tendency to overstate credentials), but not American ones (who generally don't). Le petit fromage ( talk) 10:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to The Avalanches. Article's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Peter Whitford (drummer)

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

Potentially non-notable musician. Nothing shows up on Google. I dream of horses ( T) @ 06:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 07:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 07:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete This article I would say was a close attempt but links such as Rate My Teachers, YouTube, and... what does Ebay doing here? Is he auctioning his drums there? :) Either way, completely non notable individual.-- Mishae ( talk) 18:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete going by present content and sourcing - David Gerard ( talk) 13:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to The Avalanches, who are a notable band, especially if he played on their biggest hit. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 14:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 18:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Total Existence Theory

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

Contested prod. This is an essay full of original research on a non-notable fringe theory. Author has made an effort at sourcing, via copious external links, but in a WP:SYNTH kind of way. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete The theory is non-notable, and seemingly made up one day by the author of this article. There are no references because no reliable sources even mention this topic, let alone devote significant coverage to it. The article is chock full of off-topic external links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, this is complete bollocks from start to finish.— S Marshall T/ C 12:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The total existence theory was first published in December 2010 by WestBow Press. This theory was not just made up. Through research has been done to prevent copyright. WestBow press is not in the business of publishing complete bollocks, since it is against their editorial standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KentuckyFamily ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
~~Keep~~ The Big Bang does not answer the question, what would drive nothing to create something? Created out of emptiness, nothing should only desire to produce more of nothing. An unknown cause does not justify or prove an answer to the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KentuckyFamily ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
I've struck your second !vote, because I'm afraid you only get one per discussion. David Steinecker, I presume?— S Marshall T/ C 19:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day/not a publisher of original thought, etc. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. The only hit on Google Scholar is to a book associated with kentuckyfamily.com. When it gets published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, maybe then we'll have something to talk about. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Thorlabs. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Lab Snacks

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

no actual evidence for notability. The sources are either unreliable or mere mentions. clearly promotional writing, including at the typical cute story about how the product originated DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ – Does not meet WP:GNG. Source searches are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Merge to Thorlabs, which was recently restored. Struck my initial !vote above. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
No idea - this is one situation I feel where our inclusion policies don't really work well. The product is mentioned on pages and pages of blogs, and I cannot believe for one minute they are all biased or connected to the manufacturer. The best sources I can find online are this and this. From that, I see that The New Jersey Herald describes the manufacturer, Thor Labs (or Thorlabs), "one of the top photonics companies in the world", and that Advertiser News source proves it really is the same company that makes Lab Snacks. I can't simply !vote "Merge with Thorlabs" as we don't have an article on them, though if there are more sources like the Herald, we could. I'm not sure how to proceed, other than I don't think deleting is the answer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Userfy Obviously this is an AfC article not ready for mainspace, and it was accepted by an unqualified AfC reviewer, but I don't think an outright delete is necessary. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 00:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was moved to mainspace by a user now banned fro inappropriate AfC reviews, so that is the first problem. that should suggest a return to draft, as it is not the article creator's ( Greendog56) fault. The second problem is the product doesn't seem notable (minimal coverage), but the company that makes it ( Thorlabs) clearly is, but doesn't have an article. Well it did a long time ago, but was PRODed. I think I will restore that article later tonight (and work on it) and suggest this be closed as either merge to that article or return to draft if requested by Greendog56. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 February 2015‎ (UTC) reply

Merging to Thorlabs seems a good solution. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge with Thorlabs as discussed above. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

William earnest bolton

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

Lacks WP:RS and may not be notable--no wait, is not notable. Also has a lot of redlinks. m'encarta ( t) 02:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Another side note: article title is not capitalized well. m'encarta ( t) 02:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as apparent hoax, no Google Books results and the only Google results are Wikipedia pages. Everymorning talk 03:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete a7 at best, g3 at worst.-- Antigng ( talk) 03:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as a hoax. Google has no references to him at all. Snowager ( talk) 21:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar ( talk) 01:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Kansas Notable Book Awards

