Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_February_5 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 February	6 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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 22:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

2013 Tbilisi anti-homophobia rally protests

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

as per WP:EVENT, and WP:NOTNEWS, mostly worked on in the 2 days following this event. This event had no fatalities and involved no long term change, like law changes etc. LibStar ( talk) 23:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep the injuries themselves are not what's of interest, it's the fact that the Orthodox Church incited and participated in the riot and the police reaction. Given most of the coverage will have been in Georgian and perhaps Russian or other foreign languages perhaps the article can be expanded. But it's definitely something that would not be deleted if it happened in Salt Lake City or Rome. μηδείς ( talk) 00:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep, plenty of secondary source coverage from all over the planet. — Cirt ( talk) 13:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

and all the coverage in the article is within 3 days of the event. LibStar ( talk) 11:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle ( talk) 17:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment If there is consensus that this should not be its own standalone article, maybe it might make sense to Merge into another article like LGBT rights in Georgia? Theredproject ( talk) 03:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep, sources indicate notability. (Tip: Anytime someone uses the argument "no laws were changed" in an AFD, you automatically know they are wrong.) Everyking ( talk) 23:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

please read WP:EVENT and no WP:LASTING effect like a law change, no lasting significance of this event. LibStar ( talk) 00:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

My point, in case you missed it, is that if you have to resort to claiming a subject has no lasting significance, your argument is ridiculous—in fact, you are affirming that it is significant, and if it is significant now, well, notability is forever. Everyking ( talk) 01:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

read WP:NOTNEWS, it may get a spike in coverage even worldwide, but that doesn't make it a WP article. it must pass WP:EVENT which you have clearly failed to demonstrate. LibStar ( talk) 01:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

In what sense do you think this article fails NOTNEWS? Everyking ( talk) 02:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't even bother, Everyking. It is User Libstar who needs to show this article should be deleted. If he can't, it will simply be kept, as it should be. μηδείς ( talk) 02:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

as from the sourcing in the article, it hit the news cycle for 2-3 days then no ongoing coverage to meet WP:LASTING. Whenever Barack Obama visits somewhere there's a huge news spike but we don't create articles for every visit he does. LibStar ( talk) 03:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

OK, so let's try to pin this down. Under what circumstances will you change your opinion? If we find a source from four days after the event, will that do? Everyking ( talk) 16:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

please read WP:PERSISTENCE, Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. LibStar ( talk) 02:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Will you stop dodging and telling me to read things I've already read? I asked you a question. I want a specific answer. Everyking ( talk) 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

you don't seem to have read these things, you need evidence of ongoing coverage, or that the event has a long term effect. To date you have proven neither. LibStar ( talk) 22:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Answer the question, please. Everyking ( talk) 12:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

in the time spent arguing here you could have looked like for evidence of persistent coverage . But I presume you've found nothing. Look forward to a response of some evidence to back your keep case. LibStar ( talk) 12:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Why should I look until I know what I need to look for? You won't be specific with me about what sources I could provide that would change your mind. Everyking ( talk) 19:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep This is a notable event per WP:EVENT, for example, The New Yorker analysis What Was Behind Georgia’s Anti-Gay Rally? attempts to put the event in historical context. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 06:32, 12 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Acoustic Sessions EP (RJ Thompson EP)

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

No reliable source or notability and possible advert. SmackoVector ( talk) 05:10, 13 January 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 January 13. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: No reliable sources. SmackoVector ( talk) 11:27, 18 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, — Tom Morris ( talk) 16:49, 20 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, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:35, 28 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, Mr. Guye ( talk) 23:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete already. Stifle ( talk) 17:47, 6 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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Drones (Muse album)

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

The album this article covers hasn't been announced yet. Its sources are reporting a pre-announcement marketing campaign; no album or album title has been announced. WP:CRYSTALBALL applies. Popcornduff ( talk) 23:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. So far it's just speculation. Coltsfan ( talk) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

~~Redirect~~ to Muse discography until there is official confirmation. I don't see a reason why it should be deleted all together. The sources listed in the article agree that it's the album title (and not e.g. a title of a lead single). — Mayast ( talk) 12:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The sources are jumping to conclusions. They use headlines like "Muse confirm seventh album, Drones", but all that's happened, as reported by these sources, is that Muse have used the hashtag "MuseDrones". That could be anything - an album title, a song title, a reference to lyrics or artwork, or just a marketing campaign. I concede that it's likely to be the album title, but until there is an official announcement, I think we have to assume the subject matter doesn't exist and delete the article, not redirect it. We redirect things that exist in some form. Popcornduff ( talk) 13:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

There is the hashtag, and there is the Instagram video, "which reads 'Artist: Muse. Album: Drones'." [1]. Apart from the lead section of the arcticle in question, there is also the "Recording" section that I started, which has little to do with the album title and discusses the producer, recording locations and album themes. That section can be expanded further, as multiple sources on those topics already exist. Maybe the article could be renamed "Muse's seventh studio album" or something, and could say that it is rumored to be titled Drones, but I still think it doesn't need to be deleted. — Mayast ( talk) 14:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

"... until there is an official announcement, I think we have to assume the subject matter doesn't exist and delete the article, not redirect it. We redirect things that exist in some form." – Actually, I think that an official announcement doesn't necessarily mean that the work in question does exist ;) So let me ask this: when should a new article for an album be started? When the album title is announced, when the release date is announced, or when the album itself is released?
What if the album title and the release date aren't known yet, but there are already multiple sources describing the recording process? Per WP:NALBUMS, the subject should be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." In my opinion, that's the case here. — Mayast ( talk) 14:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You're right on a few points here. There have been more things to report than just the hashtag. Obviously the work does exist in some form, but from an encyclopaedic perspective, there's nothing to cover until an announcement is made. The article should be created when we have an official announcement from the band or label of a new album being released and no sooner, and even then possibly only when there's sufficient detail to cover it. It's not enough that we know something has been recorded - we knew Muse started recording stuff months ago but that wasn't the time to make the page. Of course this debate is likely to become redundant very soon when the album is announced and inevitably named Drones. Popcornduff ( talk) 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Matt Mahurin said on his blog that he is the album artwork designer and that the album is titled Drones. Aria1561 ( talk) 16:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Good to know, thanks!. Mayast ( talk) 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, per Muse bassist Christopher Wolstenholme's Twitter: "New album Drones coming soon." — Mayast ( talk) 19:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, The album name and informations are correct, maybe it was a little earlier to be posted on wikipedia, but as of the moment, there is no reason to delete the article. OussDB ( talk) 01:50, 8 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comparison of cloud printing services

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

This article appears to be more in keeping with a website for consumer product reviews than for Wikipedia. I don't see the encyclopedic value of this type of compare/contrast chart. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 22:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete it's unsourced, and the neutrality of it is in question. Geogene ( talk) 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - The article is based upon one editor's arbitrary inclusion criteria, includes non-notable entries, and is based on original research. I am unable to find any reliable sources that make similar comparisons.- Mr X 13:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - WP:OR. Fails WP:V. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 01:00, 7 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. Deor ( talk) 17:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Noble gas (disambiguation)

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

This is an unnecessary disambiguation page. Yesterday, when I came across this page, there were four entries ( see here). Two of them were for non-notable bands with nowhere to link to, so I removed them and subsequently prodded it as a WP:TWODAB. Today, User:Boleyn added three more entries to it to make five entries. However, I don't think any of the additional entries should be included. Here's my breakdown of each of the entries:

1. Noble gas, obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
2. Noble gas compound. This is chemical compound that includes a noble gas. It isn't referred to as "noble gas." Therefore, it is a WP:PTM. The concept has its own section in the main article (see Noble gas#Compounds). From a navigation point of view, we have that entry covered because of that section.
3. Noble gas (data page). Literally, this page is a collection of statistics that was spun off from the main article. Since it is a subpage of noble gas, it isn't an article in its own right and shouldn't be included in a disambiguation. The navigation to that page can be found under the table at noble gas#Physical and atomic properties and at noble gas#See also.
4. Noble gas configuration. Like the article on noble gas compounds, this is a WP:PTM. There is a section in noble gas that describes the noble gas configuration and links to the main article (see Noble gas#Configuration). In addition, this is linked in the see also section.
5. " Noble gas matrix". Again, a WP:PTM, but a weird one because the article that this links to is on matrix isolation and doesn't include that phrase.

Once the last four entries are removed from the disambiguation, you'd have nothing left but the primary topic. Therefore, this page should be deleted. Tavix | Talk 22:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. There seem to be no other notable subjects that are simply called "Noble gas". So, there's no need for this page right now. (By the way, it seems like "noble gas matrix" is a redirect because noble gases are often used in matrix isolation). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I noticed that when I read the article. The "noble gas matrix" redirect makes sense, but I'm still not sure if a matrix isolation that uses noble gases is called a "noble gas matrix." Tavix | Talk 23:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, this is completely unnecessary. None of the articles listed are plausible destinations for anyone searching for the term "noble gas". Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 23:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete; any loss in removing this dab is more than amply made up for by the mere existence of Category:Noble gases. De Guerre ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. A textbook example of WP:partial title matches. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. This would be a WP:DABCONCEPT page, except that the supertopic article already exists at Noble gas. bd2412 T 14:31, 6 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 Opinion polling for the Hong Kong legislative election, 2012. Consensus appears to be to merge the 6 articles and to trim the table coding. v/r - T P 08:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Opinion polling for the 2012 Hong Kong legislative election in New Territories East

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

A table of opinion pollings of 2012 Hong Kong election in one area. It violates WP:IINFO, and there has been no replies on proposed merged which I initiated. George Ho ( talk) 02:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Now if we're discussing one of the constituencies, than the same should apply for all the others, so I'm also nominating the following related pages:

I'm currently unsure whether to keep or to delete. On the one hand, this is very detailed data on single constituencies. If we'd added this kind of data for all constituencies of every single election worldwide, then we'd have to cope with unmanageable, hardly verifiable masses of data. On the other hand it seems like there was quite some media coverage even on the single constituencies, so it might be justifiable, given the importance for the Hong Kong people. Also, it's not fun to destroy the authors' work if unsure. We might want to refine our notability guidelines to avoid that much work being done to be possibly deleted later. -- PanchoS ( talk) 11:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - These articles were split from Hong Kong legislative election, 2012 due to article size. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Sure, but even then it could have been decided to delete the opinion poll tables – not in an AfD discussion, but be anyone questioning notability, due weight etc. Here we have the opportunity to comprehensively discuss all aspects before possibly taking action. -- PanchoS ( talk) 15:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect - Redirect with history to Hong Kong legislative election, 2012 or another relevant article per WP:CHEAP. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge all to Opinion polling for the Hong Kong legislative election, 2012 Creating this new article would bring it in line with Opinion polling for the Greek legislative election, 2015, Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2015 etc. Number 5 7 12:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply
- Reply - All of those articles are completely unreferenced. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  - @ Jax 0677: Which articles? Number 5 7 22:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    - Reply - The six articles being recommended for deletion on this page. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 01:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
      - @ Jax 0677: As far as I can see, every individual poll in the tables in all six articles are referenced with a link to the poll results (rather than an inline citation). Opinion polling for the Greek legislative election, 2015 is referenced in the same way. Number 5 7 08:32, 9 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - If we are going to keep the material, the six articles should be kept separate, as merging them would push the size of the combined material over 300 kB. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply
- @ Jax 0677: Having had a quick look at the coding of the tables, they could very easily be slimmed down, as the majority of the code is totally redundant. As an example, I removed a lot of unnecessary coding in these edits, which reduced the size of the table by almost 38KB. Repeat x 6 and it's a reduction of almost 230KB. As a result, article size should not be a problem. Number 5 7 09:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Reply - If this is the case, then all we need to do is create inline citations to prevent link rot. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:08, 14 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, slakr^\
talk / 04:32, 25 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, Mr. Guye ( talk) 22:21, 5 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

PrintNode

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

Unsourced article about a cloud printing system. I am unable to find any reliable sources to show that the subject meets basic WP:GNG notability. - Mr X 22:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 22:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete basically just a link to the company website. Geogene ( talk) 00:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: The article makes no claim to notability, nor am I finding any from searches. Fails WP:NSOFT. AllyD ( talk) 07:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 6 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. Randykitty ( talk) 10:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Alexis Dufresne

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

Competing as a BJJ blue belt does not meet the notability criteria for martial artists or athletes. She also does not currently meet the notability criteria ( WP:MANOTE) for MMA fighters. Mdtemp ( talk) 18:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 19:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete~~Userfy~~ She has two out of three required for WP:MANOTE with the last this month. Although both are losses this is part of a new division and there is a chance she will have a third appearance soon. I would not have brought this to AfD but since its here. Peter Rehse ( talk) 20:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Released from UFC makes third top tier far less likely. Peter Rehse ( talk) 19:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Userfy seems to be an agreeable option as I believed being a BJJ Champion was sufficient. Dwanyewest ( talk) 23:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Finishing third in a beginners' division does not make her a BJJ champion. She's definitely not notable for her BJJ accomplishments. Mdtemp ( talk) 16:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete She doesn't meet WP:NMMA having lost her only two top tier fights and since she's been released from the UFC it's clear speculation to say she'll eventually get a third top tier fight. Papaursa ( talk) 19:30, 1 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) 21:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and GNG. Don't know why this was relisted since consensus seems clear. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 06:26, 15 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. Randykitty ( talk) 10:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Legacy (Nicky Romero song)

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONG. Vanjagenije ( talk) 12:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:48, 10 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 20:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: I've found these sources for the song after doing a Google search ( [2], [3], [4]). These should be enough for it to pass notability. Kokoro20 ( talk) 22:13, 20 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) @ 13:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per Kokoro20 as well as per these sources [5] [6] [7] [8] - I'll admit they're not the most perfect sources but notability's definitely there. – Davey2010^Talk 17:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

(aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00065300.html ← Apparently this site's blacklisted hence it not being linked). – Davey2010^Talk 17:34, 24 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, Mr. Guye ( talk) 21:57, 5 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 restored. ( non-admin closure) ansh 666 06:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Reality discography

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

I put a prod on this but the guy deleted it-it seems pointless as it is a listing for just a few songs and things. Wgolf ( talk) 21:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge to Reality (rapper) - Merge is already done, but the resulting redirect was reverted. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 21:20, 5 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. Randykitty ( talk) 10:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Kiabacca Wood

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

The existence of this wood is not supported by reputable sources. The LEAP link doesn't mention it, but talks about mahogany instead, for which we already have an article. This link mentions it but says it is the same thing as amboyna, or Pterocarpus burl. Perhaps this article should redirect to one of those, or perhaps it is just a little anecdote that does not belong in Wikipedia at all. Either way, I don't believe that what is on this page deserves its own article. ubiquity ( talk) 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Apparently a non-notable common name for a type of wood, possibly Amboyna. this is the only remotely useful source that I could find. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I work with the Kiabacca team, and our head Chef who use to work as a Pizza Chef in St. Croix swears that Kiabacca wood exists. He cites this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejapage ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Pterocarpus. The Ed Jaffe blog post cited by Thejapage is clearly not a reliable source, and, like the 1872 book, is only the barest of mentions. But it does appear there's some use of this in trade (again), so there's probably no harm in adding it to the already-impressive list of synonyms in the Pterocarpus article (citing the 19th century source), and redirecting this there. I'd have no objections to deleting the current content first; this promotional copy isn't necessary to preserve. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- How you can redirect to an article without reliable source linking the two names? The 19th century source does not say it is Pterocarpus. It says it's is 'amboyna'. And what was called 'amboyna' in 19th century? Also, how you see Pterocarpus' leaves " closely resemble those of the Cannabis plant"? Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, the 1872 book source seems pretty straightforward about the kiabacca = amboyna relationship, and "amboyna" has always referred to a certain form of Pterocarpus wood. As for the content of the current article? Frankly, I'm ignoring it; I'm certainly not advocating to merge this anywhere! Really, though, if this is simply deleted, I won't cry over it. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 22:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Well back, the key here is "form of wood", in this case burl. But our article speaks about leaves of kiabacca "which resemble cannabis", so what the heck is this (besides authors smoking pot too much)? Also, we don't link to articles which do not discuss the redirected term Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

delete. Insufficient reliable references. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Use of sources that make no references to the item make the article suspect. No demonstration that it is of encyclopedic interest. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete for want of actual sources. Neutrality^talk 06:27, 15 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 and redirect to Stuff You Should Know. Randykitty ( talk) 10:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Chuck Bryant

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not much has changed since last deletion. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep as creator. He is the co-host of a podcast that is downloaded more than 1 million times per week and is consistently on iTunes’ Top 10 podcast rankings.^[1] -- Briancua ( talk) 18:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

References

^ Kafka, Peter (May 21, 2012). "Discovery Plans Science TV Show for "Stuff You Should Know" Podcast". AllThingsD. Retrieved 2014-11-15.

