Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_June_21 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 June	22 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Deor ( talk) 13:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Syrian opposition chemical weapons capability

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

{{{text}}} This page is not valid because it concerns a matter which probably doesn't exist. One cannot ignore the fact that this fiction (Syrian opposition groups possessing and/or using chemical weapons) is the thesis of a massive propaganda campaign spearheaded by the Syrian government, unquestionably to deflect guilt from its own use of chemical weapons which is well known. It is not surprising that supporters of the Syrian government would attempt to utilize Wikipedia to further their propaganda just as they plant articles in the media, faked videos on youtube, and call in to radio talk shows. However scrutinizing the material of this page reveals a lack of weight of evidence to the effect that the stated subject of the article exists in reality, that it is no more than a subject of speculation.

Charges leveled by the Syrian government to the effect that the opposition has used chemical weapons have occurred in response to the reports of chemical weapons attacks (surely by that very government) in order to deny its own guilt. This is like when a murderer (Joe) accuses someone else (Mary) of killing the victim (Peter): would wikipedia allow a page entitled "Mary's capability for murdering Peter"?

My point is backed up by the (lack of) content on the page itself. The one paragraph lede mentions two entities that support the allegation, one being the Syrian government itself (the perpetrator wishing to escape justice) and the Russian government which happens to be the main supplier of weapons to the Syrian government. And from what I have seen in recent months, even the Russian government hasn't been actively pushing that fiction; rather they were part of an international agreement for the destruction of the chemical weapons which the regime has finally admitted to possessing. And then the REST OF THE PAGE is under ONE section: "Possible sources of chemical weapons." So with no good reason to believe that the title of the page even exists, most of the page is devoted to SPECULATION on how it COULD have been the case! That is like if, without any evidence of such an incident, I wrote an article entitled "Possible ways you could have beaten your wife." Which newspaper would print that?

The fact that some otherwise reliable sources or entities have pondered such possibilities doesn't change the essence of the argument I have supplied. In the fog of war there are always confusions and a range of interpretations of evidence. However most of this discussion in the press is not by disinterested parties but from sources associated with the propaganda campaign I have described. This may well include Wikipedia editors, though of course editors' discussion points should be taken in good faith and judged on their merits, regardless. The introduction of such propaganda material (sometimes even routed through an otherwise reliable source) is frequent in articles over the Syrian situation and needs to be addressed on various pages. However this particular page has no reason for even existing, and any reliable material in it (if any) can be used on a different page such as one that discussed the undisputed use of chemical weapons in Syria and claims regarding their source. But you cannot just write a page about something that probably doesn't exist in the first place. Interferometrist ( talk) 17:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep I believe there is enough reliable information to justify a separate article on this topic. Erlbaeko ( talk) 19:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC) reply

UPDATE: The information may be included into the Syria chemical weapons program page, but it seems to be out of Wikipedia:Scope of that article. Sometimes there is a need to have multiple articles to avoid a single article from restricting the coverage about notable topics. Ref. WP:POVFUNNEL.

Also take note of the last post in the "Added fringe tag" discussion on the talk page. A citation from @ Podiaebba: "the mainstream Western view is that there is "no evidence". The mainstream view in some non-Western countries like Russia is that there is." Erlbaeko ( talk) 12:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Longstanding WP:POVFORK from Ghouta chemical attacks et al. There is widespread agreement in the mainstream media, Human Rights Watch, and every government commission outside of a handful of Syrian allies, that the rebels seem to lack the capacity to launch the Ghouta chemical attacks; yet all but one of the paragraphs in the body tries to argue the reverse. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 22:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. This is a laundry list of unsubstantiated claims; some paragraphs uncritically cite no source except Sergei Lavrov. Normally NPOV/weight violations are a fixable problem that do not mean deletion is necessary, but in this case the entire article is a violation, making a non-neutral claim simply by its existence. VQuakr ( talk) 23:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 21. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - Lavrov should be considered to be a reliable source for encyclopaedic purposes. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - No indication Syrian rebels have ever achieved chemical weapons capability beyond a handful of dubious claims by pro-Assad government officials. This is only a matter of contention in fringe outlets. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 01:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete seems a pov collection of offscourings Sayerslle ( talk) 01:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete POV fork. Nick-D ( talk) 10:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:POVFORK. Shii (tock) 22:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete both. Paul Erik ^{(talk)
(contribs)} 21:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Haythem Halabi

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Fenix down ( talk) 09:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete both. No demonstrable notability. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 00:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. I'm taking Walter Görlitz's last comment as meaning that he no longer advocates deletion. If I'm wrong, I'm sure to hear about it. Deor ( talk) 14:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The Power of Your Love

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦
talk 04:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 10:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

~~Weak keep, possibly keep~~ Reviewed by Cross Rhythms, as demonstrated in the article. There also are mentions in Business Review Weekly, Volume 24, Issues 32-38, page 67; Schwann Spectrum, Volume 10, page 803; The Bulletin, Issues 6437-6445, page 33; and NRB, Volume 30, page 134. These pages hits came up on Google, I cannot access them, and I think some refer to the song rather than the album. Thus my hesitancy to give this article a full "keep" vote.-- ¿3fam ily6 _contribs 21:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment Significant discussion in multiple sources are needed to support notability. Only one present. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  - ~~Weak delete~~ I think the book mentions are brief discography lists. I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. On the cusp of notability, but not quite. The song "The Power of Your Love" might be notable, but this album doesn't seem to quite be there.-- ¿3fam ily6 _contribs 15:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Amending my vote again, per Shaidar cuebiyar below. The album was certified gold by ARIA. Shaidar, how did you find this?-- ¿3fam ily6 _contribs 00:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep Amended to a Strong Keep as album was certified gold by ARIA. The album has a solid review by Cross Rhythms, as well as an ACM mention and brief coverage in the magazines mentioned above. Jair Crawford ( talk) 04:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Certified gold by ARIA. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 00:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Excellent. Thanks. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Annie Quinn

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

There is a lack of substantial reliable sources on this person. All the sources do do is show a list of credits, without any indication of a starring role in anything major. The most detailed writeup is backstage.com, but that's self-written. Rob ( talk) 23:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - her only starring role was in a 22-minute short. Fails WP:NACTOR. Bearian ( talk) 20:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - No significant body of work and no significant coverage. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. Doesn't appear to be more than a bit-part player, if the search engines are to be believed. RomanSpa ( talk) 15:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Policy/guideline-based arguments for delete included that it was unsourced or of substandard quality, but at the very least the article appears to contain a non-scant number of sources, and quality concerns typically only require deletion when severe. Keep arguments cited it seems an acceptable spinout (WP:SPINOUT) and basically what amount of arguments over accessibility and content forking, (e.g., WP:ACCESS / WP:SPLIT / WP:FORK // WP:SPINOUT), which logically follow the argument raised that the notability of the event translates to a lot of content that can't fit in the main article on that event. slakr^\
talk / 01:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Timeline of Hurricane Katrina