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

fails WP:GNG. could find no significant third party coverage, obviously having the word notable in its name doesn't confer automatic notability LibStar ( talk) 02:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - could not find any reliable secondary sources, and I would not hold my breath waiting for one. Tigraan ( talk) 13:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - I've only done a quick cursory search for third party coverage, but have already found a few reliable sources. The Emporia Gazette calls it "the state’s top prize for writing". Multiple other examples of third-party coverage include from the Topeka Capital-Journal, Lawrence-Journal World, The Wichita Eagle, here Kansas Public Radio, WIBW-TV, KSNT, Quincy Press, Prairie Village Post, Lawrence.com. And, as you can see from some of these reports, the Kansas First Lady presents these awards every year, which strikes me as notable. I'm sure a harder look would reveal other sources out there as well. This article could use an update with the addition of reliable sources like those above and elsewhere, but there is no deadline for such an update, and the fact that these improvements haven't been made yet isn't a reason to delete it. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- Keep. In addition to the above, numerous authors' biographies also cite to the award: [ Wyatt Townley], [ Ally Carter], [ Candice Millard], [ Denise Low], [ Beverley Buller], [ Nancy Pickard], and dozens more. As do publishers' pages: [ Cornell University Press], [ UNM Press], [ University Press of Kansas]. -- Kgwo1972 ( talk) 19:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep the resources found by the editors above seem to meet WP:GNG.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 22:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Croatian Operational Research Society

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

Minor society with (according to themselves) only 150 members. No independent sources, no indication of any notability. Does not meet WP:ORG. Randykitty ( talk) 15:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

For the same reasons, I am co-nominating the following articles:

Finnish Operations Research Society

Hungarian Operations Research Society

Italian Operations Research Society

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

National Operational Research societies, even small ones (by membership) are important as they form the core of the International Federation of Operational Research Societies (IFORS) and of the Association of European Operational Research Societies (EURO). As such, each of these deserves its own wikipedia article (I don't have time to publish all of them at once, but my objective in the long run is to cover all European societies). Bfortz ( talk) 15:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I think you're wasting your time, mostof these societies do not and will never meet WP:ORG. If there is anything encyclopedic to tell about such a national society, you could conceivably include it in the article on the European or international association (if independent reliable sources can be found). But stand alone articles don't seem to be justified. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

As noted above, National Operational Research Societies are important both nationally and as part of the wider Operational Research community. Some were formed many years ago and all the ones we are uploading have had a rigorous check of their statutes and processes by both International Federation of Operational Research Societies (IFORS) and Association of European Operational Research Societies (EURO). National societies operate as a service to both academics and practitioners within their own country, but also support collaborative practice internationally, so their recognition is important and their contribution to International Federation of Operational Research Societies (IFORS) and Association of European Operational Research Societies (EURO) is valuable even where they appear small in terms of membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahfores ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC) — Sarahfores ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment Notability is the issue here, not "importance", and we should only have articles on subjects that have been covered in depth by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Should this and other nation's Operational Research Societies fail to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG, merging to the European region's article would be appropriate, especially if the scope and purpose of each Society is largely the same. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 16:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment As the president of the Croatian Operational Research Society, I can confirm that the influence of this society to the scientific community can be proved by external links to secondary resources - conferences that we organize, journals that we publish, society that link to us. Please do not delete this page in another few days until we add those links that will support our notability. Marijana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzekicsusac ( talk • contribs)

Comment Mzekicsusac has just added a bunch of external links to the article. Despite their promotional nature or irrelevance, I have left them there for other editors to check. As far as I can see, none of them are independent sources confirming any notability for this society. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

This sounds like a case of WP:BRANCH. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment The page of the Italian Operations Research Society now includes links to: (i) two articles appeared on Corriere della Sera and one article appeared on Repubblica (the two major Italian newspapers) referring to the society and to society members; (ii) the entry of another international Encyclopedia (the Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science) on the history of the society; (iii) the page of http://www.mathematics-in-europe.eu which lists the society among the 9 Italian mathematical societies. I believe these independent sources are an indication of notability of a society that has existed for over half a century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.193.148.167 ( talk) 21:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 2 February 2015 (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) 10:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - as already mentioned by Joy, the Croatian article looks is WP:BRANCH at best, and lacks WP:RS whatsoever. I have not checked the co-nominations (hence the "comment" !vote). Tigraan ( talk) 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep all. Each of these is recognized by the International Federation of Operational Research Societies (the umbrella international organization for this discipline) as the major national society for their country — see the IFORS list of national societies (and in the case of Italy, see the Wikipedia article for the mismatch between what IFORS calls the society and what we call it — it's the same society under a different name). I don't want to suggest that any academic society that calls itself a national-level society is notable, but I think the ones in major disciplines (e.g. the topic of entire university departments) that are internationally recognized by their peer societies as the main society for their country are notable. As for the invocations of WP:BRANCH above: I think it would be a mistake to merge these into the "parent" organization. They are not branches of IFORS (the way AEORS seems to be). They are independent societies that happen to hold memberships in IFORS, in the same way that people and corporations might happen to hold memberships in these societies. In particular, I think that recognition by IFORS should count towards notability as being independent of the subject, because these societies are separate entities rather than being part of IFORS. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- PS As well as the recognition by IFORS, all of these articles now have at least one independently, reliably published, and in-depth source on their history. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though consensus is clear that this list is unworkable as is (perhaps a WP:TNT conclusion), I don't see any consensus against a different attempt at cataloging in list form the contents of Category:Buildings and structures in Seattle, Washington, particularly if done in a list of lists format. postdlf ( talk) 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