The linked article has barely a paragraph talking about Bryant. It is not significant coverage of Chuck Bryant, which is what is needed to show that Bryant is notable. The podcast has its own article. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: Notability is asserted on the availability of reliable sources that attest to it. If you can find secondary sources that describe this person and his work, you could avoid this AFD. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. WP:GNG and the other notability guidelines require that there is significant coverage of the subject. There is lots of coverage of Bryant's podcast, but there is barely any independent coverage of Bryant himself—and the coverage I'm seeing tends to fall far short of substantial coverage. Further, Bryant's career appears to be pretty nondescript, save for this one podcast. Accordingly, he is not notable, and he should not have an article. (I don't think this title should be preserved as a redirect, but I wouldn't protest if the title were redirected to Stuff You Should Know.) — C.Fred ( talk) 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect with possibilities per C.Fred above. There is no evidence presented that the hosts of SYSK are independently notable yet, but given the possibility, I think we want to keep the history. BLAR seems the most sensible option. De Guerre ( talk) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete with redirect. Agree that there are not enough sources to support an own article for Bryant. Would be better to include infos on the hosts in the podcast article. Suggest redirect from Bryant's page to podcast page. Tuluqaruk ( talk) 09:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 7 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Prof. Hari Govind Choudhary

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

Poorly-sourced biography of an apparently non-notable professor. I am unable to find any reliable sources about the subject. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 18:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 18:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 18:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. HJ Nitchell ( talk) 18:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

This user has been blocked for impersonating another user. This is the only edit by this user that I haven't reverted, but you may want to take it with a grain of salt (or remove it altogether, if you think that's right). -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 18:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

It certainly doesn't add much content to the debate. Removing it would cause no harm. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:PERNOM before making votes like that. -- ToonLucas22 ( talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Essentially unsourced, and after listing only that he was a professor (not notable by itself) the article degenerates into genealogy cruft about his family, presenting no notable accomplishments of the subject. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable professor. Buggie111 ( talk) 20:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete -First Professor of Hindi in Bihar, is an unusual claim that being unsourced seems like a hoax. I'm seeing zero results on Google news and books and WP:INDAFD search engines. However being a professor is not itself a inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. Subject fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 20:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Lacks even a single reliable independent secondary source to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and completely fails to assert any possible reason why the subject might be considered notable even in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Though not by itself a reason to delete, I note that the article appears to be an WP:Autobiography by an WP:SPA and that an earlier WP:PROD was contested by an IP editor, also an WP:SPA, quite possibly the same individual. Msnicki ( talk) 21:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Per above and Lacks references. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 02:47, 6 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Oyewole Yemi Joseph

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Does not meet notability criteria for sportsmen, specifically Association Footballers see WP:NSOCCER. PROD was contested based on a claim that the Cambodian top flight is fully pro. This is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Bullshit! The top division in Cambodia is professional. The player played in this professional league in 2011, and will play there again in 2015. User talk:SveinFalk SveinFalk ( talk) 14:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

As stated the nomination, this claim carries no weight unless it is supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. there is no consensus at WP:FOOTY that the Cambodian League is FULLY professional. I note the dissenting editor here attempted to add the league to the listing without either discussion on the talk page or the provision of reliable sources that explicitly noted the FULLY professional nature of the league. Fenix down ( talk) 16:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 7 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Missy Stone

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO. Available sources fail to satisfy the WP:GNG. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 16:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Fails everything. Doesnt pass GNG, doesn't pass PORNBIO, doesn't meet sourcing standards required for a BLP. Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per the accurate analyses above. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 12:51, 12 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Paul E. Kerry

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

Paul Kerry, the subject of the article, has requested via email that it be proposed for deletion (the actual request was sent directly to my personal email, but OTRS responders can view the conversation leading up to his decision here). Notability in this case appears fairly borderline, and in such situations the community has generally honoured requests like this; I am therefore putting this article up for deletion on his behalf. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per request, WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. The FRHistS is a sign of notability but not enough of one that we must keep the article against the subject's wishes. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per Tony. p b p 14:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom and per TTT's reasons. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 06:39, 12 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 Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 02:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

South Point Public School

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

notability not ascertained. Page previously deleted, though rather than deleting nomination for deletion. NJA (t/ c) 09:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, article's only source is its own, apparently outdated website. Could not find any mainstream significant coverage (outlined in WP:GNG) either. StewdioMACK ( talk) 17:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment. This is a non-notable K–8 school. I would suggest redirecting to locality but there is at least one other school by this name. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to its locality or other appropriate target per standard procedure for nn schools as documented at OUTCOMES. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:37, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh -per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 06:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect of course, to locality article to Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh as is the longstanding tradition. Jacona ( talk) 17:16, 7 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Eleanor McBean

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

This person doesn't seem to be particularly notable. She's only really mentioned on alternative medicine/anti-vaccine websites. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:48, 30 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 13:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Seems like we could plausibly have an article on her book (The Poisoned Needle is mentioned in a few recent books on the history of vaccination, e.g. Vaccine Nation and Paralyzed with Fear), but there's not much coverage of McBean herself outside of fringe sites. I am not volunteering to write the book article and keep it clear of woo. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Agree that there could be an article on the book (lots of google hits for it) and maybe someone could redirect her to it, but till then, favor deletion. Also will not write the page on the book (shudder). BakerStMD T| C 21:39, 10 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. There's one "keep" !vote, but doesn't give any evidence for the assertion that better sources are forthcoming. Randykitty ( talk) 10:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Futura (clothing)

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

non notable WP:ORG Deunanknute ( talk) 06:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:44, 24 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 20:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Wasn't able to find much coverage related to brand Cec2020 ( talk) 01:44, 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 13:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Page will keep expanding, supported by better reknown sources. Abmc24 ( talk) 23:37, 9 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. Thanks to article improvements by MichaelQSchmidt. Randykitty ( talk) 10:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Sunico Films

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

Small film production company that produced one film in 1993 and one 14 years later in 2007. Sunico Production seems to be the correct name, but no matter what I fail to find anything but fleeting mention, at least in English. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:CORP. -- Sam ^Sing! 02:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:49, 22 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 20:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Doesn't really meet nobility — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 02:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep as suitable sourced stub article about a film production and distribution company set up to preserve Pakistan's Sindhi culture, language, and traditions through film. The article may never become more than a stub, but that's okay. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Well done! -- Sam ^Sing! 20:34, 1 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 13:04, 5 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 00:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Western Fair Archives list of photographs

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

Wikipedia is not a directory and not an indiscriminate collection of data, and this appears to be both. Does this satisfy WP:LISTN? Are any or all of the 636 photographs collectively notable or is this just a checklist for what is already a category at Commons? --Animalparty-- ( talk) 11:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Pictures of parking lots, crowds and livestock aren't going to do it. Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. No independent notability. Indeed, I'm not sure the article even makes a claim of one. If the closer is feeling particularly generous, perhaps a redirect to Western Fair#Museum and archives, but that section needs an aggressive pruning as well and might not ultimately survive in subsection form. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 13:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Huh! I haven't actually finished editing and Categorizing the article. I was going to delete most of them and I should have used my Sandbox for it but I am working on two other articles there. If i delete all the images from 101 to the end, 1-100 are already on Wikimedia Commons under the Article or Category: Western Fair and are historically important and interesting photos of the Western Fair circa 1923 that's where the accompanying photos came from. I only have 2 hours a day at the Library so came in today to place in proper categories and links. The article Western Fair Archives used to be an article on its own and is now incorporated in the main one for some reason. Haiku Tea ( talk) 14:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Possibly the former article was merged because it violated policies of What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a catalog or database, and not a lot of things, but an encyclopedia. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 21:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Looks like material for Commons, not Wikipedia, so long as the photographs are public domain or freely licensed and so can actually be uploaded there. postdlf ( talk) 23:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I will put the article information on Commons and go ahead and remove it from the Western Fair page connection. I just thought people reading the main article should know about the photo collection. Go ahaead and delete it then. Haiku Tea ( talk) 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: If you want to organize the Archive images apart from the more recent ones, you can simply create a new category within Category:Western Fair. The link from Wikipedia to Commons, for people who would like to find photos, is already present in the External links section of Western Fair. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:20, 6 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Angela Magaña

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

Unreferenced non-notable MMA fighter. Single top tier appearance that was a loss - very little chance of meeting WP:MMANOT is the foreseeable future. Peter Rehse ( talk) 10:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 10:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete:Not notable and not within guidelines. TheMagikCow ( talk) 18:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect:I think it should be redirected to The Ultimate Fighter: A Champion Will Be Crowned to prevent recreation. Dwanyewest ( talk) 01:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I would hope the fact that she doesn't meet any notability criteria would prevent recreation. Papaursa ( talk) 18:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete She doesn't meet WP:NMMA and lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 18:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable MMA fighter and fails GNG. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 18:22, 11 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 per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement: Source url: http://www.vicharamantapa.net/content/node/140 ". NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ಮತ್ತು ಸಮಾಜ

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

Delete: Page by similar name was earlier nominated for deletion as well ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ಮತ್ತು ಸಮಾಜ). Appears that the page was created again. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:03, 5 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 00:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

James Olofintuyi

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

This is a biography on someone who claims to have lived a long time. At best it's crystal-balling whether or not he's that old. There are a few sources, perhaps reliable ones, about his longevity but the other concern is that this is a BLP of a relatively unknown individual. Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Just one of many Longevity claims whose age will never be verified. CommanderLinx ( talk) 18:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete As per nom and above. Fails BLP1E, SIGCOV, CRYSTAL, OR and probably many others. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(
Talk
Contribs)} 04:44, 9 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. - The article is still unfinished but nominating it A MINUTE after creation is Bad Faith in all forms, So I'm closing as Keep in the hope the creator will return and finish it - If after a week or 2 no improvements have been made I have no objections to it being renominated. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 14:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Lori Beth Cunningham

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

Is this in WP:Notability? It makes no mention of what film etc. TheMagikCow ( talk) 07:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Article is very unfinished. This AfD is no more than two minutes from the creation, and I would urge the nom to wait out a bit more too see if it is really left at this by the author. From the links in the infobox she is from the sitcom Happy Days. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 08:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
I say keep just to let the author have a chance flesh it out a bit. Template:Happy Days shows that most of the other characters have pages and I can imagine finding sufficient reliable sources based on the same material. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 5 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 per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://phatlocproperty.com.vn/en/properties-for-lease/retail-leasing/the-vista.html". NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The Vista Apartment

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

This is not notable. TheMagikCow ( talk) 07:42, 5 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 per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.metro-china.org/indexen.asp". NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Rail+Metro China

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

Delete: How is this relevant? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Relevance is not the issue, notability is. I was unable to find coverage in English language reliable sources, other than reposts of press releases resembling this article. I am happy to withdraw my recommendation if good sources in Chinese or other languages are brought forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete G12 Copyvio of [9]. Concept is notable though, which I would recommend searching by its Chinese name as below. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 07:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G12. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ಮತ್ತು ಸಮಾಜ

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

Delete: Written in other language. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete as G12 and tagged as such. Even if it weren't a copyright violation, apparently the article text is nothing more than some sort of paper and thus could either be speedied as A10 or deleted anyway for a lack of encyclopedic content. Either way, this should be deleted. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 07:32, 5 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 and redirect to India's Raw Star. Randykitty ( talk) 10:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Mohan Rathore

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

Delete: Person not notable; fails WP:BLP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: Agree, only a winner would be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagikCow ( talk • contribs) 07:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect to India's Raw Star per WP:ATD-R. There are some coverage on subject such as, - [10], [11], [12], [13], but these are simply not adequate to help subject reach the WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG standard. Since there are quite a few short/passing mentions of subject in relation to their singing talent at "India's Raw Star", a redirect seems to be a better option than deletion. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 14:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, although I have no objection to a redirect. Neutrality^talk 06:28, 15 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 obsolete units of measurement. A listing at the disambiguation page roll was added as suggested below. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 21:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Roll (unit)

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY - War wizard90 ( talk) 06:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The article is bad but the topic is notable. TheMagikCow ( talk) 07:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Could you please give an example of how it is notable, rather than just saying it is notable? One reference to a questionable Cardelli encyclopedia does not establish WP:N, also, how will this be expanded beyond a dictionary definition? - War wizard90 ( talk) 00:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. - War wizard90 ( talk) 06:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment. Perhaps we could tackle these unit article with some bold merging, rather than all these AfDs. -- 120.23.39.0 ( talk) 07:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment We tried that already, it was closed as no consensus due to too many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit) - War wizard90 ( talk) 00:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Oh nevermind, just realized you meant merging the pages and bypassing the AfD process all together, I wouldn't mind that but given that some of these units have been controversial I felt it was best for each article to be discussed on it's own merits. I'm too involved at this point, but if another editor wants to be bold and merge or redirect these articles, I for one won't stop them. - War wizard90 ( talk) 01:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per above. VegasCasinoKid ( talk) 10:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars. The encyclopedia "...combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". This entry is such that one would find in an almanac. No prejudice against a merge somewhere. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - I would also support a merge/redirect to List of obsolete units of measurement. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep If the nominator had included the definition in Wiktionary I would have had more sympathy with this AfD. As it is it seems merely destructive. Of course if the information is included somewhere else in WP (and this seems a good idea) a redirect would suffice. Thincat ( talk) 11:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Feel free to add it to Wiktionary where it belongs, what does my adding it to Wiktionary (where I have never contributed or edited before) have anything to do with this AfD? It's not destructive, WP:NOTDICTIONARY is pretty clear, and this article falls right into nothing but a dictionary definition with a single source. - War wizard90 ( talk) 00:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment – Another Cardarelli unit. Apparently this comes from this passage in the book: "1 roll = 24 oz". That's it. Is that enough for an article? There is this, about "Forgotten British and Irish units", which states that 1 roll was 24 oz in Bedale, a market town in North Yorkshire. So that's one place. Also this, about antique butter molds in California, according to which a mold (or roll) could be 1/2, 1, or 2 pounds, or variable. So it looks to me like, yes, butter was sold in rolls, but less evidence that it was always 24 oz. – Margin1522 ( talk) 18:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Cardarelli all by itself is just not enough for notability. Margin1522 has done his best, but I just don't see it as enough. PianoDan ( talk) 19:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, but perhaps make a dab page entry at Roll pointing to List of obsolete units of measurement where it can be sourced via OED (not just the dubious Cardarelli) as 24 ounces - in OED it's defined (7(a)) as "A (usually small) quantity of a soft substance formed into a cylindrical or spherical mass.", but one of the examples, from 1896, is "Ireland sells its butter by the cask and firkin; England, by the pound, and ‘roll’ of 24 ounces, the stone, and the hundredweight." Is that enough for an article? No. Is it enough for an entry in that list? Perhaps. Pam D 23:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I agree with Pam on this one, no one is going to search for "Roll (unit)" making a redirect pointless, but a dab page entry at Roll with a link to List of obsolete units of measurement, makes much more sense. - War wizard90 ( talk) 00:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge to List of obsolete units of measurement. Stifle ( talk) 17:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete/merge to List of obsolete units of measurement per above, especially evidence of available sources presented by Margin1522: topic does not meet WP:N. Shanata ( talk) 03:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY means dictionary entries belong at Wiktionary. If someone finds some encyclopedic information with references showing notability (per WP:GNG), a suitable article can be created. The suggestion by PamD to create an entry at the dab Roll is good. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:12, 11 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 Lahiri Mahasaya#Descendants. (Closed as Merge so those voting as such such should Merge it, Thanks) ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Shibendu Lahiri