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

This article is a large mashed up content fork of the information available at Hurricane Katrina and its associated subpages, with the only difference that this article is meant to display the information chronologically. Though not a primary reason for deletion, large sections of the article remain unsourced, but such information can be found on other Hurricane Katrina pages and is sourced there. Hurricane Katrina was a very important and notable storm, but that does not necessitate content forks. TheAustinMan^{(
Talk·
Works)} 22:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Article is of poor quality, incomplete, and much of it is unsourced. Some contents may be useful though, especially the aftermath portions. There are so many Katrina related articles that I cannot tell if this information is available elsewhere. If not, some of the aftermath should be salvaged before this article is deleted.-- 12george1 ( talk) 20:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Article's faults can be fixed by editing. Timelines are valid ways of presenting information on important events, and Katrina was certainly one of the most important in recent American domestic history. It needs serious pruning because it is too discursive to function effectively as a timeline: a timeline should present headline information. If it is edited, it might be possible to merge it somewhere, or as 12george1 says the timeline it may be available some other way, but the principle of a timeline is valid. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - AfD is not for cleanup, and this is not so bad as to require WP:TNT. Bearian ( talk) 20:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep, what the nominator sees a minus—that this combines, in chronological order, information found at multiple articles on Katrina—I see as a plus. A timeline is going to be most useful when it can condense an important sequence of events that are divided over multiple articles (I count at least eighteen articles just about Katrina and its aftermath), and where that sequence is of utmost importance to the subject. What happened when, in terms of the development and track of the storm, preparation efforts, when levees broke and areas were flooded, and what the rescue effort and other response was at each stage, etc., etc., is critical to an understanding of Katrina scientifically and historically. Really all we have here from the nomination and the sole "delete" !vote so far is the mistaken belief that "content forks" are an inherently bad thing and complaints about mere cleanup issues. postdlf ( talk) 20:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep, no matter how bad it looks, AfD isn't clean-up.— CycloneIsaac ( Talk) 16:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete this is a unsourced content fork Secret ^account 15:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep as a reasonable WP:SPINOUT of the Hurricane Katrina article. Hurricane Katrina is presently at approximately 130 kilobytes, and per WP:SIZESPLIT, merging the content to Hurricane Katrina would not benefit Wikipedia's readers. Also, as of this post, the article has 57 inline citations. It's unclear how the delete !voter directly above missed this. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. There is nothing here that isn't (and should be) in Katrina's article. Timelines aren't just a random listing of events. We have an article on Katrina's meteorological history, and we have a various articles on the aftermath. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep – Like User:Postdlf, I see advantages to presenting some of this information as a timeline, and better to have that as a separate page than as part of the main article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)
(contribs)} 21:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. There is clear consensus that this should not be a stand-alone article. It's hazier whether it should be deleted or merged someplace. For now, I'm calling this delete, and if anybody wants reference to the original text so they can add that to someplace, it can be userfied. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Tropical Storm 60W

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

After somewhat lengthy discussion among members of the Tropical Cyclone project, we've been unable to reach a consensus on what to do with this article. In short, this storm fails to meet notability criteria in any sense and is by and large a generic system that had no impact. It's a prime example of a source dump on WP of an event that has no real other place to go as it doesn't warrant much mention. We've been cutting down on cyclone articles of storms that are routine, namely those with little or no impact unless they're meteorologically notable (such as a Category 5 over open waters).

Since it's officially considered a non-tropical system, it has no real place within the 2006 Pacific typhoon season, which is where we've somewhat agreed upon it should be kept to should removing it entirely not be an option. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 21:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom Secret ^account 00:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge why shouldn't this exist as part of 2006 PTS assuming we have an RS (SAB) that considered this a TC? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. I don't think a merge is appropriate. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Merge, per YE. — CycloneIsaac ( Talk) 22:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - The SAB dont tell us that it was a tropical cyclone. I would not object to a line in the 2006 PTS other storms section though. Jason Rees ( talk) 12:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - largely a fluff piece that could easily be reconstituted into 1 or 2 sentences within the seasonal article. As it stands now, the article makes no credible testament to its subject's notability ("unusual" in the opening sentence, but that is not backed up by any sources). It's essentially a conventional low pressure system that was not recognized as a tropical cyclone and had no impact on land. With apologies to the article creator, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Bbb23 ( talk) 08:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Lokxion Foundation

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

Promotional article on a community organization with no apparent claim to notability. TheBlueCanoe 21:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete - Promotional and no claim of significance. Nominated for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11.- Mr X 21:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Deor ( talk) 13:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Health Goes Female

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

Non notable company. Diego Grez ( talk) 20:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, promo masquerading as an article and spam. Non-notable blog ran by some physicians. Only thing even remotely notable is that Brueggmann spoke to a magazine writer, once. On top of that, it stinks of PR and SEO, as the only "extensive" coverage is spam created by a PR agency named mw-pr; presumably the same as User:Wikimwpr, the creator of this article. Who might I add, is continuously adding bogus references to create the thin appearance of notability. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - The shout out in Shape seems to be their main claim to fame. Fails WP:WEBCRIT.- Mr X 21:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - I wouldn't say it's promotional but they're definitely not notable. – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I found a ref stating their books are used in school system (as an aside, my daughter has actually read their book in school), which I believe is notable. I added the ref to page. User:W-contributor — Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. Bloggers with an interest in medicine and self-publicity. RomanSpa ( talk) 15:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Teresita Alvarez-Bjelland

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

Main claim to notability appears to be a one-year presidency of Harvard Alumni Association, at which point there was an interview with her in a Norwegian newspaper. But I can't see that this presidency or some board memberships makes her truly notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Iselilja ( talk) 19:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Presidency of alumni associations is not a recognized criteria for notability. And yes, I recognize there's an instance of independent coverage, but come on—who hasn't been interviewed by a Norwegian newspaper at some point? TheBlueCanoe 22:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Iselilja ( talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. The nominator pretty much makes the case. RomanSpa ( talk) 15:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. Didn't find sufficient evidence of notability in article or web searches. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 00:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Jimmy Staten

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

This player is not notable via WPNGRIDORON nor WP:GNG, although he may be in the near future. Jacona ( talk) 18:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - It is too soon for this article. Recreate later after he actually starts playing. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Clearly passes GNG: [1] [2] [3] [4]-- Yankees10 19:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete All these sources are "hey he got drafted" and WP:NGRIDIRON clearly shows that being drafted or signed is not sufficient to meet the standard of notability. That is precisely why WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:TOOSOON exist. Jacona ( talk) 21:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

GNG outweighs both of those policies.-- Yankees10 22:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

NGRIDIRON and TOOSOON exist for a reason. They expressly state that an athlete is notable when he plays in a game in a top-level league. Anything that is a prerequisite for that, such as being drafted or being signed is therefore obviously not intended to be credited as significant coverage for GNG. GNG still applies, but being drafted cannot be considered significant coverage for GNG. If the above interpretation of GNG were to be accepted, we might as well delete NGRIDIRON, TOOSOON, NSCH, indeed, every other policy that exists. Jacona ( talk) 00:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Take a look at those links. That is significant coverage. Failing NGRIDIRON means nothing if the player passes GNG. You seem to be grasping at straws here.-- Yankees10 01:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The only player you nominated that seems to fail NGRIDIRON and TOOSOON is Kevin Pamphile since it doesn't look like he passes GNG.-- Yankees10 01:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I see that you at least agree that Kevin Pamphile fails gng, so be an upright honest guy and vote for deletion there.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep per Yankees10. Clearly passes GNG. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 05:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep All of the nominations by this particular nominator appear to be based on a misunderstanding of how WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON work together. WP:GNG trumps all other WikiProject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 21:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Has some non-routine, independent coverage and was honorable mention for All-CUSA. Clearly some individual coverage beyond being a member of a notable team per WP:NCOLLATH. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 04:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Being all-conference doesn't meet NCOLLATH or NGRIDIRON. The rest of the coverage is routine sports reporting about his being drafted. Every player drafted is not automatically notable and they all receive this kind of coverage (see WP:ONEEVENT. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Badgersox ( talk) 11:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Yawin Smallwood

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

This player is not notable via WPNGRIDORON nor WP:GNG, although he may be in the near future. Jacona ( talk) 18:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - It is too soon for this article. Recreate later after he actually starts playing. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep clearly passes GNG. A google search will confirm it. They just need to be added to the article-- Yankees10 19:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Coverage easily found such as [5] [6]. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 05:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep All of the nominations by this particular nominator appear to be based on a misunderstanding of how WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON work together. WP:GNG trumps all other WikiProject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 21:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails NCOLLATH and GNG. All coverage is about him in the NFL draft and that's WP:ONEEVENT. Being drafted does not grant automatic notability--all draftees get this kind of coverage. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 16:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Badgersox ( talk) 10:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Nat Berhe