List of buildings in Seattle

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

No clear criteria for inclusion. As National Register of Historic Places listings in King County, Washington#Seattle and List of Seattle landmarks already exist, this is basically "things that we recognize that nobody else does" -- and there are items on this list that have moved into one or the other of the above over time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: Indiscriminate list. Could contain anything. p b p 14:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as indiscriminate collection of information already covered with better-curated lists and categories, especially List of Seattle landmarks. Note that there is also Featured List List of tallest buildings in Seattle as well as Category:Skyscrapers in Seattle, Washington and Category:Places of worship in Seattle, Washington, etc. Valfontis ( talk) 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Valfontis asked me to comment, which is probably appropriate because the article is largely illustrated with photos I took. I don't see much use to this, because it is, as others have said, an indiscriminate list. Some of it might form a good beginning for a list Places of worship in Seattle, for which criteria would be clearer. By the way, under the heading "Some notable Seattle buildings are neither nationally registered nor do they have landmark status" are several that are nationally registered or have landmark status, among these the Exchange Building and Pacific Medical Center (the latter registered under its older name). It's hard to see how this is much more than the rump of a category after some other things that meet certain criteria have been removed. - Jmabel | Talk 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep/merge This page is obviously half-baked and the List of Seattle landmarks isn't much better. For example, neither of them yet include Pike's Place, which I've visited myself as it is far more prominent and notable than the assorted old churches and houses. But the topic is clearly notable, easily passing WP:LISTN and so should be kept for further work in accordance with our editing policy. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
The reason the Pike Place Market isn't listed as a Seattle Landmark is that it isn't a Seattle Landmark. http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/preservation/p.htm. It also isn't a single building, which is another good reason not to list it here. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Pike Place Market is so notable that there are entire books about it. The idea that it should not be included in such coverage of Seattle is absurd. If such thinking is behind these ridiculous nominations then they should be dismissed as frivolous. Andrew D. ( talk) 19:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Pike Place Market isn't a building. There are numerous buildings in the Market historical district. Complaining that it isn't in a list of buildings is like complaining that the New York Yankees is missing from a list of baseball players. - Jmabel | Talk

Pike Place Market is a large covered market. It's not like the Yankees; it's more like Yankee Stadium. Yankee Stadium is a complex consisting of a field, the stands, a great hall, concourses, concessions, &c. And it appears in the corresponding List of buildings, sites, and monuments in New York City, just as we'd expect. The only difference seems to be that if your city is on the East Coast or Midwest, you're good but if it's in the Pacific Northwest, you're bad. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Andrew, recycling "so should be kept for further work in accordance with our editing policy" adds zero weight to establishing notability. LibStar ( talk) 02:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Notability is a matter of sources. It's easy to find sources which list prominent buildings in Seattle such as Famous Buildings: A Primer of Architecture or Seattle's Historic Hotels. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in Seattle, Washington. Someone is more likely to type in this title, but that title is clearly defined. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 22:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. It's easily possible for this list to cover all WP:N-qualifying buildings in the city that currently have articles. It can be a mix of "See this more precise list" (e.g. provide links to the NR list, tallest buildings, and locally designated landmarks) and direct links to buildings that aren't in any of these lists. If it becomes too long, just split a bunch of them off onto another sublist. This AFD grows out of one for historical buildings and landmarks in Portland, Oregon, but there's a major difference between the two: we can't easily define which ones are historical and which ones aren't, but anyone with a basic map can decide whether a building's in Seattle or not. Nyttend ( talk) 12:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete because this List article adds nothing to what a Category on the same theme would provide. Yes, I realize lists and categories on the same subject can co-exist and provide great value to our readers, but I'm not seeing it here. Numerous non-notable buildings are included in this list in its current incarnation, and I don't think the cleanup needed here would be a worthwhile use of time. Townlake ( talk) 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:LC items 1-3, 6, 7, and 10. Stifle ( talk) 15:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete list of tallest buildings makes sense. but this list which is turning into a directory by adding red links could end up being every building in Seattle. LibStar ( talk) 02:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. The scope of this list is too broad. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk) 22:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Way too vague. ---- Another Believer _(
Talk) 02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - I think this is actually a useful concept for a navigational index article, although the inclusion criteria are not stated clearly enough: (1) Building in Seattle WITH Wikipedia articles; (2) Which are NOT recognized as landmarks; and (3) which are NOT on the National Registry of Historic Places list. That is a finite and easily-definable set. What we have here is a fairly minor editing of the text that needs to be done. Carrite ( talk) 18:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Roble Regal