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

Seemingly non-notable individual. Cannot find reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Primefac ( talk) 12:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge It maybe noteworthy to point out that he has received separate coverage, [14] [15] seems fair enough for merging into Lahiri Mahasaya#Descendants. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Merge the references and possibly the image to Lahiri Mahasaya#Descendants. The text is already the same. – Margin1522 ( talk) 14:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:26, 21 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 05:55, 29 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 05:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge to Lahiri Mahasaya#Descendants -It is a borderline notability case, for now merge into target. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 07:26, 7 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. I'm closing this sock-infested discussion as delete because the article gives no credible indication of significance as defined by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Passing mentions in newspaper articles, or even giving a NYT reporter a lift, don't make a subject independently notable. Hamdani's book, while certainly a respectable publication, does not satisfy the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Bishonen | talk 00:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Yasser Latif Hamdani

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

Yasser was qouted as lawyer in the provided sources which doesn't makes him notable. The sources are not written on subject, but on cases he was defending. Saqib ( talk) 17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

User:DGG, This page was recreated after you deleted it previously. Should it be speedy deleted? -- Saqib ( talk) 17:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment The last afd was in 2010, where I said "not yet notable" . He wrote a book since then, and I verified with WorldCat and added the info. (The book is not in many US libraries, but that may or may nor be relevant). Other material in the article is also about his work in the last few years. So whether or not he's notable now, he's not as non-notable as in 2010, so it needs a new afd . DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

DGG: I don't think being author of a non-notable book makes the person notable. -- Saqib ( talk) 11:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I didn't say he was, just that it needed a new afd because of the information. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

DGG: I wonder whether we allow comments on deletion nominated of the subject himself? In this case, the subject is defending this deletion nomination. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Without secondary sourcing discussing the subject's work, this fails the GNG. Drmies ( talk) 20:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC) That is the point. The sources are discussing his work and him. Egopearl ( talk) 08:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
keep The secondary sources discuss the subject's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.83.84.127 ( talk) 06:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC) — 42.83.84.127 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 24 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 04:56, 29 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 05:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

This page should stay. The editor Saqib clearly has a personal animus against the subject as is patently obvious from the malicious and disruptive nature of edits made by Saqib on the subject's page. Given that this page is subject to edit wars by the editor Saqib, it must be locked immediately and kept. 101.50.80.212 ( talk) 08:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)— 101.50.80.212 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Strong Delete -Created by a SPA around two years ago and maintained by many similar IPs since then, subject lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources and doesn't meet BIO and GNG standard. There are only few short/passing mentions in two or three newspaper. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 10:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

References and sources were removed by Saqib. They have been added. 42.83.84.218 ( talk) 06:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — 42.83.84.218 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Strong Keep YLH, as he is generally known, is an increasingly prominent lawyer fighting on several newsworthy and historical cases. To say that that he is the Alan Dershowitz of what is sometimes referred to as the "The Most Dangerous Country in the World" is not stretching a point. My personal criteria for an "article of encyclopedic interest" is this: News stories on quite a few topics from such a critical country hit the New York Times front page on a regular basis. At that point, journalists, scholars and news consumers people go looking for historical background, and the first place they look is the Wikipedia. When that happens, will Wikipedia have the necessary information on the context, personalities, and events? And this criteria YLH definitely meets.

— iFaqeer ( talk to or email me) 17:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

PS: I am not an SPA. I am a Wikipedia contributor with a record going back to 2004

Please be note that being being "famous" or "popular" is not sufficient here. The subject clearly fails the basic notability criteria so how does he merit an entry on Wikipedia. Other than that, the subject has been editing his own bio page using IP addresses which is strongly discouraged. On a similar note, he's attacking me off-wiki and making false allegations which is very uncivil. My contribution record shows that I made no edit to any page he claims. 1, 2, 3. -- Saqib ( talk) 17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

With respect, I did not say he was popular or famous. The criteria I am invoking is the one given at Wikipedia:Notability; namely that

a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources

and further under Wikipedia:Notability (people) as:

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject

— iFaqeer ( talk to or email me) 17:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Right. I agree with you. But as far I can see, the subject is only quoted in news articles which doesn't makes him notable enought to warrant bio page. I've been myself qouted in numerous press stories but thats definately not make me notable either. We need references talking on the subject to backup a standalone biography page. -- Saqib ( talk) 18:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

So you don't consider the New Yorker (not exactly a local or un-notable source) saying the following as "'talking on the subject'":

"Hamdani has a growing reputation within Pakistan’s small, liberal-minded “civil society” for his strident advocacy of the claim that the country’s founders envisioned a secular state."

— http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/banistan-why-is-youtube-still-blocked-in-pakistan

— iFaqeer ( talk to or email me) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

It is a Trivial mentions. On the other side. It is a blog entry. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Unless provided further references (even local) to satisfy WP:GNG, this doesn't appear notable to me. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 20:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

So you don't consider the New Yorker (not exactly a local or un-notable source) saying this about the subject as being notable:

"Hamdani has a growing reputation within Pakistan’s small, liberal-minded “civil society” for his strident advocacy of the claim that the country’s founders envisioned a secular state."

— http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/banistan-why-is-youtube-still-blocked-in-pakistan

— iFaqeer ( talk to or email me) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

No, it's a not enough sources. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. I also think the closer of this discussion would be experienced enough to know that. You can add more sources during this discussion to change that and I'm willing to change my !vote given the article would not just remain a stub with a few references about news occurrences (we've to differentiate news content from encyclopedic content). -- lTopGunl ( talk) 07:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

iFaqeer and User:TopGun: I can see Yaser added new paragraphs (original research) and backing up those claims/text with some new references but all the references are Trivial mentions. None of the source is explictly talking about the subject, rather the cases. I'm going to remove all the original research as well the references that are unacceptable because they're either not reliable or not indepedent. Further, please be note that the New Yorker entry talking about the subject is a blog. -- Saqib ( talk) 08:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Saqib: You have removed at least three sources which were directly on the subject and his views on partition. For example this one http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/editorial/26-Jul-2012/view-in-defence-of-dr-ishtiaq-ahmed-shakil-chaudhry (you say that this source only speaks of his credentials as a lawyer) Is it some sort of insecurity? Your hissy fits and your insistence on deleting information self evident, like the fact that the subject was the lawyer in the famous YouTube case or the Finfisher case shows that you are personally prejudiced and biased against the subject. Are you saying that the sources don't show that he was a lawyer in these matters? Please check your prejudices at the door sir. Is the fact that his opinion as Asia 21 leader not worth something? How is the fact that he appeared in the YouTube case and the same was reported by media worldwide "original research". Perhaps your English Language comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. 42.83.84.218 ( talk) 09:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — 42.83.84.218 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Mr. Yasser: I don't know you personally do there's nothing personal here. Please acknowledge that you're not worthy to have an entry on Wikipedia so why bothering? You're professional so don't act like an immature. Don't take it personal and become emotional. I know you're defending famous YouTube case but that doesn't make you notable. I humbly request you to please avoid personal attacks. Also, I'm not supposed to reply you since you're violating WP bolicy on conflict of interest. Anyways. Please be sure you cannot game the system just by presenting few trival references. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I've removed the original research text and unacceptable/unreliable/non-indepedent references. All the references presently provided are trival. In my opinion New Yorker will have to go as well as it is a blog entry. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

ROTFL what does one say to this. 42.83.84.218 ( talk) 09:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — 42.83.84.218 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Strong Keep Added new sources all of which directly speak of the subject and his work. Please note that user Saqib is repeatedly changing the page to remove references and sources. 42.83.84.218 ( talk) 05:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Updated the links 42.83.84.218 ( talk) 06:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — 42.83.84.218 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

This IP now blocked, and a bunch of their contributions removed. Drmies ( talk) 15:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: I will have to spend time working on this article. TopGun, if you really do have an open mind, go back and see the edits. This article is a very short stub main because everything that has been added over time has been removed rather than brought up to Wikipedia's requirements.— iFaqeer ( talk to or email me) 23:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep: Not sure what User:Topgun is saying but all the sources speak directly of YLH's work. Edit summary of the page shows it was vandalized by User:Saqib who reduced it to a stub. The page should be kept because of three reasons: YLH writes regularly for Pakistani newspapers. He is the lawyer in civil rights causes such as free speech. He has written a book which is available in many libraries around the world. Egopearl ( talk) 06:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC) PS: Put in more sources dealing directly with YLH's work. None of them are trivial and as this AFD proceeds, I would request that no one removes them. Egopearl ( talk) 07:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC) My contributions are listed here: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Egopearl Please see before adding a WP:SPA. Egopearl ( talk) 07:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Egopearl ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

That comment would have no weight, as we need to discuss whether enough sources write about him, not that he is (possibly) an author of RS which wouldn't make him automatically notable. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 07:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

User:TopGun I don't think you have read the sources then. There are about 13 sources on there that speak directly of him or his work. Some of the sources removed by Saqib also were articles on YLH. So when you say "the comment would have no weight" you need to elaborate: How are sources that speak directly of the subject and his work not notable? Sorry but I think something is amiss here. Egopearl ( talk) 07:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I did read the sources, but your comment was pointing out something else to which I replied. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 08:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

So? Are the sources not speaking of his work? So many examples have been quoted. Egopearl ( talk) 08:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I am not an SPA. I have been on Wikipedia for 8 years. My contributions are here: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Egopearl Egopearl ( talk) 07:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You have few contributions from 5 years ago. That still makes you an SPA. Please do not remove the tag and let the closing admin judge. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 08:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I have contributions dating back to 2007 on a number of subjects and they are not few. I may not have used Wikipedia recently but that doesn't mean I am an SPA any more than you are. Please do not skew the debate by questioning good faith. Egopearl ( talk) 08:25, 11 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. Randykitty ( talk) 10:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Maria Luisa Ugolini Bonta

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:ARTIST. No evidence that she made any lasting contribution. Also, most of the article is unsourced, or refers to unpublished sources like her sketchbooks, journals, and letters and a biography written by Lydia Ugolini. A search for further sources turned up nothing notable. BenedictineMalediction ( talk) 18:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete I did some snooping around and was unable to find any reliable secondary sources, that cover the subject extensively, or any GLAMs that own her artwork. Based on where the photo came from..I think this was a piece written by a relative or someone with close connections to the subject (aka COI). As the founder of WikiProject Women artist's, I always take this very seriously, and hate having to say farewell to women who deserve coverage, but, alas, despite the lovely article, she does not appear to meet our general notability guidelines and those for WP:ARTIST. Missvain ( talk) 18:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:42, 24 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 04:55, 29 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 05:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per Missvain. Too few secondary sources to constitute notability. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 21:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as above. Neutrality^talk 06:31, 15 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 and redirect to Bilfinger. Randykitty ( talk) 10:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Deutsche Babcock Al Jaber

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

Subject appears to fail WP:CORP. All provided sources seem to be either primary, or fail WP:RS. A search of Google news brought up exactly one source, in German. Subject is not notable. Kindzmarauli ( talk) 22:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. I found this, in the NY Times, but that's the only thing. It indicates something about the company's size, but I do not see the coverage to satisfy the GNG. Drmies ( talk) 02:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - If the article is deleted, can the closing admin please also delete the non-free logo [16]. Kindzmarauli ( talk) 22:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the reminder. When an article's deleted, its nonfree image(s) can be deleted under G8, dependent on a deleted page (assuming that they're not used elsewhere), since being orphaned this way this isn't the same as being orphaned by removal from an existing article. Nyttend ( talk) 23:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 22 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 04:47, 29 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 05:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect: to Bilfinger, there is no doubt as to the notability of the corporate parent. There are other articles for subsidiaries that could be rolled up as well, they seem to want to get the whole corporate tree into WP. Vrac ( talk) 12:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. WP:ADMASQ puffery jargon: "DEBAJ maintained and developed successfully its active role..." Blah. Pax 06:32, 13 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 Əbil. Randykitty ( talk) 11:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Ukrainskiye Otruba

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

No such village in classifier of administartive divisions Anatoliy ( Talk) 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. I don't think this Russian-language source would be deemed reliable by the project's standards. But in the section/article "О ЖИЗНИ РУССКИХ В ГЕКЧАЕ, САБИРАБАДЕ И СААТЛЫ", it discusses Russian place-names in Azerbaijan and mentions Украинские Отруба as a village. From my wretched machine translation assisted reading of the section, I get the impression that this village would have been renamed post-1991. Other than that, I'm utterly unable to evaluate the reliability of this source, although I believe it's a 1979 government publication, but Украинские Отруба does appear on what I read to be a list of named settlements in the Azerbaijani SSR (p. 192). That said, I'm neutral on the article's fate. If it was a village renamed after independence, it'd be ideal to point this as a redirect to the current name, but I'm well past my limit of being able to assist with this material due to language barriers. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 00:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: the GEOnames database—as well as Wikipeda—say that it is the same as Əbil. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 00:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Oh, hey, what do you know. With that in mind redirect to Əbil. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 00:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
- There are, however, serious sourcing problems concerning places in Azerbaijan, as article Əbil admits. This issue has come up one AfD before, but I can't find the relevant discussion now. See also Dokshin, another lost settlement in Azerbaijan. Google Maps in satellite view shows many unlabeled settlements, including one or two where Əbil should be. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 02:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
- See, for example:
Note the criticism of the GEOnames database. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 02:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, that's awkward. I suspect that the document hosted at history.az is a legitimate Soviet-era publication, which means that this place, under this article name, at least was an occupied settlement, which suggests we keep this in some form because WP:GEOLAND explicitly agrees that formerly populated places still count. But beyond that? Absent some source that gives insight into what the government in Baku did with place names after 1991, I'm not sure what to do here. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 16:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Əbil, where it should be mentioned as "according to the GEOnames database, or something to that effect. A short note on the town's history based on the Novoye Vremya article ( Squeamish Ossifrage: why do you consider this source unreliable?) should probably also be included, once merged/redirected. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 19:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

My limited capacity to deal with Russian-language sources wasn't letting me find any sort of editorial standards page; if that's a respected media source, all the better, but I'm not also sure that the Novoye Vremya at www.novoye-vremya.com is the same as the Novoye Vremya at www.newtimes.ru. 19:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good point, my mistake; www.novoye-vremya.com is actually an Azerbaijani newspaper, apparently the Russian edition of the Azerbaijani-language Yeni Zaman. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 20:04, 22 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 04:46, 29 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 05:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: Anatoliy, Squeamish Ossifrage: does anyone object to redirecting to Əbil per GEOnames, without the novoyevremya.com information? If so, this can be closed. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 18:15, 5 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. Although nobody seems to be defending this article particularly enthusiastic, there's a clear consensus for "weak keep". Randykitty ( talk) 11:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Jacob Alexander Figueroa

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

Highly promotional, WP:LOCAL. Sources are only local coverage, blogs, other Wikipedia articles (why the fuck are people still doing that?), or not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 22:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Related article: Band Famous ( AfD discussion). — Cryptic 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per highly inadequate sourcing, particularly for a BLP Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

BLP policy doesn't require extraordinary sourcing, only that controversial claims be well sourced or deleted and subjects be treated with respect. THIS from Minnesota Artists.org should be sufficient to source out anything not currently showing footnotes to provide verifiability. Carrite ( talk) 10:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 ( talk) 05:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep There are numerous references in independent sources. So this would pass WP:GNG. WP:Local is just an essay, not a policy. The references to Wikipedia are usually due to inexperience where people do not know how to make a wikilink. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply

WP:ONLYESSAY isn't a very convincing argument as it underestimates/overlooks the value and insight that essays can bring. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak keep - He was written about in NY Arts Magazine, which is hardly a local Minneapolis source. The Minneapolis coverage meets the definition of a reliable source and is quite in depth as well, so that definitely counts for something (we aren't talking about a town of 2,000 here). Finally, there is the fact that some aspiring filmmaker made a documentary about him. All three of these things are pretty weak evidence of notability by themselves, but in total I would say Figueroa just barely meets the minimum requirement.