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

This player is not notable via WPNGRIDORON nor WP:GNG, although he may be in the near future. Jacona ( talk) 18:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep He clearly passes GNG. A google search will confirm it. They just need to be added to the article-- Yankees10 19:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - It is too soon for this article. Recreate later after he actually starts playing. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Not a good reason. GNG outweighs "too soon"-- Yankees10 19:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep per Yankees10. Substantial coverage easily found, including for the fact that he is Eritrea's first NFL player. [7] -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 05:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep All of the nominations by this particular nominator appear to be based on a misunderstanding of how WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON work together. WP:GNG trumps all other WikiProject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 21:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Doesn't meet NCOLLATH or NGRIDIRON. Coverage is simply about is being drafted and that's WP:ONEEVENT. Every player drafted is not automatically notable and they all receive this kind of coverage. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 16:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Badgersox ( talk) 11:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Laurent Duvernay-Tardif

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

This player is not notable via WP:NGRIDIRON nor WP:GNG, although he may be in the near future. At this point the article is WP:TOOSOON Jacona ( talk) 18:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep He clearly passes GNG. A google search will confirm it. They just need to be added to the article-- Yankees10 19:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - It is too soon for this article. Recreate later after he actually starts playing. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Not a good reason. GNG outweighs too soon.-- Yankees10 19:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep per Yankees10. NFL draft picks are almost always the subject of extensive press coverage, and Duvernay-Tardif is no exception. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] etc., etc., etc. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 02:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep All of the nominations by this particular nominator appear to be based on a misunderstanding of how WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON work together. WP:GNG trumps all other WikiProject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 21:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - Duvernay-Tardif received some in-depth coverage, even before the draft, related to his highly unusual career path. (He is a medical student who is entering the NFL and will continue his medical studies in the offseasons.) I've added one such reference from Sports Illustrated. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 23:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Badgersox ( talk) 11:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Donte Moncrief

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

Not notable via WP:NGRIDIRON. In a while maybe, but now it is WP:TOOSOON. Jacona ( talk) 18:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Clearly passes GNG: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] along with the sources on the article. You might want to do a little more research before these noms.-- Yankees10 18:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep per Yankees10, WP:GNG. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 19:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep per Yankees10's sources. – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep per Yankees10 and WP:GNG. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 02:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep All of the nominations by this particular nominator appear to be based on a misunderstanding of how WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON work together. WP:GNG trumps all other WikiProject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 21:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Doesn't meet NCOLLATH or NGRIDIRON. All the coverage is routine sports reporting about his attempt to make an NFL team. Every player drafted is not automatically notable and they all receive this kind of coverage. This is WP:ONEEVENT. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 16:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Badgersox ( talk) 10:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hayden Zammit

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

I am completing this page on behalf of User:180.216.99.150 who placed the AfD banner on the article. ... discospinster _talk 18:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Adding User:180.216.99.150 rationale for deletion below that he placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Zammit [18] -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I nominate him for deletion.

yes he won the OAM, but since thats the only noteworthy aspect he deserves a reference on THAT wikipedia page, and not this vanity page which reads like a resume that lists every single award he got in highschool. Plus he's done basically nothing noteworthy since leaving highschool so definitely should delete and just mention him in the OAM page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.99.150 ( talk) 14:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - Winning an award is notable, but in itself, does not make the subject sufficiently notable to pass WP:BIO. WP:1E also applies.- Mr X 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - The OAM is a worthy award, but nowhere near conferring inherent notability per WP:ANYBIO. I agree with MrX that WP:1E is also relevant. Frickeg ( talk) 04:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete -Impressive accomplishment but not all that notable. Strongly agree that WP:ANYBIO applies. 4twenty42o ( talk) 06:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Lacks notoriety. Totally vain. WP:BIO. sig1068 — Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. There is no way the OAM should be used as a standard for notability – it's awarded to hundreds of people each year, and is the lowest grade in its order. IgnorantArmies 14:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Kevin Pamphile

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

This player is not notable via WPNGRIDORON nor WP:GNG, although he may be in the near future. Jacona ( talk) 18:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - Seems to be a case of WP:TOO SOON. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. NFL draft picks almost always receive substantial coverage and Pamphile is no exception. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] etc. Passes WP:GNG. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 02:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep All of the nominations by this particular nominator appear to be based on a misunderstanding of how WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON work together. WP:GNG trumps all other WikiProject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 21:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Per WP:NCOLLATH. Has received coverage beyond that of a typical member of a notable college team. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 05:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Doesn't meet NCOLLATH or NGRIDIRON. All the coverage is routine sports reporting about his attempt to make an NFL team. Every player drafted is not automatically notable and they all receive this kind of coverage. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 16:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Badgersox ( talk) 11:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Maurice Alexander (American football)

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

This player is not notable via WP:NGRIDIRON nor WP:GNG, although he may be in the near future. Jacona ( talk) 18:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - Seems to be a case of WP:TOO SOON. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Really hate when drafted players get nominated so quickly, considering there are tons of non-notable undrafted free agents who were signed after the draft and cut right away that still have articles. Anyways it looks like he passes GNG anyway: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] They just need to be added to the article.-- Yankees10 18:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep per Yankees10, passes WP:GNG, as will virtually all NFL draft picks. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 02:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep All of the nominations by this particular nominator appear to be based on a misunderstanding of how WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON work together. WP:GNG trumps all other WikiProject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 21:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep This player has had a journey on and off the field that has received a good deal of coverage. Starred in junior college and NCAA football before facing jail time and becoming a janitor. Returned to the NCAA and has now been drafted. Added some sources, but there are more. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - Passes GNG from sources already showing in the piece, independent of the Pro Football Special Notability "low bar"... Carrite ( talk) 13:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Badgersox ( talk) 11:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Karen Strassman

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

Working voice actress but not notable enough to meet the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Binksternet ( talk) 16:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - The only sources that I could find were trivial mentions in closely connected sources, blogs, and a plethora of self-published promotional entries which lead me to conclude that this article is probably part of a campaign to promote an otherwise non-notable subject.- Mr X 17:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. No award wining no record no coverage in independent sources to meet with artist plus entertainer notability standard. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 19:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete as no evidence of notability – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER from having significant roles in notable works. List_of_Ai_Yori_Aoshi_characters#Mayu_Miyuki is listed as a main character in a notable show. She did significant characters in other things on the long list as well, such as characters from Bleach. Dream Focus 02:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 02:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 12:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete Can't find evidence, nor does this article provide evidence, of meeting WP:GNG. Inadequately sourced for a biography of a living person, what sources are given are unreliable. Passing mentions can be found to reliable sources, this is likely not a hoax, but that's about it. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 05:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep I'm with Dream Focus. She has passed WP:ENTERTAINER. - FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 07:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep FilmandTVFan28 is probably referring to #1 under WP:ENTERTAINER. IMO, her role as one of the main characters in Ingress_(game)#Cast might also qualify as a cult following for #2. I talked to her briefly in Gettysburg on Saturday after her first performance [ as Dr. Devra Bogdanovich at the end of Interitus in Gettysburg] and then again at the signing table in the evening [ at signing table at the Interitus after party] but waited until the line died down at the end RobSimpson ( talk) 16:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep per Dream Focus' reasoning. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Steve Staley

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

Working voice actor but not notable enough to meet the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Binksternet ( talk) 16:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - Let this page stay. He's a good actor and has a lot of voice over roles. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 16:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

We are not arguing whether he's good at his job, or whether he gets assignments—he is and he does. We're arguing whether he meets Wikipedia guidelines. Binksternet ( talk) 17:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - The only sources that I could find were trivial mentions in closely connected sources, fan sites, and several self-published promotional profiles. If one were to accept that all of the roles listed in the article are authentic, the subject has been very busy. Unfortunately, reliable sources have not taken note.- Mr X 17:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTABILITY clearly states they are notable if they meet the General Notability Guidelines OR one of the subject specific guidelines. They don't have to do both. Dream Focus 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Meets WP:ENTERTAINER as some of his roles have been significant on notable television shows. Dream Focus 17:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Can you point to sources that support him having any significant roles? I wasn't able to verify any.- Mr X 17:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  - You can look at the article and see which roles are major characters in the various series. Does this character appear in most/all episodes? Then its a significant role. Dream Focus 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
    - His work also gets coverage in places. [33] Dream Focus 17:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 19:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep He's been in a whole load of productions many of which have their own articles Gregkaye ( talk) 20:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep As others have said passes WP:ENTERTAINER with major roles played for anime. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. He has voiced multiple main and/or significant characters using multiple names. To find sources, all names need to be Googled. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 00:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Kobayashi Maru (2008 novel)