We'd appeal that it remains up, we have confidence in the campaign and you never know, he may actually accomplish something. But at the end of the day, you are the gatekeepers and know what is best for this site and its content. I would urge strongly that it remains up. - RegalPR — Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, he is offering $5,000 to find hints to a Paypal account in his music video, and that's pretty much all the coverage he has received and is not enough to satisfy WP:ONEEVENT. This article was created by User:RegalPR obviously a paid public relations account that is simply here to further promote his music video and $5000 promotional campaign, using youtube and paypal to gain popularity is fine, that's not what Wikipedia is for. - War wizard90 ( talk) 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

UPDATE: Just noticed that on the talk page of the article RegalPR states that this is: "It's part of a marketing campaign, all of everything" He may gain notability but this is WP:TOOSOON. - War wizard90 ( talk) 00:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 00:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete-and yeah the guy even admitted it that he was promoting him (when he made a comment about a week ago to me about that), and it seems not much yet. Wgolf ( talk) 00:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete – Per deletion rationale above. Also, I see (possibly WP:COI) an IP removing the {{ COI}} and {{ notability}} tags. Esquivalience ^t 01:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) – Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Valley High School (Dublin, California)

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

~~This is a tweet not an article. giso6150 ( talk) 00:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)~~ reply

Struck, per revised !vote below. ansh 666 03:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete High schools normally get an automatic pass on WP:GNG, however, there is simply no encyclopedic content here. Don't object to an article with this title or about the school, but better to start over and let someone who actually wants to create an article about this school do it (assuming the school actually exists). - War wizard90 ( talk) 01:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Per the improvements to the article below. - War wizard90 ( talk) 01:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 01:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 01:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 01:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. The school does exist: it's the continuation high school for the Dublin Unified School District and its official website is at http://www.dublin.k12.ca.us/vhs . -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 01:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - I've fixed up the article so that it at least resembles a useful stub entry (it took less than 5 minutes, seriously, and I'm not one for content work), and yes it without a doubt exists. War wizard90 and Giso6150, mind revisiting it now? ansh 666 01:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. I've added references and additional info. It's small, but unlike fish, we don't throw them back. A little effort WP:BEFORE would have been nice. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Suburban high school with no claim to notability. The "improvements" provide a primary source as a reference, plus a link to a catalog of high schools. Nothing suggests this subject meets WP:GNG, and the votes provided so far don't provide rationale for keeping other than "I worked on it". -- Mikeblas ( talk) 01:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Per WP:NHS high schools are notable as long as they are verifiable, we have verified this high school exists, and thus it is notable. Also per WP:NHS "As with other types of articles, we do not delete an article because editors have not yet cited their sources, but only if there is no evidence that independent, reliable sources exist" - War wizard90 ( talk) 02:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Also, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Feel free to disagree all you want, but this is what consensus is currently. ansh 666 02:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. WP:PRIMARY states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", as in this instance. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep — This has been fixed sufficiently for my taste. Nicely done. giso6150 ( talk) 02:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES-- Antigng ( talk) 03:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per consensus on high schools. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 05:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. We always keep high schools as long as we can verify their existence. Jacona ( talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Sam ^Sing! 00:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Ibrahim Spahic

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

Okay I just put a BLP prod but then I saw he is a president of a political party. But now, looking over this something is odd. The creator of the page has the same name, it talks about being president of a music thing and it never has had any refs and the only link it goes to is to a music video. Wgolf ( talk) 00:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep. Just click on the "News" link above and you will find plenty of refs to this guy. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 01:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:AUTO and fails WP:SOURCES. -- ToonLucas22 ( talk) 01:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. The article says he was a member of the Bosnian and Herzogovina House of Representatives. This is confirmed here, in an article from the parliament's own website. He therefore clearly qualifies for an article per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. As a member of a national parliament, the subject is notable per WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment-Originally I was going to not put this up until it seemed off and it sounded like he was the president of a music company upon reading it then. Wgolf ( talk) 18:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Sam ^Sing! 00:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Sound BlasterAxx

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

This article is about a USB speaker made by Creative Technology. There is no claim to notability, and none of the references in the article, or that I can independently find, support any notability. All references in the article are to Creative Technology press releases.