As to why anyone would "still" use a Wikipedia article as a reference, I would like to remind TPH that not everyone is an experienced editor and there is absolutely no need to be rude to newbies that make simple mistakes like that. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 22:55, 26 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 04:44, 29 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 05:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - This article needs a lot of work, but sourcing does exist, such as THIS piece, "Live Nude Art" by Jamie Thomas of the Twin Cities Daily Planet. Not sure I will have time and energy to make an article rescue attempt, but this does seem to be a recognized national artist working in an unusual medium that is the subject of substantial coverage. But that article... Ugh! Carrite ( talk) 10:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Weak keep -- seems to have just enough significant sourcing to keep. Needs major, major cleanup, though. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Don't want to support either the nominator or the Keep party, but did anyone realized that the links that the creator used are actually external links. Like, I don't see any New York Times, or other well established publication to verify the information. I might be wrong since arts are a bit different from mainstream events such as sports and politics and therefore probably receive coverage by either small town newspapers and/or websites.-- Mishae ( talk) 03:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep. Believe sufficient local RS and smattering of distant RS have been accumulated. (This article is a classic example of editors imperiling their baby by larding it up with weaker sources and rambling WP:fancruft.) Pax 06:42, 13 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. Spinning Spark 12:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Benjamin Woodman

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

Political candidates are not notable as per WP:NPOL, does not satisfy any other WP:BIO notability requirements. FUNgus guy ( talk) 05:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

This article does not meet Wikipedia's politician notability criteria, and there's nothing here to suggest it qualifies as notable under any other biographical notability criteria. I propose it be deleted. Previous deletion request removed with the following explanation:

Removed proposed deletion (subject's youth and linguistic background very unique in Quebec politics, position held was occupied previously by Minister of Foreign Affairs, major daily newspaper in Quebec (Le Droit) references subject (signed by 216.218.29.159)

None of these reasons qualify for page status under WP:NPOL. Being "young" (30 isn't that young) doesn't qualify, his linguistic background is not mentioned in the article, being the candidate after the Minister of Foreign Affairs doesn't qualify, and just because Le Droit mentions he was nominated to run doesn't qualify. If he wins the election, then this biography would qualify under WP:NPOL. FUNgus guy ( talk) 05:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

To be fair, the seat he's running for is in Quebec — so based on his name and the fact that he attended John Abbott College, we can conclude that the "unique" linguistic background that's being claimed for him is that he's an anglophone rather than a francophone. But anglophones in Quebec, while they are a minority group, are neither a rare nor a "poorly represented in politics" one — if he were the first anglophone ever to run for political office in the entire province, then the decliner might have a valid point. But he's nowhere close to being that — he's not even the first anglophone ever to run for political office in his own district. Bearcat ( talk) 18:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Nominator is correct: nothing here entitles him to keep an article at the present time under WP:NPOL. He'll certainly qualify for an article if he wins the seat when the election is held, but is not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia so long as a mere candidacy is the substance of his notability. To qualify him for an article right now, you'd have to be able to make a strong and properly sourced case that he was already notable enough to have an article for something other than the candidacy itself, e.g. as a writer or an athlete or a previous holder of a different notable political office. And make no mistake, as "sourced" as this article is there's only one reference (Le Droit) that counts for anything toward notability — but the fact that you can point to one news article about his selection as a candidate in a reliable source doesn't get him over the WP:NPOL bar, because that's just WP:ROUTINE coverage no different from what all candidates in all elections always get. And nominator is also correct that neither his age (even just among Quebec's current crop of federal MPs, let alone former ones, there are several who are younger than this) nor his linguistic background (anglo-Quebecers rare? *snort*) are nearly as "unique" as the prod-decliner claimed them to be (and even if they were unique, that still wouldn't make them reasons why he should qualify for an article just for being a candidate.) Delete, without prejudice against recreation if he wins the seat when the election occurs. Bearcat ( talk) 05:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per Bearcat. Deletion (or a redirect to an appropriate page about the election) is a common and appropriate outcome for a candidate for a federal legislature. -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Weak keep - while he is not automatically notable under NPOL, he isn't automatically non-notable either. It is a false assertions that he has to be notable under some other specific notability guideline to be notable. A politician can fall NPOL and still meet the GNG. Here, the GNG case is rather weak but at least two semi-biographical articles exist (refs 5 & 6). Ideally, the page would be merged into on the election, but that isn't an option at the moment so I must side with keep over delete. If it is decided notability is not sufficient, the page should redirect to Conservative Party of Canada candidates, 2015 Canadian federal election#Quebec - 78 seats. Pinging @ William2001: who accepted this at AfC for input. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

There aren't two reliable sources here, because InfoO7 is a local community weekly that isn't widely distributed enough to count toward satisfying a notability rule — but even if we did accept it, it still takes more than two sources to satisfy GNG if a person hasn't cleanly passed a subject-specific inclusion rule. Bearcat ( talk) 01:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

As ThaddeusB found a place to redirect the subject, I would accept that. -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

It is not uncommon for people to claim local/specialized sources don't convey notability, but the only consensus based guideline that has that language is the one on events. What really matter is if the source is reliable or not. Unless you have some evidence that Info07 doesn't fact check, my assumption is that it is a reliable source and since there is no consensus that local, biographical sources do not convey notability, the subject technically meets the notability guidelines. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

If that's all it takes to have a biography page under GNG, then I could write a biography about myself: I've been in the local papers, and I ran in student council elections. I see no utility of this page, except (as Bearcat mentioned) as a self-promoting campaign brochure. If otherwise non-notable political candidates can have bios on Wikipedia, we may end up with thousands of these useless campaign brochures. A redirect to Conservative candidates page would be acceptable. FUNgus guy ( talk) 02:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak keep because the subject is notable enough. I can see that the subject does not fully meet the guideline mentioned. But that does not automatically mark him as "not notable". He is a running candidate for a famous party with political experiences before running for this election. William2001 ( talk) 00:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Except that "running candidate for a famous party" is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia by itself, and his "political experiences" involve being a run-of-the-mill staffer in other politicians' offices (and, for that matter, not even telling us which politicians!), not an actual holder of any political office in his own right. Bearcat ( talk) 01:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Mild delete. Candidates not yet elected in such situations are not considered notable. A candidate named Dwayne Stovall made some headway and got some public attention in early press accounts when he ran against Senator John Cornyn of Texas in 2014. He was not allowed a Wikipedia article. As it turned out, Stovall ran a weak third in the Republican primary. This candidate was unopposed for the Conservative Party nomination; I don't know the likelihood of his victory. It would seem he does not now qualify, but correct me if I am missing something? Billy Hathorn ( talk) 04:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete under our current guideline. I would be in favor of hanging it so all major party candidates in national elections are notable; rather than debate what elements of local coverage are or not sufficiently independent, it would be a more direct way to do it. But such is not the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Does not pass notability guidelines for politicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, does not meet notability guidelines at this time. Can be re-introduced later, if and when he is elected or becomes notable under some other circumstances. PK T(alk) 18:20, 13 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) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Cowcow

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

Non-notable. The article is unsourced and I could not find enough independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- L235 ( talk) Ping when replying 04:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Just abandoned/very underworked. Try this search if your search fails. Recent fame persists with Atarimae Taisou (あたりまえ体操) is also worth checking out. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi
Yarouin} 06:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep The current article is close to a BLP violation (an unsourced claim of being "not very popular"), but that is not a reason to delete the page. The links provided by Hisashiyarouin above are a sample of the sources available. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 04:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:32, 30 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 04:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per sources found above - Passes GNG. – Davey2010^Talk 14:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep passes GNG and WP:ENT per sources listed above by User:Hisashiyarouin. Cavarrone 09:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. Beyond the sources already given, they have also won several important comedy awards, including the Kamigata Manzai best newcomer award. I have added that and a reference to the article. Michitaro ( talk) 02:05, 9 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Mt (mount)

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

declined PROD. This is somewhere between a dictionary def and a disambiguation page of partial title matches. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I can't imagine this awkward phrase would be a plausible search term to warrant redirecting to Mount or Mountain --Animalparty-- ( talk) 04:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. The abbreviation already has an entry on Wiktionary here. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete or redirect to Mountain ( WP:Redirects are cheap). — Granger ( talk · contribs) 12:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Νot delete(article starter) It could possibly be renamed to mt (geography) or something similar. The article is now linked to 3 WikiProjects and it has been PATROLLED. References are now present for the use of this abbreviation in practice; also the article has been added to some Categories, mainly Geography related. Although some users say that WP is not a Dictionary, it has categories such as Category:Abbreviations and Category:Words; one of the purposes of mt (mount) was to add members to the former.

Moreover the article emphasizes the existence of a whole collection of Redirect Pages corresponding to this abbreviation (such as Mt Everest, Mt McKinley, etc). SoSivr ( talk) 13:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is a widely accepted policy, not the opinion of some users. We have articles on certain words that have received extensive critical coverage beyond mere definitions. The fact that you've added categories and project banners does not mean your article is any more or less appropriate. There are probably thousands of mountains named "Mount Something" that can be abbreviated to "Mt. Something", and we don't list all of those because those are Partial title matches, which are not what disambiguation pages are for (should we arbitrarily list a couple of random streets out of the world's countless thousands on St (street)?). Note that mountains can certainly be listed in more meaningful lists, such as those at Lists of mountains. If you want to define abbreviations, you are welcome to do so on Wiktionary, which, as a dictionary, is where those types of definitions are more appropriate. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 21:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as utterly unnecessary. There's already an entry at MT ( Mt redirects there). Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. I see no reason to keep a non-exhaustive list of mountains (all of which use the abbreviation) to highlight an abbreviation that already exists ( MT, as per Clarifyfiend. Shashwat986 → talk 16:46, 11 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) 17:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Bob Wingo

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

Highly promotional article, beyond what I can fix. Vague claims to importance "helped launch", "remains committed" Jargon: "blue-chip brands", "to attract and serve". Implied claim that his ad campaign was responsible for Texas being "the top state for doing business". Most refs are incidental mentions or PR. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak keep - On the one hand, the article is definitely filled with puffery/promotionalism, and that's a significant problem. On the other hand, the company and/or Mr. Wingo does appear to be notable. The El Paso Times article (source #1) is quite extensive and is about the man. As a cover story, The City Magazine article is probably pretty extensive and likely biographical, but unfortunately is not available online. The Austin Business Journal article is extensive and is about the company. Likewise for the Black Enterprise article. So I guess technically both are notable... So, the choices at current comes down to a single crappy article on two notable subjects or no article. I'll come down on the side of a crappy article over nothing, but only weakly. Naturally, if the article was improved, the choice would be an easier keep. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Pinging @ APerson: who accepted this at AfC for input. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:41, 11 January 2015
Keep. Here's the discussion on my talk page after I initially declined it for a lack of notability, in which I was convinced that significant coverage of the subject did exist. Note that I did raise concerns about the tone of the article, after which I was assured that the article's author would "take a look regarding the tone". Having been told this, I accepted the article. Of course, the article needs a pretty major tone cleanup, but that shouldn't be a reason to delete it. APerson ( talk!) 03:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - I have removed or replaced the vague claims as well as some superlatives. I can't stand when articles smack of PR, so by all means, please note any suggestions for further clean-up. Tone aside, Wingo has a highly notable profile in El Paso, an often overlooked city of 700K. He's gotten every major recognition from UTEP, which Washington Monthly controversially ranked ahead of Harvard. Wingo was instrumental in development of the MLK Memorial in DC, the El Paso Holocaust Museum and many other initiatives. For the Texas Economic Development Board, Rick Perry appointed Wingo president and traveled nationally and globally raising funds and recruiting business to Texas, which accounts for the growth more than any ad campaign. (Perry's economic efforts have been the subject of debate. In any case, Texas did surpass NY State as home of the most Fortune 500 companies five years after Wingo began oversight of the Economic Board) Perry also named Wingo to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Hopefully these facts confirm notability. Please advise on tone of current submission. Thanks so much. PS: Regarding the El Paso City Magazine, Wingo was the cover story, and the sole focus of a five page spread. Content is available online for subscribers only, but here is a copy of the print version. DonegalWinner ( talk) 17:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:13, 13 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, Michig ( talk) 09:22, 18 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 13:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. While I can see some reasons for minimal notability beyond El Paso, my strong impulse is to nuke for blatant puffery. This stuff should never rewarded. Pax 01:12, 30 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, Mr. Guye ( talk) 04:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Taking the sources alone, we can judge notability based on the standards set by WP:GNG. Sources have to be reliable, independent, and significant; WP:NOTINHERITED notes that notability is not inherited. Working for a notable company, having notable clients, being part of the board of notable organisations - none of this confers notability. Passing mentions in stories about others doesn't indicate notability either - that's why GNG requires coverage be significant. Coverage of the company may imply that it is notable; it does not imply that someone who works there, even the founder, is. All we're left with that's significant coverage, is El Paso City Magazine and El Paso Times. The City Magaine "story" is cringeworthy promotional nonsense; it's not remotely independent reliable journalism. So we're left with the El Paso Times story. A single story in a low circulation local newspaper is far far too little. But worse - the author of the El Paso Times article identifies himself, on his own Twitter feed, as being "Director of Policy & Programs" for the Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce - the same organisation of which the article says Wingo is a director. So I believe there is no independent, substantial coverage in reliable sources. -- Finlay McWalterᚠ Talk 14:37, 5 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. Consensus is close but both Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly are considered reliable sources. JodyB_talk 23:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Girl meets ghost