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

Non-notable pulp fiction. No references given (and hard to find any) to support its meeting of WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas ( talk) 16:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - No reliable, independent sources are available that establish even minimal notability. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 17:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete as fails NBOOK. – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Weak delete Lots of coverage on SF/Trek websites [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] but I don't know if any are reliable sources. Aside from that, one sentence in Publishers Weekly [39] and discussed in an LA Times interview [40]. That doesn't seem to meet WP:NBOOK although the book could be mentioned in a more general article on Star Trek books. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete on copyright grounds: the content is a copy-and-paste from the publisher's summary. -- EEMIV ( talk) 15:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep The Vanishing Act; redirect the others. Paul Erik ^{(talk)
(contribs)} 20:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The Vanishing Act

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

The Vanishing Act, 36 MM 3D, Savita Barbie, and Monologues of a Sex Maniac are all "upcoming" films by Rupesh Paul. It appears that they may be in production or post-production, but none have been released yet. Each title was redirected to either Rupesh Paul or Rupesh Paul Productions Limited in accordance with WP:NOT YET (films). Although there are some mention of the titles in news media, the sources I can find only mention the director, titles, and Paul's intent to show the films at Cannes. (I find no mention of Rupesh Paul at the festival's web site, though.) Although redirect seems like an appropriate response, one or more editors (some are IP edits, so I'm not sure of the number) have recreated the speculative content, in most cases more than once. Either deletion or page-protection for the redirects would seem to be in order. Cnilep ( talk) 02:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Adding as nominator: Per WP:NFILMS, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable". Cnilep ( talk) 02:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cnilep ( talk) 02:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cnilep ( talk) 02:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Adding as opposor: The production house (Rupesh Paul Productions Limited is notable, so is not valid for deletion". Vaishali ( talk) 0302, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.217.120.12 ( talk)

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

Redirect all to Rupesh Paul#New projects where per policy, his sourcable future plans can be spoken of even if lacking notability for a separate article. Once filming is confirmed for any of these, they can be recreated or undeleted, as they almost meet NFF (paragraph 3), but have not begun filming. For instance, we do have reliable sources speaking about anticipated filming of The Vanishing Act to begin soon for a fall release. [41] [42] [43] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC) STRUCK Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} reply
Keep It surprises me that this has been nominated for deletion. At worst I'd think it would attract a notability tag (If anything). It will reappear again at a later date without any notability or nomination for deletion tag in about 6 months. I can guarantee that. So why delete something that will have to be put up again in the near future ??? Can't see any sense it that! ( Joecreation ( talk) 09:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)) reply
Keep The Vanishing Act as a project whose production meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Temporarily redirect the others to Rupesh Paul#New projects where per policy, his sourcable future plans can be spoken of even if lacking notability for a separate article. Allow return one-by-one once notability for them is shown. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Question: I'm not disagreeing, but I don't fully understand the reference. By "NFF (paragraph 3)" I presume you mean, "unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", since the rest of that paragraph is about deleting rather than keeping articles. If I had to guess I would paraphrase your assertion as, "The planned production of The Vanishing Act meets WP:GNG because it has received attention from multiple newspapers." Is that right? Any road, that is a sensible argument for The Vanishing Act (I don't think it really applies to the others), and one that is much easier to see thanks to Schmidt's recent substantial edits. Cnilep ( talk) 02:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Indeed, most of these planned films do not have the independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. But by their being minimally sourcable, policy tells us how and where they might be spoken of even if not in a separate article. The Vanishing Act is the exception and meets the caveats toward individual notability. Check WP:FFCLARIFY. The director managed to get worldwide coverage of his plans for that one planned film, so we're okay... and for now we can redirect the others.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 15:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep/redirect per Schmidt, who makes a clear enough case. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
~~Keep~~, as per my post at 09:22, 19 June 2014 Also for those interested, the trailer can be seen here [44] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joecreation ( talk • contribs)

No need to repeat your vote, Joe. Only one to a customer. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Unless you are a voter in Chicago... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
They have hanging chads there too? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Nate Thomas

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

No significant coverage, blatant self promotion, not notable, poor and inadequate sources other than his own bio page, fails WP:SPIP Tflags23 ( talk) 03:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment It's marginal whether he meets WP:CREATIVE as director of East of Hope Street: currently the article on the film is poorly sourced, but according to Rotten Tomatoes it did receive 3 reviews, though they are now offline. [45] I don't think he meets WP:SCHOLAR for his professorship [46]. There are brief press mentions [47] and he's occasionally quoted as an expert [48]. But it's rather insubstantial. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. This was obviously written by Thomas himself or one of his associates. Note that much of the article was written by User:Hcrtv006 who wrote exclusively on Thomas, East of Hope St, and adding Thomas's name to other articles. -- GHcool ( talk) 19:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Weak keep - this subject is fairly marginal as far as notability, and assuming good faith, I think there is a potentially good start here. Can this be userfied or rescued? Bearian ( talk) 22:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | speak _ 15:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - There are a lack of independent sources that cover the Professor Thomas in any depth. Fails WP:BASIC, and specifically WP:ANYBIO as the subject has only been nominated for one Emmy.- Mr X 17:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - The subject is [[WP:BARE| notable although marginally. He is an academician in media and quoted in various printed articles including previously mentioned by talk here as well as the Los Angeles Daily News [49] and San Fernando Valley Business Journal [50]. These publications would not quote the subject if not considered an expert. He won an Emmy Award, the most coveted award in that industry. [51] Assuming good faith, I would love to be helpful in rescuing the article vs. immediate deletion. -- Prease ( talk) 9:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)— Prease ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let us note that, by the source linked above, that's a regional Emmy, not a national one. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 18:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Lake Highland Preparatory School. Merging can be done (from the history of the page) at editorial discretion. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

LHPS Highlanders

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

This is a completely non notable high school athletics article. Jacona ( talk) 14:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 21. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Lake Highland Preparatory School. I found two Orlando Sentinel articles that mention the team in passing. The subject has inadequate available sources to establish notability.- Mr X 15:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect per MrX and per WP:PRESERVE. It would be rare to have an separate article about a high school sports program, but content about the school's athletics program clearly belongs in the main article about the school, so deletion is not the appropriate action here.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 05:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect - Merge only if sources appear. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 ( talk) 17:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Dr Sudha Kankaria

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

Inadequately sourced autobiography about a non-notable doctor. I am unable to find any reliable sources that establish notability. Fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 14:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete Little or no content p b p 15:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
SNOW Speedy Delete: Does not demonstrate notability. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 04:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Westview Middle School (Miami, FL)

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

Non-notable article about a middle school. Meets neither WP:NSCHOOL nor WP:GNG, nor does it cite any reliable sources. Jacona ( talk) 14:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools as is usual practice ( WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES).- Mr X 14:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect per MrX. John from Idegon ( talk) 06:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect makes sense to me, too. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect per MrX. – Davey2010 • (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite ( talk) 13:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete & Redirect as above, no need to wait seven days. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Orange County Public Schools. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 04:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Glenridge Middle School

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

Non-notable article about a middle school. Meets neither WP:NSCHOOL nor WP:GNG, nor does it cite any reliable sources. Jacona ( talk) 14:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Orange County Public Schools as is usual practice ( WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES).- Mr X 14:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect per MrX. John from Idegon ( talk) 06:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect per MrX. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect per MrX. – Davey2010 • (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite ( talk) 13:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect as above. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Srđan Šolkotović