Article was created by WP:SPA editor Dinopkk ( talk · contribs), whose sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to the article Creative Technology and articles on its products. I suspect a WP:COI and have warned the editor.

I PRODded the article with the concern "No indication of notability.." It was dePRODded by Graeme Bartlett ( talk · contribs) with the explanation "remove prod is notable", but no further explanation why he felt it was notable, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.

It's just another computer speaker, nothing notable about it, and the article appears to be part of a promotional campaign for Creative Technology using Wikipedia.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound Blaster Roar, just opened. TJRC ( talk) 00:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes I deprodded because of the lack of a justification for non notability in the prod, giving about an equal justification as the nominator. COI is OK as the contributor used AFC, so that is not a reason to delete. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. non-notable commercial product. It won't be hard to find a few reviews, but this product isn't something notable; it didn't change a market, create a platform, or initiate a significant technical shift. Wikipedia is not a catalog. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 01:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

We don't require such dramatic effects for products, merely that others write about it. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep – It wasn't hard to find the reviews. They were on the first page of Google and Google News. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] That's all notability means on Wikipedia – simply that there are multiple, reliable, independent sources that cover the topic in enough detail that we can write an article about it. It doesn't need to be "notable" in the vernacular sense of being innovative or any other arbitrary requirement. I'd also add that although the creator does have a lot of edits about this company, the evidence for COI isn't decisive. It doesn't read like the work of a PR professional. – Margin1522 ( talk) 02:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep there are even more reviews. eg [28] [29] [30] [31], in fact many new article about this product. So WP:GNG is satisfied. Being a SPA or COI editor does not preclude writing content here. The topic itself is important. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep It goes far beyond our notability bar. Antigng ( talk) 17:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep tons of professional reviews of the products exist, making it quite clearly notable. A COI (even if proven) is not a valid reason to delete content. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: All the keep votes so far reference reviews, but WP:Routine reviews do not establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Pax 18:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Um, product reviews are exactly how you establish notability of a product. Routine coverage includes product announcements, but professional reviews are not in any way routine. The vast majority of products never received one, for example. If you are going to quote a guideline, at least bother to read it - neither link you gave lists product reviews. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 04:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

If I may, where does it specifically say that about reviews in the notability rules? If a restaurant can't be notable from a review per WP:Corpdepth, how does one of its dishes (i.e., their product) become notable via a review? (It sounds to me like the wording of Corpdepth should be changed, as right now an apparent contradiction exists). Pax 05:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The restaurant rule is silly (and probably does not reflect actual consensus), but regardless this isn't a restaurant. If the rule was meant to apply to all reviews, is wouldn't specify restaurants specifically. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The rule there wasn't specifically about restaurants (or their products), they were merely an example. And, silly or not, it is presently the listed rule, while in contrast any clear-cut rule establishing general notability for products from reviews is at present conspicuously absent. Given said absence, the other "silly" rule is the closest match. (I would also disagree with some of the other Keeps who argued that product reviews are uncommon, and maintain that in the technology sector in particular, every product is exhaustively reviewed. (Thus my argument for WP:Routine applying.) I would support discussion at GNG for clarifying whether or not general notability is conferred by product reviews. Pax 20:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The restaurant bit never had consensus as near as I can tell, but regardless doesn't apply to non-restaurants. (There is now discussion at the talkpage to remove or modify it.) If there is no specific guideline (my bad for saying rule, there aren't notability "rules" only guidelines), the GNG applies and it says nothing about product reviews not counting. Any yes, reviews are the standard way to establish notability - they will general be the best possible sources. Other RS articles about a product are much more likely to be trivial "routine" coverage - announcements the product has launched or been discontinued, reports of sales figures, sale of the product line to another business, etc. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I agree with Mikeblas that we have too many pointless articles. But the GNG is pretty clear that third party coverage is enough. If someone wants to work on a notability guideline for computing, I'll contribute to that discussion and probably lean toward a deletionist viewpoint. That said, I think it's a bad idea to to use a contentious notability guideline about restaurants in this discussion. I don't see how it's applicable. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. A merge discussion could occur on the article's talk page if people want to see if there's consensus to merge it to Sound Blaster. There's too much coverage in third party sources to warrant deletion. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

[1] ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2864134/I-hate-spending-money-admits-multi-billionaire-ex-wife-Google-founder.html

[1]