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

Non-notable recent book by non-notable person Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I disagree as per my vote below, and I have expanded and cited the article and and now actively working on it. HullIntegrity ( talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. WP:NBOOK is the relevant guideline, and there's no way this is anywhere near getting past it. Couldn't even see it getting expanded past two sentences, which is saying something. @ Jimfbleak: maybe a WP:PROD would've been easier, or is there some obscure guideline that necessitates taking it to AfD after a speedy is declined? IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't think you can speedy books on notability, so I tend to default to AFD rather than prod, but there is no logic or reasoning involved Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I usually go for a prod where I can, just because the process is a bit quicker, but I suppose they take the same amount of effort to get going :P IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. This is an obvious case. There are absolutely no sources and no indication as to why this book is notable. We can't have an article on every book. -- Biblio worm 23:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: I'm in the process of seeing if there's enough coverage to warrant a page for the author and if I'm successful, then I'll "vote" for this to redirect to her page. I can't really find anything for this book to speak of, so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep I am just learning my way around the Children's Lit discussion pages, so apologies if I am saying something stupid, but it does seem to me that you can have a page for every book. And this title seems pretty popular on GoodReads and etc. which means it is likely to be expanded. Having a page on every book that someone is willing to write about seems to be the whole point of an online encyclopedia to me and the tendency to delete works for children and young adults out of hand seems very strong (again "to me"). Regardless, I am editing the stub to avoid deletion and would suggest the deletion notice be removed. HullIntegrity ( talk) 14:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Despite what might be inferred from Biblioworm's final sentence, we can have an article on every book that meets the notability guidelines in its own right. So the only question here is whether the book meets the general notability guidelines or any of the guidelines specific to books. Also, if a topic meets any of the notability guidelines, it does so whether or not the article currently has any content or references that reflect this. In that case, the article needs to be improved, not removed, to directly reflect the topic's notability. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 19:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I have added several reviews (from reputable sources) and have several more on hand which I will add. HullIntegrity ( talk) 21:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Addendum: The book was favorable reviewed in most of the core magazines and journals for Children's Literature and the next installment has been published and is receiving reviews. If the trade publications take the book (and the author) seriously enough to expend time for reviews, and favorable ones at that, then I think we should take it seriously. I will be adding those additional reviews soon. I see no reason to delete this one at all like it is some pulp nonsense sold only in WalMart. HullIntegrity ( talk) 19:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. A cursory search of peer-reviewed publications shows at least two additional reviews to the two already submitted (these two additional ones are from Publisher’s Weekly and Library Media Connection). So, according to the criteria for notability for books, which states--

The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book--

this book passes muster. -- DrX ( talk) 20:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. It seems that - based on the reviews/coverage - this article should remain on Wikipedia. It has received "significant coverage [within its field] in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," as per the general notability guidelines. Bd1896 ( talk) 21:58, 22 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect to author I don't think that there is enough content about this book to have a page of more than a few sentences. From statements above it seems that the author is creating a series of books, so separate pages for individual books would break up the series. If the series gains enough traction (c.f. Harry Potter, LotR) then a page for the series makes sense. Meanwhile, keeping the works of the author together could result in a page with rich content. LaMona ( talk) 02:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

It seems to me that that decision is up to people who actively edit in the area of the post, in this case Children's Literature. Expansion of Wikipedia is not inherently bad and it often happens in wonderfully mysterious ways. HullIntegrity ( talk) 16:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

There are no limits on who can make decisions, or edit articles, or have ideas, here. This is Wikipedia. LaMona ( talk) 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

LaMona Yes. I agree with you. That was actually the point I was trying to make. One person should not dominate a decision on notability or deletion. HullIntegrity ( talk) 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. The standards for notability being proposed for this non-award-winning, non-best-selling children's book are the lowest that I've seen in any deletion discussion. This book does not in any way, shape, or form pass the WP:GNG. Kirkus Reviews is a blog. Publishers Weekly is a glorified blog. The School Library Journal "reviews" thousands of children's books each year, more than likely doing little more than rephrasing the blurb on the back of the book. The author of the "Library Media Connection" review lists her occupation as "Educational Materials Reviewer" – she is paid (gosh, it couldn't be by a publishing company?) to review books. I'm an "inclusionist", but this is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Privileging "award winning" is silliness. All of the reviews cited are referenced in academic databases: they are not blogs. The reviews cited were pulled from Academic Search Complete and Lexus-Nexus, so they are vetted by librarians as "notable". The issue here is really that this book is "kiddie lit", written by a woman, and therefore "not notable". There are millions (well, thousands, at least) of articles on Wikipedia about mainstream novels that are not best-selling or award-winning. Why pick on this one when there are several editors defending it and editing it? And to be perfectly clear, I have absolutely no COI here at all at except for being an Inclusionist and a specialist in Children's Literature. Heck, I am not even religious and have not read the Girl Meets Ghost, so my opinion on "notable" is purely philosophical (and correct) at this point. HullIntegrity ( talk) 16:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Let's not drift too far from reality. The fact of being cited in what you call an "academic database" does not make the journal itself or its content "academic." Library Journal is selectively indexed in PubMed but that doesn't make it a medical publication. Publisher's Weekly is a trade publication - a long-lived and valid one, but a review in PW is not the same as an academic critique. PW reviews, by its own (albeit out of date) estimate at least 9,000 books a year, averaging all of 200 words in length. That's 9,000 books that one would add to WP based on your criteria. Publications that exist expressly to review books, such as Kirkus, while they prove that the book was indeed published and was promoted by the publisher, do not confer notability on each book reviewed. That doesn't mean that those sites cannot be used, but notability needs to be established in other ways. It is true that children's literature does not get the attention that adult literature does, but that doesn't mean that WP should be used to promote non-notable (but perfectly fine) books for either audience. The policies for separate book pages (as opposed to listing books on an article about the author) exist precisely because not every book is notable on its own. And there is nothing "silly" about privileging books (movies, music, scientific research) that win awards. WP policies throughout list awards as criteria for notability. LaMona ( talk) 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

LaMonaPlease explain how Academic Search Complete and LexisNexis are not "academic" with those diminutive quotation marks about them. I really do not understand that. Those are standard academic databases that every library (in the US at least) uses. If I am missing the point, please explain. "Reality" is certified (usually with a Paywall database, unfortunately) for research writers and students. Moving information past the paywall as we can seems a good idea to me in general, as long as it is accurate. HullIntegrity ( talk) 19:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I didn't say that the indexes are not academic. I said that being cited in an academic-market database does not mean that the journal itself inherits that status of "academe." So using the fact that a publication is indexed in one of these as a statement that the content of the journal is therefore "academic" is false. It's basic logic. I believe I illustrated that with the analogous situation of PubMed indexing Library Journal (which it does; it's in their list of indexed journals) which does not make Library Journal a viable source of medical information. You are trying to make too much out of the indexes in which the journals appear, and it just doesn't work that way. LaMona ( talk) 21:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Please take into consideration WP:ROUTINE. If Library Journal is like PubMed, then consider my argument against treating PubMed as having any bearing on notability. Being indexed by PubMed contributes no more to the notability status of a medical publication than being indexed by Google contributes to the notability status of a website. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 21:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Actually, Wikipedia guidelines DO work that way irregardless of your personal, or professional, opinion. See above and below comments. HullIntegrity ( talk) 21:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Proposal Notability has been established as per the general notability guidelines as noted by several editors. This discussion should move to a general discussion about the notability guidelines and not this particular article. HullIntegrity ( talk) 18:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Disagree General notability guidelines are not what we are discussing here, but notability for books. Where we do not agree is whether there are two or more non-trivial articles about the book. I consider the PW and Kirkus reviews to be not enough for notability, and the School Library Journal "review" is a less than 200 word synopsis, which I do not consider to be a "review." Synopsis and review are two different things. As Book_review says: "A book review is a form of literary criticism in which a book is analyzed based on content, style, and merit." A brief summary is a "synopsis." What we have here is a synopsis, not book reviews. I don't care what SLJ calls it - it's what it is that matters. LaMona ( talk) 21:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment LaMona Apologies, but what you consider notable seems to be significantly different from the guidelines which say that if it has "significant coverage [within its field] in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," as per the general notability guidelines then it is a keeper (as per discussion above). Why do you care to delete an article when I (and other editors) want it to stay? That seems a very strange position to take to me and a waste of your time and effort to argue for deleting accurate and useful information being monitored by other editors. HullIntegrity ( talk) 21:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

That comment shows a rather strong ignorance of Wikipedia goals and policies. Just because some editors want an article does not mean that it should stand. Otherwise, AfD would not exist. Every article has editors that want it to be in WP. But WP has policies -- not to force articles out, but to maintain a certain level of quality. And, if you haven't noticed, I am not advocating that information about this book be removed from WP, just that it should be on the author page not as a separate book page. Generally in WP, writings by a person are on the page for that person. Separate pages are only for extraordinary publications for which there is sufficient content to create a page. talk, I have said this many times in this discussion and you choose to ignore it, continuing to advocate for a page contrary to policy. Advocating for actions contrary to policy is what doesn't make sense here. You continue to quote the notability guidelines even though those do not apply here. You continue to refer to "significant sources" without addressing the fact that your main source is a 183-word synopsis. "I want it" is not a policy reason for keeping a page on WP. LaMona ( talk) 16:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Again. Apologies if I have offended you. I certainly did not intend to. That said, I have never seen the phrase "extraordinary publications" in any Wikipedia policy. If there is a policy which uses that phrase, and I am ignorant of it, please let me know. Furthermore, this is not, as I see it, a case of "I want it" as I am not the originating author, have no COI, and several editors have voted to keep it: more for keeping it (for the time being) than for deleting it (at the moment). It might in the future be rolled into the author page--which currently does not exist. I have been avoiding creating the author page at the time being because of this discussion as creating it now might seem more "argumentative". But, I certainly can do so if that would calm things down. I mean, that is only a half-hour of my time. HullIntegrity ( talk) 16:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Question: Does not the length of this discussion, and the move to meta-discussions, establish "arguable notability" to keep the article for the time being? Seriously, none of us are discussing the article (which I am actively editing) any longer. HullIntegrity ( talk) 23:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

This is the second blatant case of you trying to manipulate this discussion to get your way without addressing the issues brought up in the votes. LaMona ( talk) 16:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes. I literally teach argument for a living, so presumably I am very good at it. The purpose of effective argument is to reach consensus and I will continue to use all my mad skills to do so since consensus is the core of Wikipedia. I currently see two other editors agreeing with me to keep it for now. Which issues am I ignoring? The only issues are "notability" and "delete now". If notability is at question we do not "delete now". Right? Just let it be for a bit. HullIntegrity ( talk) 16:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

HullIntegrity, I think you significantly lowered the tone of the discussion when you implied that editors arguing in favour of deletion were only doing so because the book was written by a woman. It's best not to assume other editors are out to get you, but never mind. (LaMona's accusing you of manipulating the argument isn't raising the tone, either). I'll put my (and I think LaMona's) argument in dotpoint form:

There are thousands of books published each year, there are thousands of kid's books published each year.
Just as with people, buildings, music, etc., Wikipedia is selective (but not very selective, compared with other encyclopedias) about which topics merit articles. Wikipedia is not a database of books. That is Wikipedia policy.
So, what differentiates this book from the thousands of others, so that a Wikipedia article might be warranted? Not much.
It hasn't sold fantastically well (or amazingly poorly), it isn't considered a particularly "good" or "bad" book (no awards, no award nominations). You can dress it up as a "novel" or as "literature", but it's a run-of-the-mill children's book.
(On that last point, I'm quite familiar with the genre – thin little paperback, engaging plot but not especially memorable, cover art designed for the "tween" reader – or, just as likely, her parents.)

I just don't think this book is important enough, notable enough, among the many thousands of books, for a Wikipedia article. But you're so, so right about coverage of kid's books here. Not even all of the Newbery Medal nominees have articles, and that's just one award. Those books are all notable, and it would be brilliant to see them have articles that aren't just plot summaries, like you did with this one. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Excellent points, all (perhaps excepting the assumption that all "tweens" are "her"). I and my students, under my direction, are actively working on the Newbery and Caldecott lists (starting again in March) with about 40 new articles already published. Which is kind of cool, I think. I would prefer this article to stay for now, ergo moving it off the "for deletion" list (again, "for now"). If I am outvoted, or overruled by an administrator, so be it: that is fine and just the way it is and should be. HullIntegrity ( talk) 20:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Also, I do apologize if I lowered the tone by suggesting female authors of YA literature about female protagonists might be the subject of a general editorial bias (not referencing specific editors) on Wikipedia. Tone aside, I totally meant that. This deletion is an example of bias when there are significant examples of "boy books" articles floating around that no one is bothering with noting to delete. HullIntegrity ( talk) 23:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Shortage of evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment We nurture Wikipedia use when non-adults find their interests taken seriously by us, even when we may not find their interests particularly noteworthy (at the moment). Children's Literature is an underrepresented area and, I think, deserves a little leeway as it builds. If every sex industry actress (just by way of comparison) can have her own page if she has won some insignificant award (and I have no issue with sex-work and do not mark those articles for deletion) I fail to see the issue with this article unless it is simply traditional adult male interests versus traditionally women's and children's interests. HullIntegrity ( talk) 16:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply

~~weak~~ delete Hull's argument just above me is somewhat persuasive, but not enough. Children's literature may be underrepresented, but there is notable children's literature, and non-notable children's literature. Compare to say The Graveyard Book etc. There is no evidence that this book has been noticed by anyone other than a few blogish reviewers that review essentially every book published. Here is the PW ref [22] which lists hundreds of books giving each one a bare sentence. Are all of these now notable? Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Gender, Age, and Genre bias?: The Triple Threat. I would still like someone who wants to delete the article to comment on the issues of gender, age, and genre bias other than suggesting that I am "lowering the tone" (a comment I understand) by proposing that said bias might exist in general and in this case in particular. Neil deGrasse Tyson (whom I really really like) constantly talks about exposing bias at all costs, and no one here seems to be addressing the bias issues excepting myself and few other editors who want the article to stay--again, "for now".

Are you talking about real world bias, or wikipedia bias? For wikipedia bias, the burden is on you to show that sufficient sources exist to meet GNG etc. Or alternatively that similar quality sourcing is regularly allowing other books through (bias is not a PC magic word. you actually have to show some evidence of the bias). If you are talking about real world bias (kids books are ignored) you may or may not be right , but it is irrelevant, we follow the sources. If sources don't cover something, we don't change our policies. Sources also don't cover my neighbors garage band, and there may be some bias against high school kids bands too, but tough on them. For what its worth, I think there is not such a bias, and that childrens literature is currently experiencing a Renaissance of notability and coverage. That in fact makes it harder for things like this to slip through. When one can easily point to a plethora of books like Graveyard, Potter, Hunger, that have exceptionally wide notability even outside genre fans, and there are major reviews and awards giving actual notice to books all over the place, not to mention viral things like Go the Fuck to Sleep the absence of any similar notice in this case is a really strong sign about the lack of notability. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Query Fair enough. But is it never the case that a cluster of editors taking an interest in something that seems to them to be underrepresented such as black life or women artists or children's literature and that interest cannot be supported for a while by other editors rather than quashed as "not notable" when other editors are actively working on the article? And that sentence was too long and Go the Fuck to Sleep is brilliant. HullIntegrity ( talk) 17:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Can that happen? Sure. Is it happening in this case? I don't think so. You (or one of the other keepers) would have pointed us to the sources we are ignoring/missing if that was the case. I did my own WP:BEFORE before !voting, and I found squat. Is this book an unnoticed gem? Possibly. But logic like that is the gateway to madness, because every book (song, band, artist, television episode) could be the unnoticed gem, and without sources we have no way to tell the difference. The NYTimes [23] (as well as many other sources) regularly writes about kids lit, and points out the gems for us. I'm sure some of them are missing articles... Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

"The gateway to madness"? To ask for a temporary hold on a simple delete notice? Seriously? Slippery slope. Just no. HullIntegrity ( talk) 18:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - It has at least five reviews and it spawned two published sequels. Fearstreetsaga ( talk) 12:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Notice

Perhaps I am confused (it certainly happens at times) but it seems like the only effective (as in "actionable") issue at hand is whether to remove the imminent delete notice on the article or to delete the article. One person seems to have put that delete request, and there was discussion about it early on. I (one person plus two others) am asking that the delete notice be removed for the time being while I research the issue, work on the article, and write the author biography, which the current article may be folded into. That request by me, an editor, does not seem unreasonable. If it is an unreasonable request by Wikipedia policy would someone please explain so that I can grow as a Wikipedian. I will be here every single day (sans Fridays . . . I do not really do Fridays) and can discuss this request, and its implications, at any time. If anyone wants to send a private email to me, the link to my Gmail is on my User Page. HullIntegrity ( talk) 18:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