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

Fails to meet WP:NBASKETBALL or the WP:GNG. If I understand the article correctly, it doesn't claim him to have played at a top level senior's competition yet. Not even Eurobasket.com knows his name, which always is a bad sign. Axolotl Nr.733 ( talk) 12:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 ( talk) 14:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 ( talk) 14:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 ( talk) 14:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 ( talk) 14:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. I don't see any compelling sources and the leagues he has played in are not very high-profile to suggest that he might meet GNG in his native tounge. Rikster2 ( talk) 18:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails GNG and NHOOPS. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 16:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was snowball keep ( non-admin closure). ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 21:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Islamic Human Rights Commission

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

Deleate it is an attack page SillyPotatoe ( talk) 11:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep. Purely frivolous bad-faith nomination for deletion. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep - The article presents several points of view and is abundantly sourced. A for the nominator.- Mr X 15:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
SNOW Keep - per above. Nominator should read WP:BOOMERANG. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

It is clearly an attack page. Saying the organisation are basically terrorists — Preceding unsigned comment added by SillyPotatoe ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Bad faith nomination. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Deor ( talk) 14:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Bok Fu

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

Has been deleted through AfD as non-notable. Nothing has changed but last AfD was long enough ago that another AfD is more appropriate than repost speedy delete. Only one or two of the references seem to be about the art directly and they are primary. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Doesn't appear to be any more notable than it was at the last AfD. The article lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG and also doesn't appear to meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa ( talk) 19:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete and salt Article keeps being recreated without adding any information that supports claims of notability. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 16:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete no mention of Bok Fu in most of the citations. Nothing connects Bok Fu to the people cited who win matches. Early history is not specific to Bok Fu. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Discrimination against conservatives

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

Original research article about alleged discrimination against social conservatives in the US. The article presents an unsourced thesis and then argues it with a loose collection of cherry picked examples of supposed discrimination against conservatives. In many cases, the subjects themselves are notable for promoting discrimination against other individual and groups. The title may be a candidate for redirection to Social conservatism in the United States. The article is mostly scandal mongering and lacks merit as a serious encyclopedia article. - Mr X 12:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

~~weak keep~~ Could the content of the article result in increased persecution of individuals such as those in same sex relationships? If so that could be a valid justification for censorship. Gregkaye ( talk) 00:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC) but its mainly weak because I don't like what I'd describe as conservative attitudes. The multiple issues cited are: may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline; may not include all significant viewpoints; lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies; examples and perspective in this article represent opinions from the United States and may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (all from June 2014). Notability! all seems verifiable - 28 references, significant viewpoints: if there is discrimination then the discriminated against must be allowed to speak, if they are wrong then please say why they are wrong, again please, undue weight: how? the article has a topic and is sticking to it, (but I might support a proposed rename if there is a term with a wider meaning than discrimination to enable a wider view of the topic), US centric: I'd speculate that after the US has suffered under George W. Bush etc. there may be more motivation to discriminate against conservatives in the US than other places .. but if that is where discrimination is happening and if thats where "folk" are talking about it then they have a right to speak. I also feel wary about main author and self proclaimed Dr. Bobbie Fox who I wasn't able to find on google Gregkaye ( talk) 19:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete as original synthesis.-- 4scoreN7 ( talk) 19:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - I don't see an article about discrimination against conservatives. I see a list of examples of people/companies who faced various consequences/bad press as a result of statements on the subject of same sex marriage. There is nothing in here that's actually about conservatism (in the United States or elsewhere). There are indeed a lot of sources out there claiming discrimination against conservatives, but these (like the present article) almost always boil down to a single issue and thus are better suited for our various encyclopedia articles on those specific controversial issues. So delete as an article which exists only as the product of WP:SYNTH. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment - I will say, however, that I was surprised to see that we don't have an article for political discrimination (maybe I'm just failing in my searches for an equivalent?). But I do see political repression and pages for every notable controversial issue on which people on either side could claim discrimination. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  - Comment If Rhododendrites' accusations are substantiated then, if it is possible, I would love to see a redirect to a title such as " Discrimination against conservatives in the context of an opposition of same sex marriage". Otherwise, in light of WP:CENSOR and admittedly from the perspective of someone not from the United States, I am not sure how far we can go with this. A section could certainly be added to the article with a title like "Reports of contexts of reported incidents of discrimination". A mention of discrimination in this article may be a double edged sword but, again, I am talking from an outsiders perspective. Gregkaye ( talk) 23:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
    - Regarding this and your comment above, I fail to see how WP:CENSOR is relevant here. The question isn't whether or not it's harmful, offensive, etc. The question is whether this page is appropriate as an encyclopedia article (i.e. that it is neutral and balanced in its coverage, it is well sourced to reliable sources, contains no original research or synthesis, is not already covered by other articles, and is it notable). We don't redirect to non-existent pages, so are you suggesting instead to rename the page? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
      - I have placed original research and neutrality tags on the article and I totally agree. Delete. You say that you don't see an article about discrimination against conservatives. Is there a tag for misrepresentation of title or similar. In another situation perhaps this is the kind of labelling that might be used. It is clear that article titles should be representative of their contents. I also think that, as a general rule, articles should be correctly tagged in line with the content of an AfD preferably before AfD requests are submitted. Yes, I had in effect suggested a move but that seems a moot point now. Gregkaye ( talk) 07:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
      - I also think that Wikipedia should rethink its policy on censorship. Gregkaye ( talk) 07:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - Pure WP:OR. An article on a phenomenon that does not actually exist outside the tortured fringe spheres of the right-wing blogosphere. A laundry list of disparate white people problems does not a topic make. Tarc ( talk) 05:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment. This sorry article starts by citing "a survey carried out by the [sic] psychologists of the [sic] Tilburg University among their colleagues". True, it only does so via a Moonie-financed newspaper; but very little effort is needed to find the actual article, " Political diversity in social and personality psychology", indeed written by two psychologists at Tilburg U, and apparently published in a respectable journal. The article says In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate. Now, one shouldn't rush to write articles on the strength of a single academic article (so far little cited, though there is this), and this study may be mistaken; but Perspectives on Psychological Science is not a "tortured fringe sphere of the right-wing blogosphere". -- Hoary ( talk) 05:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. There's plenty of evidence that people avoid or oppose those who do or say things they find repellent. Some of these "things" are often associated with the right wing, just as others are often associated with the left. The article alludes to a single paper (PDF) that talks of discrimination against conservatives. There could be something to this. Wait until it's clear that there indeed is. Meanwhile, this is mostly a ragbag collection of efforts to spurn or oust a few semipublic figures because of particular beliefs or actions ascribed to them. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Now, as the author of the original article, I can see it wasn't very consistent. However, there is an ongoing trend of boycotting/vilifying public figures who oppose gay marriage in the 2010s, which clearly wasn't present in the 2000s (it's not just "avoiding or opposing" like Hoary said, it involves launching massive campaigns against these people's art, career, etc.). It shouldn't be too difficult to find reliable sources on that matter ( Deseret news, Washington post, Daily caller, etc.), which analyze the trend as a whole. Therefore I suggest renaming it to Discrimination against same-sex marriage opponents in the United States, Social pressure against same-sex marriage opponents in the United States or something like that. -- Dr. Bobbie Fox ( talk) 06:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep As used in a substantial number of reliable source books etc. implicitly or explicitly - including NYT usage regarding "liberal bias" etc. It may well need a different title, but simple deletion is simply covering our eyes as to what is discussed in many places now. It is, moreover, not our place as Wikipedia editors to make any value judgments that "it was their fault because they opposed something which is a fundamental right" (In many cases, the subjects themselves are notable for promoting discrimination against other individual and groups.) or the like. We only can use what the sources specifically state, so that sort of argument is invalid here. [52], etc. Better to improve this article than to let such non-policy reasoning hold sway here. Collect ( talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC) I removed some "extravagant language" from the article - but a genuine skeleton of an article definitely exists. Collect ( talk) 13:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep but rename per Rhododendrites. To be neutral, a title like Political discrimination in the United States would be best. As titled, the article is a problematic but the basic premise behind it is sound and the current material is sourced and worthwhile as a start. People/orgs/biz discriminate based solely on political leanings in the US, and there is plenty of material about the topic. While this focuses only on conservatives (which is a problem), I'm confident that the pendulum swings both ways and the overall topic of discrimination is worth writing about. Rather than see it go away, I think we are better to open the door and cover the topic in a broader sense. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment I am no expert on the subject but I suspect that any suggestion, in title, article or reference, that connects sexuality to political affiliation would likely be misleading. Sexuality is one thing. Politics is another. Gregkaye ( talk) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  - Sorry, I don't follow you. You seem to be confusing "discrimination" with sexuality, or something I'm just not getting. Nothing in my comment was a reference to sexuality. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete, per WP:BLOWITUP. The "examples" are all "discrimination against anti-homosexuals", and are only reported, not put in any context. The paper referred to in the lead does (at least, appears to) report discrimination against conservatives, but I suspect you could find equally good sources that conservatives discriminate against liberals. My google-foo is not the best, but political discrimination looks more appropriate, if commentary on the issue can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Actually the university study was not about LGBT positions but "conservative" in general, and this is likely the single strongest source in the article on the exact topic. I suspect the NYT Public Editor columns about bias on that newspaper also would be germane, and a few other sources. There are, of course, arguments that anyone perceived to be "not us" is likely to be discriminated against, but that is not a policy based reason for deletion of this article IMO. Collect ( talk) 14:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Collect ( talk) 14:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  - The university survey (not study) was about "conservative" in general; however, it wasn't even single-blind (the participants knew the researchers, as well as the other way around). Although in a legitimate journal, it has no statistical significance. Even if the article were to be kept, I would question the "reliability" of the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
    - Parsing "survey" v. "study" seems without merit here. Meanwhile the topic makes the NYT [53], Bloomberg's speech at Harvard, [54] Okrent's dissection of the NYT in his position as Public Editor, inter alia. It is a "real topic" and likely should also include allegations of anti-liberal attitudes as well, but real topics merit Wikipedia articles. Collect ( talk) 17:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
      - I have to head off at the moment, but the survey would fail the form of WP:RS now applied to scientific articles. I'll have to consider whether the NYT articles (if they are articles) discuss discrimination against conservative ideas or discrimination against conservatives. If they do discuss the topic of the article, we could add them to the lead, and remove all the examples, and start editing again. In that case, I would change my !vote to Keep (but remove examples which do not say specifically that they are "discrimination against conservatives", and are commented on. That would be all the examples now here. I do not think the published survey is adequate to indicate notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
        Is it a scientific articla? In a news article that does not erroneously confuse sexual issues with political issues I see no problem. It might be relevant to state the category of source that a citation came from: academic source, university-level textbook, book published by respected publishing house, magazine, journal, mainstream newspaper etc. if this categorisation was applied consistently to citations. Gregkaye ( talk) 11:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
      - Collect, I looked at both of the links you provide. Both briefly address allegations of a liberal bias (one in TV content, the other in the NYT). "Discrimination" is a slippery term, and in one of its meanings I unashamedly discriminate among choices during most of my waking hours (and ought to be institutionalized if I didn't); in this context, though, we're surely talking about inequitable and unjustifiable discrimination against people. I don't see any mention in either of those links of a claim that those who hold or espouse views that are conservative (however defined) are discriminated against (have difficulty getting served, have difficulty getting, keeping or advancing in their jobs, are "profiled" for immigration or police checks, etc). I'm willing to believe that sane people have seriously alleged that such discrimination exists; you are of course free to add it to the article under discussion. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete No doubt, there is such thing as discrimination against conservatives. Unfortunately, discrimination research looks like | this. It accounts for methodology and data sets and statistical measures. I would love to see some competent studies of discrimination against conservatives. Unfortunately, there's none to be found here. This is WP:COATRACK.-- Atlantictire ( talk) 15:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. Obvious coatracky synthesis; there's no there there in these disparate incidents. People choosing how to spend their money isn't discrimination - it's the free market, baby. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete The article title has no basis in political reality. This is is not discrimination. Look at that article. See anything about political affiliation there? Discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion etc is prohibited by the US Constitution, while treating people differently because of their politics is no more than refusing to cooperate, and any laws forcing cooperation with opposing political forces would be the worst sort of impingement on political freedom. Anarchangel ( talk) 22:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- No policy issue -- just a claim that refusing to work with people because of their political beliefs is fully proper - thus is not "discrimination." What an interesting viewpoint, but not one which has any policy basis at all. Collect ( talk) 23:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  - - - The Constitution comes first. Then, maybe, we write about it. That is to say, it must be notable. In a case of discrimination, if it is not covered by the Constitution, it does not exist. If it does not exist, it is not notable, and we do not write about it. Not my fault if there is no WP rule that specifically states there should not be articles about a subject which is defined so badly as to be nonexistent. I suspect there are, though. I suspect, also, that you have stumbled upon a new Argument to Avoid in deletion discussions; sort of the opposite of the rule against throwing acronyms at the problem instead of using logical arguments. I used a logical argument and no acronyms. So? Anarchangel ( talk) 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Congratulations! If the Constitution does not cover it, it does not exist is an amazing claim. Cheers -- but if that is the basis for "deletion" then anyone closing it should give that argument the precise weight it deserves. Collect ( talk) 23:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