HullIntegrity generally AFDs are only aborted early due to WP:SNOW or WP:KEEP Or WP:CSD. None of those seen to apply currently. If you think the topic has value, you are free to make a draft copy, or have it userfied after deletion, where it can be worked on until it is ready for mainspace. One person nominated the article for deletion. But multiple people have commented on it. per WP:WITHDRAWN it should run its course now. Maybe the closer will decide no consensus. Or you can take it to WP:DRV too. Or as stated before, just write a draft copy until it is sufficiently developed for mainspace. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you. My issue is that this deletion has potentially serious long-term implications for my students' work. They currently work on award winning-books, so I have had no serious problems as of yet, but I will eventually try to expand the area beyond "award winners" . . . . eventually. There are a lot of awards. Does "it should run its course now" mean I should just stop discussing the issue? That would be kind of sad. HullIntegrity ( talk) 19:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

There is another option, which is to merge the information in this article into an article on the author, so that the information is available on WP, but not as a separate (and very small) article. There can be a redirect from the title of the book to the page for the author. LaMona ( talk) 02:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

LaMona I can write it, and will do so; but articles about living persons seems to be (to me) a complete other editorial crowd with even more issues to address than this one. HullIntegrity ( talk) 14:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Follow up Hi LaMona--the article on the author has been created (by me) and several other editors are working on it as well. I think folding the Girl Meets Ghost article into the author at this time impractical as the area is expanding: in any case it it is not a "dead page" by any means and is receiving a lot of hits. HullIntegrity^\
talk / 19:40, 8 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) 04:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: I wanted to drop in - I've been busy with classwork so I'm only doing about .01% of the editing I used to do, but I will say that I think that we do need a good discussion on whether or not trade publications like Publishers Weekly and the Library Journal/School Library Journal count towards notability purposes. Kirkus is pretty much considered to be unreliable on Wikipedia and not because of its length, but because they accept payment for reviews of independent books under the label of Kirkus Indie. However I do need to note that part of the argument for using trades has been that they aren't all inclusive in who/what they review. They do review a huge amount of books a year, but that's only maybe about 10-30% of the books that are released each year. They do turn people down. Another argument for using trades has been that they are not universally positive and they do give a critical overview of the work, albeit very briefly. A third argument is that the reviews do undergo editorial scrutiny before they are posted, so it's not exactly like they aren't overseen in some aspect. A final argument is that some of these trades do come out in published format, meaning that the Library Journal and Booklist (which is run by the ALA) are both released in print format at least once a month (plus both of these will give names with their reviews, whereas PW will not). This isn't even going into the argument that if we are going to eliminate based on length, we will also be eliminating several sources that have been considered to be very exclusive and reliable, such as the journal Kliatt, the Horn Book Magazine (one of the oldest children's review publications in the US), the academic journal Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, and a host of other academic/journal/reliable sources that give brief but insightful book reviews. All of these are sources that can sometimes be very short but also be considered extremely usable as reliable sources. I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that we should not be judging purely on length, but on the quality of the source. Obviously Publishers Weekly is not the same as the Horn Book Guide or the Bulletin, so this means that this is going to be a very, very complicated discussion and as such, should not be decided based on one AfD or be argued in an AfD. This needs to be discussed at one of the applicable WikiProjects or on the NBOOK page, as this is the sort of situation where we need to individually decide if a publication is usable or not. Not all trade publications are equal, nor does length automatically mean that it's only based on the book blurb and thus unusable. Multiple WikiProjects have lists of media/review/news outlets that are or aren't usable, so I think it's high time that WikiProject Books has a similar list. I just don't think that we should be discussing this in an AfD since these types of discussions tend to run long and an AfD should not be a battleground for this. It can be the impetus for change, but it should not be decided on one AfD unless it's something that is such an obvious abuse of common sense policy that the change needs to be made lightening quick- and we haven't had anything like that with books since the infamous America Deceived AfDs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Tokyogirl79, I absolutely agree that we should have this discussion in a more suitable place, and that we should develop some kind of guidelines for what is, and what isn't, a book review, and how they count for notability. I'm not sure that we can be so specific as to have a clear yes/no list, but at least some definitions (e.g. review vs. synopsis) and relative importance (e.g. NY Review of Books is a !!!, while Publisher's Weekly is meh). Do let me know when you want to have that one, because I definitely want to be there. LaMona ( talk) 02:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Tokyogirl79, LaMona - I think a less-pressured longer-term discussion sounds like a good idea. HullIntegrity ( talk) 04:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't think that there's anything wrong with a yes/no list per se, since it's something that a lot of different WikiProjects utilize when it comes to reviews and news outlets in general. But in any case, that's something for the discussion board and not for the AfD. I think I'll try to open one up in the book WikiProject tonight. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

@ HullIntegrity:, @ LaMona:, @ Largoplazo: I've opened up a discussion here. Anyone who wants to come give an opinion can and should. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep There seems to me to be sufficient difference of opinion about the quality of the reviews that we should not be deleting this article. If it was inadequately referenced for purposes of verifiability then that would be a different matter. The notability guidelines are not there to instruct us how articles are to be assessed. They are there to advise us as to what sort of general standards we have for an article to be devoted to a particular topic, based on past experience of notability discussions. The standards that we adopt are those that by consensus we adopt and the notability guidelines will eventually reflect the situation. Thincat ( talk) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: External notability bias: I would like to point out that when looking for "solid reviews" to prove "notability" there are many fewer credible reviewers of children's literature, and fewer venues for publishing those reviews, and the page space (the "inches") given to said reviews are much less than for mainstream fiction. Which is not to mention that there are many fewer awards (two main ones and a few others), so the chances of a quality children's book "passing muster" by the standards currently set for mainstream fiction may have to be looser for children's literature: a semi-protected class if you will. Four to five picture books a year get Caldecott medals. By comparison, how many credible SF awards are out there? Too many for me to take the time to count to prove this point. External bias can yield incidental internal bias. And then there is the issue that if I write and publish a review of Girl Meets Ghost in a reputable journal or magazine (which I most certainly could, though I would prefer not to at this time) then I have walked into a Conflict of Interest as I would be self-promoting my own academic work. Children’s Literature is a very large industry with very few critics willing to follow it as it is considered a “career killer” in academe. I am a full professor with tenure, so that does not bother me since that part of my career is done. But many academics and journalist-critics just won’t touch Children’s literature. So we have a systematic bias that results in inadvertent Wikipedia bias. Sometimes the same rules should not apply to everything. HullIntegrity ( talk) 19:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Addendum: And the Queens Public Library owns 28 copies of this book. The NYPL 14. I am not sure how that figures in, but just thought I would mention it since I am on a long wait list at both libraries to get it. HullIntegrity ( talk) 16:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: Kirkus Reviews and the like are highly respected sources, the book meets notability guidelines, there's absolutely nothing to discuss. Choor monster ( talk) 14:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Article has improved a lot since it was nominated, and has reached a point where it should be kept. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 00:27, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Southeastern Conference Baseball Scholar-Athlete of the Year

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

Award fails WP:GNG. Jrcla2 ( talk) 01:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 ( talk) 13:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. This is a non-notable academic award in a college sports context. I, for one, do not want to minimize the importance of academic excellence among college student-athletes, but this award clearly fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources), as required for inclusion as a stand-alone Wikipedia article. The proper way to handle this is to include mention of the award in the bio articles for each of its notable recipients, for whom the award does represent a significant honor and accomplishment. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and Dirtlawyer1. It's a nice honor but not one that gets much independent coverage. Rikster2 ( talk) 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. The award is definitely not the most popular award, but it does get independent coverage. Every newspaper that reports SEC Player of the year or Coach of the year is also reporting scholar-athlete of the year. It is one of the 5 awards that come out each year, just some examples over the years such as the Washington Times^[1],WCBI^[2], or The Courier Journal ^[3]. Also there are multiple page with a similar format for other categories such as List of CCHA Scholar-Athlete of the Year, List of ECAC Hockey Student-Athlete of the Year, etc. Blairjs ( talk) 05:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Blairjs, one-sentence mentions (or less), as listed by you, do not constitute significant coverage sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:57, 25 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, Mr. Guye ( talk) 04:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not a notable honor... and i'd also support deleting the two non notable hockey award pages linked to above. Spanneraol ( talk) 15:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete No independent coverage to meet GNG. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 18:10, 11 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. Stifle ( talk) 13:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Georgi Adamia

AfDs for this article:

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

The last afd failed to reach consensus, I think largely due to assumptions of bad faith by several editors. Given that six other afd's on similar footballers just resulted in deletions without objection, I have every reason to believe consensus is now possible. (see Emin Amiraslanov, Amil Agajanov, Samir Abdulov, Asif Abbasov, Orkhan Mirzaev, and Javad Mirzaev (2nd nomination)). In any case, the underlying notability problems remain. He has not played in a league confirmed to be fully professional or for his country's national team, nor has he received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{B </sup8>E _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S} 21:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Plays in a top division and sounds like he is a prolific striker. Has played in Cup competition that asserts more notability. There are sources available. GNG seems like less of a problem than FOOTY and footy doesn't mean much if it is just a tool to limit articles. Cptnono ( talk) 08:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes WP:GNG the player was the top scorer in the Azerbaijan Premier League in 2010-2011 season and top scorer in the Commonwealth of Independent States Cup in 2005 an annual regional football tournament, recognized by FIFA and was part of the winning team in 2006 further per Nfitz in the Previous AFD he has multiple European appearance and being the top scorer in the top league in a country where football is the top sport .Further even UEFA in its season review notes his record. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. The CIS cup is a minor competition and it's geographically restricted nature means that winning or being top scorer is nothing of particular note. His European appearances are almost entirely non notable, no club he has ever played for has made anything other than the most cursory impact on the continental scene. Additionally being top scorer in a league ranked relatively lowly on a continental scale does not inherently confer notability. Fenix down ( talk) 15:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. The notability threshold of WP:NFOOTY is a very generous one as it is - more generous by far than some other sports' criteria - and the player still doesn't pass it. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 16:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Will pass WP:GNG.The Player played several appearances in matches against Borussia Dortmund here and here and other leading clubs in Europe. Another Editor had stated Previous AFD here it's inconceivable that if one had access to local press, that there wouldn't be abundant evidence to meet WP:GNG. To suggest deletion of this article is an extreme example of Bias . As there little access to local Azerbaijani and Georgian media as he is one of there all time leading players in the league and football is the number one sport there . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

And the assumptions of bad faith begin anew... This is not North Korea or Somalia we're talking about. Internet access is readily available in Georgia and Azerbaijan, and the local press take full advantage of it. And yet, through two afd's now, no one has provided any evidence that he has received significant coverage from them, or anywhere else for that matter, without which this article fails both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I quite agree. A group of editors inability to read a given language does not mean notability should be assumed and it certainly isn't biased by default. Fenix down ( talk) 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Sorry if it appeared otherwise and is a General statement was only pointing that league season's top scorer and most capped foreign player as per this and League's top scorer and the Top scorer in Commonwealth of Independent States Cup are from foreign sources nothing from Azeri or Georgian sources even in other articles from many countries one does not find local sources in non English languages that is all pointed out raised by another editor in the Previous AFD . Football is the National sport in these countries would expect that League's top scorer and one of the all time leading players would be notable if you one had greater access to local language sources and raised this because he is not just another player playing the in there league but one of there all time best players. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 02:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

That's one routine stats site, one two paragraph article on the player and one season summary for the country that mentions him in a couple of sentences. Where is GNG in that? Fenix down ( talk) 03:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks .Here are some this , this this and this among others in Georgian language.Anyway will leave it to the closer. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 06:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

So what do they say and how have you assured yourself that the sources are reliable since there are only two sites mentioned? Fenix down ( talk) 07:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Per this ყოველდღიური სპორტული გაზეთი "ლელო" that is attributing this to Lelo .These are from Lelo Georgia's oldest sports newspaper [24] , [25] [26] and [27] while this [28] is attributed to Azeri Sport.There are not routine coverage and are articles about him with his photograph in all articles. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 14:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

And like I said, what do they say? How do I know they aren't just routine match reports. I note nothing has been added to the article or using them. I'm not saying you haven't found significant coverage but you need to be able to articulate what the sources say. Fenix down ( talk) 16:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply

The first URL appears to be a post-match interview, thus WP:ROUTINE; the second URL became malformed when posted, thus I cannot see what it says; the third URL appears to be a piece about Adamia maybe signing with a club, thus WP:ROUTINE; and the fourth URL appears to be a brief post-trade interview, thus WP:ROUTINE. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 01:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC) reply

დაბრუნება ცხრა წლის შემდეგ... გიორგი ადამია "ზესტაფონში" მივიდა This is about return to Georgia Football after Nine years after the return of man ... "Zestafoni" came and his success in Azerbaijan and about good players returning to Georgia. Gogole Translation
გიორგი ადამია: საქართველო და აზერბაიჯანი ევრო 2020-ს უმაღლეს დონეზე ჩაატარებენ George Adamia: Georgia and Azerbaijan's Euro 2020 will deliver the highest level. A general interview in which speaks Football including the Joint bid by Azerbaijan and Georgia for the 2020 Euro bid. [29] Google translation
დაბრუნება ცხრა წლის შემდეგ... გიორგი ადამია "ზესტაფონში" მივიდა George Adamia: "Inter" really liked .Adamia says joined Inter Baku as he liked them as a free agent. Google translation
4th one Google translation

Sorry for my delay in replying.None of them is strictly WP:routine I have added translation as requested and I have not included any post match interview and one is allowed to use foreign language sources and all of them are about him with his photograph in them . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete – Has not played in a WP:FPL (what constitutes an FPL is a subject for discussion here) and does not appear to have played in a FIFA tier-1 match. All coverage listed is either statistical or otherwise WP:ROUTINE, thus WP:GNG is also failed. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 01:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep With 7 Champions League appearances and 22 Europa League appearances over the last decade, and being the top goalscorer in the top league in a country where football is the top sport, it's inconceivable that if one had access to local press, that there wouldn't be abundant evidence to meet WP:GNG. To suggest deletion of this article is an extreme example of WP:BIAS. Nfitz ( talk) 15:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment In addition to him being a profilic scorer and his records This from Lelo Gogole Translation and this Google translation will take will them past minimum WP:GNG and this is clearly not WP:routine and can be verified with the translation . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep agree with reasons outlined by Nfitz. Hmlarson ( talk) 21:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Can't help but notice that Boguslavmandzyuk has not participated in this discussion. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 04:07, 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, Mr. Guye ( talk) 04:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep National player is good enough for me. A national cap in soccer should meet WP:ANYBIO. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

It is, except he has never played for the Georgian national team. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 04:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep. There is no reason than WP:IDONTLIKEIT to delete this article. The Azerbaijan league is a fully professional league. You have NO evidence that he hasn't played in a fully professional league. Your examples of Emin Amiraslanov, Amil Agajanov, Samir Abdulov etc are also meaningless because Wikipedia works on a case-by-case basis. All you have demonstrated is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Finally, your claim that he hasn't "received significant coverage" is called we call WP:BIAS on wikipedia. Perhaps YOU haven't read any articles about him in YOUR language. This doesn't mean he hasn't received coverage in other languages, as is witnessed by a full "references" section. This is irrespective of your personal opinions of whether the media in another country is less important than the media in your own country and it is NOT your decision to make the call that this player hasn't received coverage based on an English language google search.

As for Sir Sputnik's behavior, I can't believe that, as the creator of this page, I wasn't notified of this discussion on my talk page. The statement "I have every reason to believe consensus is now possible" is also very telling. Your definition of "consensus" seems to mean your point of view, regardless of the views of the rest of the community. It is very difficult to assume good faith when this discussion is sneaked by like this.-- Bogu Slav 06:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep GNG is met. Potential professional league (well, likely but FOOTY can be weird). The regional Cup play does it for me. This subject could be a great article and shouldn't be deleted just because some players in a similar spot don't meet the criteria. National bias, much? (not in a poopey nationalistic sense but in non English speaking nations sort of way if that makes any sense) Cptnono ( talk) 02:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The Azerbaijan league IS FULLY PROFESSIONAL!

This article states that the salaries of players in the league range from $5,000 to $66,000 a month. Another article states that the top 3 clubs in Azerbaijan have a yearly budget of more than $10 million. It also states that the highest paid players get around 600 euro a year. Another article says that professional players in the Azerbaijan league get salaries that are many times higher than those of the average Azerbaijani. These are just the first three articles I came across. I could very easily find a lot more. I'm waiting for the WP:BIASed editors to now tell me that this is not enough evidence because it is not in the Anglophone media or something to that effect.-- Bogu Slav 07:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The correct place to discuss whether the Azerbaijan League is fully professional is at WT:FPL. That said, I would be willing to recommend that this AfD be placed on hold pending discussion there. If consensus there is that the league is fully professional, then Adamia meets WP:NFOOTY and the article can be kept and improved. If not, then he doesn't and the article can be deleted. It seems obvious to me that this AfD is not going to reach any particular consensus until then. — Jkudlick ^t c_s 08:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The professionality of Azerbaijani football can be discussed at WP:FPL, but there's no reason the discussion can't also take place here. We've certainly concluded a league is fully professional in a AFD before without any discussion at WP:FPL. Nfitz ( talk) 03:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

And by "consensus" you mean that you hope more people will come around to your point of view to delete the article. You have also not responded at all to the points I have brought up. And we can discuss this issue anywhere it's necessary. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject, "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors ". I do not need to ask for the approval of WikiProject Football regarding every football-related topic. A WikiProject is simply a group of editors focusing on a specific topic. However, even if we do go by the recommendations of WP:FOOTY, Giorgi Adamia is still notable because he does play in a fully professional league. -- Bogu Slav 02:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The argument of User:Boguslavmandzyuk is compelling. A source indicating the league minimum salary (at least of the top 18 players) would be useful. Nfitz ( talk) 15:10, 8 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. If it wasn't for the OTRS request, I would close this one as no consensus, but my reading of WP:BIODELETE is that a no consensus in these circumstances should default to delete, a case made even stronger by a majority being in favour of delete. Spinning Spark 15:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Michael Lowry (actor)

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

The subject of this article has been in communication with OTRS (ref ticket:2015012210014351) and would like his article to be deleted if possible. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 17:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: The relevant guidelines are apparently WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BIODELETE, along with WP:NACTOR. Valfontis ( talk) 17:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete As someone who has advocated for a strong BLP policy and watched it evolve over time, I think that we need to push the boundary a bit father than the currently written guideline and delete this article. I've read the correspondence from the subject, and seen the history of the article, and considered the type of public figure that he is. The nature of his work means that he can meet the guideline for notability. Getting mentioned in the media is part of his work. But is he truly a public figure? I think having the information about him in other articles can adequately give the world the information about him, without subjecting him to the downside of being a target for malicious attention. In the big scheme of things we really don't have enough information to do anything beyond a long start article (if that.) So, let's make it work for all of us, and move the relevant information to other articles, and delete this stand alone biography of him at his request. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, per FloNight. I was waiting to see how others responded due to this being an OTRS issue. I saw that the article was the subject of some unwanted attention but that alone doesn't seem to be a criterion for deletion as pages can easily be protected. Since the subject barely passes WP:GNG, however, I was thinking "weak delete". FloNight's argument is persuasive so that puts me solidly into the delete camp, with the caveat that the work that gets mentioned at AfD doesn't always get done, so hopefully someone will take care of the merging of info into other articles. Valfontis ( talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Won't say keep at this point but he appears to clearly pass WP:NACTOR. Haven't read the correspondence from the subject but is there any problems that good protection on a straight forward stub won't address? duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
(This is me sharing my thoughts, not me relaying commentary from the OTRS ticket) Well, a stub is only a stub so long as someone doesn't come along and add to it, and we don't have a way to make perma-stubs (nor should we, imho). Protection is, of course, a possibility when there's vandalism to a BLP, but the current level of editing traffic the article gets is so low that I feel like it might be overly restrictive to protect it. It could be done, and maybe it even should be done, but doing it would be a bit on the unusual side. Then again, deleting it doesn't exactly leave it open for editing either so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 17:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
The problem is that there is no policy that really covers this situation. The protection policy makes it clear that protection is intended for short term use in the most minimal way so that people can keep expanding the article to improve it. But there is not really much more to be added and unlikely that there will be unless something drasticly changes so that he gets more media coverage. And very few people are viewing the article so there is a pretty good risk that no one will find BLP violations promptly except the subject of the article. In these cases of pages with extremely low number of page views, and no significant amount of information beyond what could go in other articles means we have the person who is the subject of the article as the person who truly has the most interest in it. In these situations I think it is fair to let them have a strong voice in whether we keep the article on site. When a search is done of their name, this article will be the first hit. Someone like him whose regular job put him in the media just barely enough to pass our notabity guideline because it was public facing work, but really is no different than the average person who shows up for his job. I think his work history can be adequately covered in the articles about his work. The reason that we take each article one at a time and discuss it is to figure each one out based on the particular details of the situation. So that is the reason that I feel comfortable voting delete on this one even though it technically passes WP:NACTOR. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. He satisfies NACTOR with significant roles in three major soaps. If he was only marginal, then maybe a deletion would be acceptable, but that's simply not the case here. Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep As somebody who can't read the OTRS ticket, I have to side with Clarityfiend here. He's not just some random bit player who plays uncredited roles. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello Clarityfiend and Taylor Trescot, the important part of "rules" that you all are overlooking is in the general guideline discussing the reason that we have notability guidelines. The topic specific guidelines are intended to be a topic specific shortcut for considering when someone is likely to have enough information in reliable sources to have a comprehensive standalone article if someone takes the time to find the material.

"We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.)"

Despite his decades of working as an actor, he doesn't have a large amount of content about him as an individual available for us to write about him. You could likely cobble together information about the work history of a large percentage of the people in the world if you know their name and occupation, and that really all we have on him. And the number of page views is quite small and people are more likely to see the information about him if it is included in articles about his past work on the shows. Considering his request for it to be deleted, I went back to the basics of why we have the guideline, and decided that it makes sense to look beyond the simplistic criteria for WP:NACTOR. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Soap Opera Digest interviewed him in 1997 and 2009. That shows a lot of staying power to me. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm not disagreeing that he was good at his work and able to get good jobs. This is true of many people in many occupations. That his was a public facing job means that it gets mentions in the media. I'm suggesting that in this case, him being able to get a job that is certain to generate media about his work, does not translate into us having enough good quality information about him to create a stand alone article. It is not about whether he is deserving of an article, its about whether there is enough data in reliable sources about him to create a stand alone article. This is a border line case. And with his stated preference, and us being able to present the information adequately elsewhere, I don't see a reason to keep this biography of a living person on site and have it open to violations of the BLP in a way that is harmful to him. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Since IMO the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR, deletion under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is appropriate. Mini apolis 17:43, 28 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, Mr. Guye ( talk) 04:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, absolutely. I'm actually surprised there's this much discussion of the issue. This isn't Barack Obama asking for his article to be deleted; it's a marginally notable person who really only has media coverage because his job involves being covered in the media. A glance at the article history suggests problems. Keeping the article because an essentially arbitrary benchmark is met is instruction-creepy, and deleting it as requested would be compassionate. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: Inability to see to the "ticket" isn't helping any; what proof do we have it's not a hoax or an attack by an imposter? Pax 07:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- I can't see it either, and I'm an OTRS agent. Not sure which queue it's in. Stifle ( talk) 11:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. If he were a decade-retired from some long-forgotten minor project, or an ex-child actor, deletion would be a done-deal. But he's still active with four acting projects alone in the last two years, including three new TV series, and formerly had an important role (possessing its own article in one of the biggest soaps of all time, One Life to Live. He is thereby a smashing success at meeting WP:NACTOR's "has had significant roles in multiple notable...television shows". It's very hard for me to see how he's not notable. Pax 07:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is appropriate here. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:04, 15 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. Stifle ( talk) 11:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Brighton Women's Centre

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing to differentiate this women's organization from many others like it throughout the UK and the world. Citations refer to coverage from primary sources and local media only. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:41, 8 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Google News link above turned up a few hits in The Independent. AadaamS ( talk) 17:48, 14 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom - No different from any other small charity in the UK. – Davey2010^Talk 02:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep – Has been covered twice recently by the Independent [30] [31] in relation to an important national issue (sentencing reform), and there are several in-depth profiles on Google [32] [33]. Meets GNG. (BTW, don't go to the home page of the thewomensresourcecentre -- it has been hacked by Islamic extremists. Or do go, if you are interested in that sort of thing. I had never seen it before.) – Margin1522 ( talk) 04:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment – without committing to deletion, keeping or another outcome. I checked through various published (offline) sources I have about Brighton, and found no mention in any. In particular, I would have expected at least a passing reference in The New Encyclopaedia of Brighton (Rose Collis, 2010). That said, there may well be other books in the libraries down here which do mention the Centre. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete most references are not independent. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 04:10, 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, Mr. Guye ( talk) 04:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep – Has been cited as national best practice e.g. New Economics Foundation [34] and as reported in the Independent. It is arguably at least of regional significance as they operate across Sussex. (disclaimer: I did create the page) Mdnl55 ( talk) 09:58, 7 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. Stifle ( talk) 13:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Ricky Elmore

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Elmore. I participated in that discussion (originally with a position of keep, which I struck later.) After completing steps outlined in WP:BEFORE, I do not see sufficient reason to reinstate the article at this time and find no measure of notability that the subject passes. I sent the article to WP:PROD which was overturned. I believe this is a procedural delete more than anything else, but I encourage the full discussion to take place. Because of my involvement in the original discussion and my belief that this should be procedural, I ask the closing admin to consider me neutral on the subject. Paul McDonald ( talk) 22:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald ( talk) 22:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The sources in the article along with [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] is enough to pass GNG to me.-- Yankees10 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:53, 24 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 20:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per the sources found by Yankees10 - Passes GNG. – Davey2010^Talk 06:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - Subject player clearly does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major/national awards) or for pro football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played a regular season game in NFL, CFL, etc.). Subject's notability rises or falls on the general guidelines per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Independent sources linked above by Yankees10 include one hometown article about his college career, one 3-question Q&A profile in another home state newspaper, a pre-bowl bullet-point profile in hometown newspaper of the Alamo Bowl, and hometown newspaper stories in Miami (a blog, actually) and Milwaukee (local sports column). Yes, based on existing sources, you can make an argument that the subject technically satisfies GNG, but you can also make the argument that all of the listed coverage is either routine or is heavily discounted because it's all local. Per WP:GNG, technical satisfaction of GNG is a pre-condition, but not a guarantee of inclusion of a stand-alone article. The best coverage of the subject is about him trying to make an NFL pro team, which he failed to do -- where is the encyclopedic content? Can anyone find more significant coverage of his college football career (a sport that he actually played) to convince me to "keep" this article? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:23, 31 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 04:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. The sources cited above by Yankees10 constitute significant coverage, i.e., they are articles focused on Elmore rather than routine passing references in game coverage. The sources also cover a wide geographic area with articles from outlets in Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma and Texas. This one passes muster under WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:00, 7 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 06:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Take Me to the Hospital (record label)

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

No evidence of notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 23:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 18:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. The label name is a plausible search term that should at least redirect to the band article, but this title with the disambiguation isn't going to be useful as a redirect. The article at the undisambiguated title already mentions the label, which I think is sufficient. -- Michig ( talk) 20:34, 29 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 03:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. No indication of notability, and since no one but The Prodigy releases on this label, probably no chance of attaining notability. If the label's name was unique I'd suggest a redirect, but since it's the same as one of their songs I don't see a reason to do so. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:03, 5 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. Clear consensus for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The First Homotopy

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

"In this essay..." falls under WP:NOTESSAY ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, when I saw this I assumed it was a copyvio, but didn't come up with anything. In any case, not an encyclopedia article. We've already got fundamental group, so this is arguably an A10. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 03:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: obvious essay. Sadly no speedy-delete category exists for this case. -- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 16:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete MicroPaLeo ( talk) 01:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. WP:NOTESSAY; and we already have Homotopy group. -- 120.23.3.247 ( talk) 07:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Snow Delete ... "In this essay we discuss" .... Need I say more.... – Davey2010^Talk 03:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Honestly no point in continuing this discussion. Unsourced and obviously an essay. EoRdE6^{(
Come Talk to Me!)} 19:43, 9 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 USS McCoy Reynolds (DE-440). ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

McCoy Reynolds

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

Another bio of a soldier who has a ship named after him. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. A merge/redirect to USS McCoy Reynolds (DE-440) is best. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

merge as above, no info found beyond rehashes of the same bio. Deunanknute ( talk) 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge and Redirect to USS McCoy Reynolds (DE-440). Once again, no reason for notability apart from a ship being named after him, which is common practice in the USN. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Merge and Redirect to USS McCoy Reynolds (DE-440) as suggested above. Subject had received passing mention in some reliable sources, but none which I would consider in-depth, therefore the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the subject does not meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:SOLDIER. That being said, the subject had a notable vessel named after him, and a biography about the namesake of that vessel would be a good redirect target of this article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 06:07, 11 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) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Musical Moments from Chopin

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

Non-notable video clip SageGreenRider ( talk) 01:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

delete- doesn't meet WP:NFF or WP:GNG, could be merged into any of several articles. Deunanknute ( talk) 03:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. This film received an Academy Award nomination for Best Animated Short. At minimum, this article should be given a reprieve so that additional sources can be sought out. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: It's absurd that an academy-award-nominated film, even an animated short, could be considered for deletion. What we need to do, instead, is flesh out this and related topics. I plan to add the Musical Miniatures article soon. — Kaz ( talk) 19:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Apology The sourcing is much better now. When I first saw it it had only a dead link to a former copyright-violating youtube upload and one to a non-reliable source (user-generated content at imdb) so I incorrectly assumed the topic non-notable. I reverse my position. SageGreenRider ( talk) 02:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
- Thanks to Kaz for working on the article and its sourcing. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  - People need to move to improve first, instead of being so quick to remove. This is true of deleting articles, deleting unsourced details, et cetera. It's far better to add some kind of citation-needed, than to remove things.The "remove first, ask questions later" mentality originally came from dishonest editors wanting to censor information they didn't like, by wikilawyering. But now it's infected non-controversial articles and claims, where it has never belonged. — Kaz ( talk) 05:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Agreed, but technically I didn't remove it. I (mistakenly it turns out) tagged it for a removal discussion. SageGreenRider ( talk) 12:42, 6 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. The nominator has essentially withdrawn in a comment in the discussion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

7 South Dearborn

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

Non-notable, never built, non-structure SageGreenRider ( talk) 01:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep If it can be sourced, it should pass WP:GNG just like Chicago Spire and Old Chicago Main Post Office Twin Towers.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. A notable unbuilt project. Multiple substantial coverage over a period of years is evident, for example: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Apology Sorry. When I first read the article I jumped to a hasty conclusion. I reverse myself. As penance, I added the sources above to the article. I plead extenuating circumstances that the article was poorly sourced before. SageGreenRider ( talk) 02:44, 6 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. Note that the nominator has essentially withdrawn in their comment starting with "Reverse". NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