- - I suspect that there may be United States conservatives that neither support or oppose same sex marriage. Some may even support it and some may themselves be very gay. I also suspect that there may be people from other political views that have strong opposition to same sex marriage. I would be dubious about any title that associated sexuality based prejudice and a political view if there were more broadly defined titles that could be sensibly used. An association might be done on a more individual basis but within the context of an article Gregkaye ( talk) 11:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  - The policy is WP:TITLE. Article titles should be what the article is actually about. This article is not about discrimination; it's a COATRACK of cherry-picked examples of reactions to discriminatory statements and actions of people who oppose same sex marriage. To loosely collect all of these reactions under the banner of 'discrimination' is blatant SYNTHESIS, it's misleading, and it violates WP:NPOV.- Mr X 01:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
    - If you dislike a title - the course is to rename the article. The fact is that one survey shows a concrete issue is what one must contend with - and that the same concerns were expressed by the Public Editor of the New York Times. Calling Okrent a "blatant" anything is likely incorrect. And his point said nothing whatsoever about "same sex marriage" and the survey was not about "same sex marriage." The cavils about the cases shown may indicate that broader cases should be added, but the assertion that no issue exists is simply blindness to real problems which have existed in many places over many years. I suggest that a person in the pre-war South who opposed slavery would have been boycotted by his neighbors - and this is the same issue -- the issue of "trial by vote" of any political position. Twain wrote about people viewed as "pro-Chinese" in nineteenth century San Francisco being driven out of town (an ongoing issue which arose again in the willful internment of Japanese-Americans in WW II and the interesting profitable seizure of their lands and businesses). Santayana's admonition about ignoring the past is relevant here. Should the article be broader? Likely yes. Should it be deleted? Likely no. In fact, the perils of any "blacklist" would be a fit here. Collect ( talk) 11:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - a hot mess of original research and synthesis wrapped into a article fork of an urban legend. If this article about this fringe belief is kept, it must be re-named into something more neutral. Bearian ( talk) 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. I would not be opposed to Political discrimination in the United States, but this article has way too many issues, and I'm not convinced that all of them are solvable through normal editing. A more neutral presentation that included actual discussion of the topic, instead of cherry-picked examples, would be a viable topic. The way it's currently written seems to be some kind of "discrimination against bigots" soapbox. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - POV coatrack. Political discrimination in the United States might be an encyclopedic topic. This article ain't it, nor even within the same zip code of being it... Carrite ( talk) 13:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. A load of recentvist hooey. Of no value in anything close to this form. 70.192.87.133 ( talk) 17:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete as WP:SYNTHESIS. No basis for renaming or redirecting. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

C. M. Guerrero

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

This photojournalist doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. I don't see much out there about him. What I did find, I've added to the article's references. He was awarded the George Polk Award, but not the Pulitzer Prize as claimed (according to Pulitzer Prize, the Public Service award is made to newspapers, not individuals, and in fact the official list shows The Miami Herald as the recipient). Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Only one award by Long Islan University itself. No secondary reliable sources found and not enough coverage to back up with WP:GNG. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 12:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Probably Delete I'd say keep if there was more added to it. But lacks substance for now. WP:BIO. sig1068 — Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to School District of Osceola County, Florida. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 04:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Denn John Middle School