CarrefourSA Maltepe Park

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

Non-notable supermarket SageGreenRider ( talk) 01:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: I've updated the article with a newspaper source. The shopping mall is a major one in Istanbul, which deserves mentioning. -- CeeGee 12:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment by nominee As I understand it wikipedia discriminates between notable and non-notable topics and the discrimination threshold is that notable topics have multiple, independent reliable sources. A local newspaper isn't a reliable source ( WP:AUD) so having only this source puts this shopping mall below the threshold of discrimination IMHO. SageGreenRider ( talk) 02:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Pls recheck newly added refs. -- CeeGee 08:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Reverse I can't really tell what the quality it but I'll take it on faith that they are now OK. Thanks for improving the article. SageGreenRider ( talk) 12:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak keep As far as I can tell, not all of these sources are local. A market at this size is usually considered notable. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Shopping_malls/archive and Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Malls.-- Antigng ( talk) 06:34, 7 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keenan Walker

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH as non-notable college football player who has yet to play a game. CSD removed numerous times by author and IP. Additionally no references for a BLP. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

delete same as above Deunanknute ( talk) 03:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. He is a 4-star recruit who is still in high school. He may well prove notable when his college career unfolds, but it it too soon for this article at this point. Per WP:NHSPHSATH, coverage of high school athletics is discounted somewhat for notability purposes. Accordingly, to have an article on a high school recruit, the coverage would need to be truly extensive. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Assuming he'll become notable is WP:CRYSTALBALL. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 18:25, 11 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 05:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Bad Nuze

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

non notable per WP:BAND Deunanknute ( talk) 05:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:53, 22 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 20:16, 28 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, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:31, 5 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

ASTR (band)

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

non notable WP:MUSIC Deunanknute ( talk) 06:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

notable musician and artist. This band is signed to 300 Entertainment, distributed by ADA, booked on all major US festivals, and has music on iTunes WP:MUSIC User: Josh300 ( talk) 08:59, 22 January 2015 (EST)

I was unable to find non-trivial published works, charting, awards, or anything else that would indicate notability. If any of that exists, please show reference. Deunanknute ( talk) 14:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:57, 22 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (visit) @ 20:15, 28 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, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete fails WP:BAND. LibStar ( talk) 04:07, 5 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 NUTS of Turkey. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

First-level NUTS of Turkey

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

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

I think those pages are redundant to the NUTS of Turkey page. Vanjagenije ( talk) 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - Similar articles for NUTS of Germany or NUTS of France use country-specific names instead of generic ones:

States of Germany and Regierungsbezirk instead of First-level NUTS of Germany and Second-level NUTS of Germany.
Zone d'études et d'aménagement du territoire and Regions of France instead of First-level NUTS of France and Second-level NUTS of France.

For Turkey though, I'm not sure there is an equivalent. The regions and subregions listed at Geographical regions of Turkey is is not the same as First-level NUTS of Turkey and Second-level NUTS of Turkey. Administrative divisions of Turkey does follow the same boundaries, but it looks like the first division of land is Provinces of Turkey, which are the same as Third-level NUTS of Turkey. Are there any Turkish names for First-level NUTS of Turkey and/or Second-level NUTS of Turkey? Forbes72 ( talk) 01:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - Apart from Regions of Turkey and Subregions of Turkey, which were most probably defined at the same time as their synonyms, I don't think there is. -- Mttll ( talk) 13:01, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 20:11, 28 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, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge to NUTS of Turkey. That is the same material. The other candidate countries (which are smaller I admit) don't have it split up into multiple articles. Also, the main NUTS page already goes 3 levels and a separate article on the third-level NUTS would be overkill. Do it as categories within Category:Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics as the other countries do. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to NUTS of Turkey, which contains the whole of the content of this article, and has now been tabulated for clearer visibility : Noyster (talk), 14:41, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delusions of Grandeur (Srl)

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

Defunct fashion label was the subject of one RS article but cannot find anything after that, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Vrac ( talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 22 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (post) @ 20:10, 28 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, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

delete per WP:GNG unable to find anything beyond passing mentions Deunanknute ( talk) 03:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
delete as above. Neutrality^talk 06:30, 15 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 03:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

1972–73 Eerste Divisie

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

Non-notable contest SageGreenRider ( talk) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - the second (and professional!) division in the Netherlands = notable. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - second tier in a professional league. Fenix down ( talk) 13:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - The season of a fully professional league. IJA ( talk) 21:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - Completely agree with GiantSnowman. It needs improving, but it by no means should be deleted. - J man708 ( talk) 03:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - per everyone above. Nfitz ( talk) 17:21, 8 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. Stifle ( talk) 11:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Northbridge FC

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable semi-pro club. Fails WP:GNG. Lack of independent 3rd party sources JMHamo ( talk) 00:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 00:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - 3rd party sources added to article explaining notability, ie. largest club in Australia/connection with professional A-League club Central Coast Mariners FC.-- 2nyte ( talk) 00:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment The citations included are not about the club, just mention them in passing, like them getting artificial grass... JMHamo ( talk) 00:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 01:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect to NSW State League Division 1; no evidence of notability but possible search term. Giant Snowman 12:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to NSW State League Division 1; no evidence of notability but possible search term. Club plays at the third level within their state. Far too low to warrant an individual article, connections to A-League clubs would be better mentioned in the A-League articles rather than here and do not in themselves justify an article. Fenix down ( talk) 13:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - Clubs in NSW are far more notable than clubs in other states of Australia. The list of fully pro leagues refers to notability of footballers, not football clubs themselves. The threshold for keeping club articles is a lot lower than individual players. Due to Australia's unique football set-up, if we were to delete all Australian semi-pro club pages within this gray area, we'd be left with very little information about Australian football. - J man708 ( talk) 19:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - Satisfies WP:FOOTYN, and as mentioned above, notable for its links with the Mariners and size as Australia's largest football club. Macosal ( talk) 01:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - WP:FOOTYN is an essay and notibility is not inherited... JMHamo ( talk) 01:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - Sure but it is widely cited and used in order to avoid what would otherwise be a large number of borderline cases. In any case, I would suggest that the article does satisfy WP:GNG for the two reasons I mentioned, amongst others. Macosal ( talk) 03:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - Prove that GNG is meet, because at the moment I can't see how it is... JMHamo ( talk) 03:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - meets WP:FOOTYN because the club has played in national cup competition - most recently the 2014 preliminary rounds of the Football Federation Australia Cup. Nfitz ( talk) 17:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:FOOTYN should've been deleted years ago as it doesn't reflect any current consensus of WP:FOOTBALL. Hack ( talk) 05:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG and also per this and this. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 12:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - meets WP:FOOTYN as they play in the national cup competition. FFA Cup. Umarghdunno ( talk) 22:55, 13 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 Halton District School Board. Closing early as we all know the drill..... ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Escarpment View Public School

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

WP:SCHOOLS issue - lack of content. smileguy91^talk 00:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

speedy keep redirected to Halton District School Board per WP:NSCHOOL Deunanknute ( talk) 03:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

redirect to Halton District School Board per WP:NSCHOOL, longstanding tradition as expressed at [[WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES}} Jacona ( talk) 13:55, 6 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) 08:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Degenderlization

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

The term appears to be a neologism...searches turned up no appearance of this word anywhere but this Wikipedia page. smileguy91^talk 00:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

redirect to sex segregation. Not a word (yet?) but "genderlization" does show hits on google. Deunanknute ( talk) 04:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

No objection to that. The precise target would seem to be: Sex_segregation#Desegregation. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 05:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Does not seem to be the established name for this phenomenon, which is real enough and notable enough for a WP article. I do have to disagree with the article's statement: "Although the only instance in which degenderlization can be seen in affect in Western civilization is within lower grade education systems (Daily athletic time or Gym as its widely known) or Uni-sex bathrooms." Besides which when someone notices that the word "gym" comes from the Greek word for "naked" there will be an uproar. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 05:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, the title is a complete neologism and the text is too POV to warrant merging. The handful of google hits for "genderlization" are either twitter-hashtag-related or people consciously using it as a neologism ("gender" + "generalize"). Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Don't bother with a redirect to sex segregation, this is not a word. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 11 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. Consensus is that sufficient sourcing exists, and thanks to NA1000 for taking the extra step of adding some to the article. Mojo Hand ( talk) 16:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Kayaking in India

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

This article shows no independent notability from the kayaking main article. — George8211 / T 19:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete : No sources, no region specific new information. Coderzombie ( talk) 06:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Kayaking facilities are available at Indian Institute of Management- Calcutta ( [48]). A kayaking workshop in Hyderabad was declared " a hit" by The Times of India. Several kayaking competitions are also organised; Malabar River Festival, National Championship of Kayaking & Canoeing, All India Inter-University Kayaking, Canoeing championship etc. The Sports Authority of India also provides kayaking facilities [49] and there's Kayaking and Canoeing Association of India ( [50]). Indian kayaking and canoeing team participated in the 2010 and 2014 Asian Games. More than 100 companies offer kayaking facilities in the Ganga white waters.-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 15:31, 31 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, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep and improve – The topic passes WP:N. Source examples include: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] (more reliable sources exist). Note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon available sources, rather than the state of sources in Wikipedia articles. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep -If notability is a concern here, then I think it has been addressed by Skr15081997 and Northamerica1000. I'm wondering if nominator would like to further expand their deletion rationale or just withdraw? WP:NOTCLEANUP may be an interesting reading here. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 21:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I think that this may now be addressed by a search for RS, which I should have done before nominating. — George8211 / T 10:50, 6 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) 08:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Cassidy Goodson

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

WP:BLP1E ˉˉ^anetode ╦╩ 00:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- ToonLucas22 ( talk) 01:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:CRIME Geogene ( talk) 02:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete – Fails BLP in several areas (as noted), WP:BLP1E, WP:CRIME, and WP:BASIC. — Bill W. ( Talk) ( Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 13:50, 5 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, per the nominator withdrawing their vote. ( non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 16:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Allen Forrest

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

~~Does not seem to meet any of the notability criteria in WP:NMG~~ Geogene ( talk) 02:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Also of note: [60] Geogene ( talk) 18:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep as nominator - I disapprove of using Wikipedia for promotion, canvassing a link to this page on Twitter, using one's staff to edit Wikipedia on your behalf, and of creating new accounts to avoid blocks, but iHeart radio counts as national radio play, fulfilling the notability criteria. Geogene ( talk) 00:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply

can you explain how the person is un notable? Redsky89 ( talk) 06:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Why? Is there a presumption of notability? Can you prove that I'm not notable? Geogene ( talk) 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - self-advertisement by relentless self-promoter. The "sourcing" includes Wikipedia articles, Youtube videos, and the subject's own Tumblr feed. -- Orange Mike | Talk 07:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you Geogene. Kevin Rutherford recommended that I delete responses with only an IP address and to ask the community to help me proper maintain my wikipedia page. So I'm asking will you guys help me properly edit my wikipedia page so it doesn't come across as a self promoting page? I honestly had no idea that it came across in that manner. Thank you for keeping me as a nominator and letting me to continue use this wikipage. -- TheRealAllenForrest ( talk) 02:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Newspaper Article. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealAllenForrest ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You've misquoted at least some of the above. There's an EXCEPT before the part about press releases. PR's aren't normally a reliable source or an indicator of notability, and that article is full of them? Why? Possibly because anyone can issue a press release. Geogene ( talk) 20:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Also, simply being on iHeart Radio doesn't confer notability, and I don't think that "Radio Wave Charts" is a national music chart. So it looks as though notability fails all of the above, and in some cases the rules have been misquoted. Geogene ( talk) 20:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] Does his Billboard Magazine article not count that is a major publication that is reliable for entertainment news?

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. He was featured on the front page of his hometown newspaper for his craft it doesn't get no bigger than that where's from?

Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network iHeartRadio now functions as both a music recommender system and a radio network that aggregates audio content from over 800 local Clear Channel radio stations across the United States, as well as hundreds of other stations and various other media

-J

I see Allen posted his national promotions confirmation from a radio network of over 800 local stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica Cohen ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Geogene: Here's my confirmation letter from Iheart Media confirming my national promotions.

Since Geogene acknowledges that I do meet the criteria of nobility. (with the respect for my partners privacy I'm taking this email confirmation down. I already emailed Kevin both copies of each month the singles were played. so please contact him or personally contact me and I will gladly provide you with the information needed.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealAllenForrest ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

KEEPFrom a small town like Dothan Alabama he has so many accomplishments. If I named all of them I would be writing all day. He was someone that had a dream and never gave up. Just to name a few of his accomplishments: Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. iHeart Radio. He is a pillar of his community and young kids and adults look up to him. I'm in GA and I have definitely heard his music numerous time on the Radio Hot 107.9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.1.1.3 ( talk) 19:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You're in Georgia? That's weird. Geogene ( talk) 20:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see it says "Suspected Proxy Server". That would explain it. Geogene ( talk) 20:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

KEEP Allen Forrest more than meets the minimum criteria for notability according to the Wikipedia guidelines. His biography is featured on MTV.com and Billboard.com

http://www.mtv.com/artists/allen-forrest/biography/

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/267959/matchstik His music video "Possessed" charted #68 on Radio Wave Monitor on 6/19/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuntMan2001 ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

KEEP

When FoxNews.com contributor Hollie McKay wrote an article on the rap industry and its impact on women’s issues, Allen Forrest was sought and quoted due to his notability within the industry. This article was vetted by the Fox News Digital Media team. Link to article: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/11/12/eminem-violent-lyrics-toward-lana-del-rey-slammed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B128:CFF:4F3E:8CC7:1F6B:15EF ( talk) 21:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

KEEP Allen Forrest is a talented musician, producer and entertainer. Attempts to discredit him are based the false premise that he is not a celebrity. While the extent of his popularity is subject to opinion, Allen Forrest is well known and respected in the entertainment industry and meets all of the requirements for his own article. Further, deletion of any article based on unsubstantiated claims, greatly undermines the mission Wikipedia seeks to accomplish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.96.186 ( talk) 20:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, the IPs sure are busy here today. Also, simply being a celebrity isn't the same as having notability for WP purposes. Geogene ( talk) 20:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Hi Geogene I've received emails from my staff today that you are wanting to delete my wiki page. On what grounds do my page not follow under the guidelines of wikipedia for nobility for musicians? It only requires you to have "ONE" of the following from the policy which I have several of the requirements.? You are looking to judge me for a few mistakes I made a few years ago which I no longer do when I was attempting to create a page for myself and didn't know the rules of wikipedia which I'm very much aware of them now... if you need any national radio verification I can send you any proof and that you need. I will email you all the confirmations from Iheart Media or contacts that you need... and you can also contact them as well and they will verify that they have promoted two of my singles nationally on iHeart Radio as a featured artist for the month of January and the month of June as well as the other 13 singles they promoted from my label last year.

Thank you so much for your time.

God bless,

-AF — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealAllenForrest ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 6 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.

^ http://www.dothaneagle.com/archives/former-resident-pursues-his-dream-in-hip-hop-music/article_e55aaaa7-d7e9-5000-b949-28eaa21e91ae.html

[stars-1] Kafka, Peter (May 21, 2012). "Discovery Plans Science TV Show for "Stuff You Should Know" Podcast". AllThingsD. Retrieved 2014-11-15.

[2] ttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/27/sec-baseball-awards-go-to-reed-nola-osullivan/

[3] ttp://www.wcbi.com/wordpress/2013-all-sec-baseball-teams-announced

[4] ttp://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/kentucky/2014/05/27/sec-baseball-conference-teams-awards/9655029/

[5] ttp://www.dothaneagle.com/archives/former-resident-pursues-his-dream-in-hip-hop-music/article_e55aaaa7-d7e9-5000-b949-28eaa21e91ae.html

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]