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

Non-notable article about a middle school. Meets neither WP:NSCHOOL nor WP:GNG, nor does it cite any reliable sources. Jacona ( talk) 12:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to School District of Osceola County, Florida per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to School District of Osceola County, Florida as usual.- Mr X 22:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect to School District of Osceola County, Florida per long-standing precedent for non-notable schools as documented at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect per everybody above. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite ( talk) 13:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect as above. Clear and present need to mentor long-gone IP author. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Roiyaan

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

This page does not meet the notability criteria Wikipedia:NSONG#Songs [55] -- Completing an AfD nomination [56] for Waynejayes ( talk · contribs) --- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete- as per WP:NSONGS. Although the singer is notable but this song doesn't have any good coverage in indepedent sources. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 12:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - I found one good source here, but that alone is not sufficient to meet WP:NSONG, which requires multiple sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial manner.- Mr X 22:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Pasco County Schools. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 04:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Pasco Middle School

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

Non-notable article about a middle school. Meets neither WP:NSCHOOL nor WP:GNG, nor does it cite any reliable sources. Jacona ( talk) 12:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to ~~Dade City, Florida~~ Pasco County Schools per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Pasco County Schools as is common practice.- Mr X 22:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Pasco County Schools per long-standing precedent for non-notable schools as documented at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite ( talk) 13:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete & Redirect as above, no need to leave for seven days. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Orange County, Florida. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 04:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Chain of Lakes Middle School

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

Non-notable article about a middle school. Meets neither WP:NSCHOOL nor WP:GNG. Jacona ( talk) 12:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. as per WP:GNG. School is notable and has good academic achievements and features here , there . A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 13:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

There aren't any particular achievements or notable coverage that makes this school notable. That first site is a standard directory of schools; being listed there doesn't indicate notability. The second site belongs to a program within the school, which also doesn't indicate notability. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 19:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Orange County, Florida per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect per Davey2010. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 19:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect I see nothing that shows any level of meeting GNG. I would expect nearly all schools to have "good marks", probably an unreasonable expectation, but still. Every school gets rated by the state. The quality of the marks has absolutely nothing to do with notability. Without some referenced content in the article showing that this is somehow different than the run of the mill middle school, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should rule our choice to redirect like virtually every other middle school in the US. Generally, the only way a middle school comes out notable is if something historic happened there, or it is on the NRHP. If you want to argue the correctness of that, this is probably not the place. John from Idegon ( talk) 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect. Non-notable, and per nom and the above redirect !votes. Epeefleche ( talk) 07:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Orange County, Florida per long-standing precedent for non-notable schools as documented at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite ( talk) 13:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Mesquite Independent School District. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 04:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Wilkinson Middle School

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

non-notable middle school. No references. Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL nor WP:GNG Jacona ( talk) 12:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to ~~Mesquite, Texas~~ Mesquite Independent School District per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Mesquite Independent School District (the school is specifically mentioned there and not at the city article). -- Kinu ^t/_c 19:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect per above. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 19:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Mesquite Independent School District per long-standing precedent for non-notable schools as documented at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite ( talk) 13:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. Bbb23 ( talk) 19:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Tabe Mitsuro

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

183.76.238.143 added the nomination template to the article, leaving the edit summary "Search reveals no such person in Japanese history". Note that I am merely creating the nomination. Ymblanter ( talk) 11:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete - per WP:G3 (a blatant hoax). Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

delete no evidence of existence, never mind notability.-- JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete. Per G3/A7. Philg88 ^♦
talk 19:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
comment I would ask this not be speedily deleted. Although it's quite possibly a hoax it's also possibly a real story with details mixed or mistranslated up so it's hard to find sources. Someone with access to e.g. Chinese or Japanese sources might recognise it and be able to turn up something. It would be good to give it the full seven days in case.-- JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Sappo School

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

Non-notable private school. This rather spammy article cites many references, few of which actually talk about this school, but are rather citations to publications about the teaching methods discussed (there's even a reference to Aristotle's Metaphysics). No actual reliable sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Long Island per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per below - Usually schools should be redirected/merged but since they've seemed to have constantly changed addresses I'm not confident redirect will be of any help (Unless they really find a permanent spot and stick to it), Any school can relocate and that's fine but I assume they've done this more than once, I wouldn't object to anyone redirecting in September when they supposedly stick to there new location [57]. – Davey2010 • (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment Nom gives criticism (which I agree with) of content of page here but not on article talk page. For instance I would want to know size of cohort and staff numbers etc. and whether they have been informed of WP:GNG and WP:GNG before deciding to delete and perhaps give a chance to improve article. Gregkaye ( talk) 14:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment The article has been tagged for issues, which the SPA author has seen and responded to by adding sources that are not at all helpful. The school itself is tiny: 29 students and 5 staff covering grades 5-12 (based on this reference provided by the author). Long Island would be a poor choice of redirect targets if that is the outcome: Long Island comprises over 100 public school districts serving a population of over 7 million residents (and that's just Nassau and Suffolk counties). Mentioning one 30-student school in an article about such a large community would be a bit out of scope. I'd support a redirect to and mention on Commack, New York, but the newness and growth of the school indicate that it is likely to change locations several times before settling in a final address. (It already has done so once, as announced on their website.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment. I have found one news story via a forum: there was a dispute between them and a school district over accommodation of special education students. Here is a reliable source reporting on the issue. Someone with access to Newsday may find more news stories; the school educates through Grade 12 and the reasoning behind the rule of thumb that high school articles almost always get kept is that there is almost always going to be news coverage of them. If anyone can find a second news item, I'll !vote "keep and rewrite". Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment General rules don't always apply. The rule about high schools is that they are not eligible for speedy deletion, not that they are deletion-proof. In this case, we're talking about a special education school started by a single educator, and now joined by a staff totaling 5, educating 29 special needs students. (The article doesn't make much of a point of this, and perhaps they are looking to broaden their scope, but their focus in the past appears to have been on emotionally disabled students who need special attention.) A search of Newsday's site shows up empty -- no available stories for "Sappo". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. I would normally advocate redirect for non notable schools, especially government schools, but this article is particularly spammy and has no other purpose than for promotion of a very small private institution, or a misguided understanding that WP is a general school listing site. It would need considerable RS to become noteworthy even for a redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - School includes high school students; per longstanding consensus at AfD, High Schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable on a per se basis. Admittedly this is a spammy piece. This is correctable through our normal editing process. Carrite ( talk) 14:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment The presumption of notability may work as a general rule, because one presumes that most high schools will have been the subject of sufficient independent coverage to develop verifiable facts. For an extremely small private school, founded by a single woman in her home and only now (after 20 years of existence) moving out of that home to an actual building, this presumption seems ill-fitting, as is borne out by the complete lack of significant independent sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. and Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G12 Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

John Ernest Rattenbury

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

The aricle John Ernest rattenbury violate the copyright policy. -- Wikicology 11:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment -- We probably ought to have an article on him, but if John Rylands library is asserting copyright, it cannot be this text. I am strengthened in that view by the very fact that this library (which houses many archives of the Methodist Church) has chosen to accept a deposit of his papers. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Justin St. Vincent

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

"This is clearly not notable. No sources, no references" -- 203.96.11.177 ( talk) [Note: I have completed this AfD nomination on behalf of IP 203.96.11.177 -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)] reply

Delete notability notice has been up since February 2010 Gregkaye ( talk) 12:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Admittedly self-promotional, clearly fails GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(
Talk
Contribs)} 21:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete as fails WP:GNG NealeFamily ( talk) 03:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

June Daguiso

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

Self published vanity piece of a non-notable actor, martial artist. Peter Rehse ( talk) 10:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 10:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Autobiography with no independent reliable sources. In addition, nothing in the article shows he meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa ( talk) 19:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - No evidence of notability for work in entertainment or martial arts in the article, nor did my searches fimd any either. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete as per above. I did 15 SERP pages on "web" mode, only found a few mentions; if there is any claim to notability, it might be founding the WPIFF, but there were only a few mentions of JD as founder, not really significant coverage needed for the GNG.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination and delete !vote herein have been sufficiently countered by the provision of sources in this discussion which indicate that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Shirley Bottolfsen

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

Biography of a well meaning and charitable eccentric, with no indication of notability. Article was created by a SPA, with the bulk of its text resulting from that initial edit. Though proposed, PROD was shortly declined after as it was felt that a primary source was a sufficient reference! A Google search brings up a few articles in local newspapers, but none sufficient to be considered wide coverage in multiple sources, or of events that confer notability. An article exists on the Norwegian Wikipedia, but the text of that too is uncited and results from an SPA, with one of the citations a dead link. Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 01:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment - there are several English-language sources that show some possible notability: see, e.g. her election as Grand marshal of a regional parade. She also won the King's Medal of Merit, which may not make her notable (she won a "medal in silver [which] may be awarded for lesser achievements." ) So I'm not sure if she passes WP:GNG, but I think this one is worth getting the attention of an ~~expect~~ expert in Norwegian civil affairs. Bearian ( talk) 19:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment - Considering she has a royal medal led me to think of some notability. Then I read the medal article and saw that it was in 21st place of importance among similar decorations in Norway. What is the population of Norway? Seems like many people have medals there... -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 18:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. No notability. Sorry, Shirley. I'm going with Gareth on this one. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - I'm not seeing anybody come to the rescue of this nice person's page. Bearian ( talk) 22:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep. She's all over the Norwegian search engine, Kvasir: national coverage here and here for when locals helped her out for a change (2013), and here for winning a Lion's Club international prize (2014); also I see national coverage of an episode when she helped some Roma and it went wrong, for example here (2012). Those are all articles in major national media all about her; she meets GNG. I'll expand the article using these and anything else I find looking past the first page of search results. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Change to keep per WP:HEY; sources are much improved. Bearian ( talk) 15:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep per Bearian and numerous RS.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)
(contribs)} 16:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

2014–15 Turkish Basketball League

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

"Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." WP:SPORTSEVENT Alans1977 ( talk) 09:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment can nominees please point to areas of Wikipedia rules that they think are being infringed so as to help other users come to judgements on the relevance of the comments. Gregkaye ( talk) 09:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Alans1977 ( talk) 09:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Alans1977 ( talk) 09:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Alans1977 ( talk) 09:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Alans1977 ( talk) 09:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not notable. Many of them reading as propaganda for one team and many of them lacking any sources at all (only templates). The remainder are simply lists of all teams wins/loses/draws and diagrams of how finals played out. As per WP:SPORTSEVENT "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable.":

Please note I also nominated 2013–14 Turkish Basketball League for deletion yesterday. Before I read a bit more and found this way to nominate multiple pages. Deletion entry is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Turkish Basketball League Alans1977 ( talk) 10:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

What exactly is the problem? Almost all season articles on Wikipedia just contain statistics, those can definitely be improved but why do they have to be deleted? Also, I think the articles are really notable/important because this way all people can follow the Turkish league without having to learn Turkish language. -- H-Hurry ( talk) 12:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi, if English speakers wanted to follow the Turkish league they could easily do so at a website such as http://www.tblstat.net/ (the first link Google spat at me when I entered 'Turkish basketball league'). As far as the inclusion of seasons in Wikipedia, that's a different story. The season are not notable and there's quite a few of them that are only templates with no information in them. Then there are others that read as propaganda for specific teams. All in all, not notable. Alans1977 ( talk) 13:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment I personally don't think it should be possible for Noms to be able to place a { {subst:afd1} } tag on an article before another WP:TEMP tag has already been attached because this would give readers some kind of idea of standards expected and guidance available. This is in no way a comment on my view of the criticism expressed but I've still got no idea what aspect of the rules apply ... and neither, I suspect, do they. Gregkaye ( talk) 17:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Some of them have been sitting there as templates for years. Additionally even if those ones that are still templates had information filled into them, as per WP:SPORTSEVENT "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Alans1977 ( talk) 03:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because the event which is covered in that page is already covered in Turkish Basketball Championship and the event is not notable enough to justify its own page:

Delete for the reason listed above. Akocsg ( talk) 18:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Splitting the cup in half is a notable action - so the article should stay. It is also clearly a match-fixing. http://www.thepfa.com/members/betting/matchfixing

Another Fenerbahce fan boy wants to delete the articles I created. https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullan%C4%B1c%C4%B1:Akocsg LardoBalsamico ( talk) 00:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment Consider this a warning, stop personally attacking other users! Calling another user a "fan boy" is an attack. This article is totally superfluous, as this incident is mentioned already in the Turkish Basketball Championship article. Plus your repeated labelling of this incident as match-fixing, even though this clearly has nothing to do with it, shows that your ar on a POV-pushing mission and unwilling of contributing contructively. Akocsg ( talk) 03:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Superfluous? According to whom? You? Yes it is match-fixing! It' s not only a withdrawal! It is based on puropse! What purpose? If Fenerbahce officials would not withdraw their teams, who would have been the champion? Galatasaray. If they would? Modaspor! Then it was based on purpose! Then it is match-fixing not only a withdrawal! You already know that. LardoBalsamico ( talk) 06:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The 1955 Turkish basketball withdrawal incident is one paragraph of information already covered in Turkish Basketball Championship. It is not notable enough for an article by itself. All other arguments of match fixing or not are irrelevant. Alans1977 ( talk) 11:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

"not notable enough"? What is your notability scale? The wiki admin said it's notable but you are saying not notable enough? Maybe your "dear friend", Akocsg, might help you. You know he wanted you to nominate this article? Didn't he? LardoBalsamico ( talk) 11:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Personal attacks? Really? For your information I don't even know Akocsg and I almost didn't nominate the article just because he made a point of asking me to nominate it. I would say it's certainly notable enough information to include in the Turkish Basketball Championship article. To have its own article is just ridiculous when it is 1 - 2 paragraphs. Alans1977 ( talk) 11:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Just cool down. "The wiki admin said it's notable but you are saying not notable enough?" Please answer the question first? You do know notability but admin don't. And you all know it. LardoBalsamico ( talk) 12:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

So a wiki admin said it was notable enough for it's own article separate from Turkish Basketball Championship? I highly doubt it. Alans1977 ( talk) 12:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep all. Articles about the seasons should be improved, not deleted. The single-game article about the 1955 incident might warrant separate consideration, but not in this bundled environment. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The seasons could easily be incorporated into the page Turkish Basketball Championship. Alans1977 ( talk) 11:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

So, where should we continue our discussion of deleting the article 1955 Turkish basketball withdrawal incident or not? Rivaner ( talk) 06:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

It's one of the articles I've nominated for deletion on this page. So this is probably a good place to discuss it if you have something you want to say. Alans1977 ( talk) 11:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, I am going to repeat my earlier comment which I think got lost in all the discussion.I have to say Delete to the 1955 Turkish basketball withdrawal incident. If you look at when it got created and also when it entered the Turkish Basketball Championship article (both by the same user), you will that there is 3 year difference between them. Also if you check this diff from another article and also it's creation date, you will see why there is a 3 years of difference between two articles.Unfortunetly the said user's edits are not made with encyclopedic intentions. I have a history with the user who made these edits (which, if you want, you can check on admins noticeboard) and this is one of the many reasons we have a history. Thanks for your time. Rivaner ( talk) 13:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ No one had given good reason why all the individual pages that I've nominated for deletion should stay. I think if anyone feels the information in those pages should be preserved they should merge into Turkish Basketball Championship. Alans1977 ( talk) 12:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I've struck the duplicate !vote above. The nomination itself is the delete !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Lets see the article repaired; not deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prizby ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Sorry, but this nominate is so ridiculous. I can't understand why you just nominate articles about Turkish basketball. Did you examine an article about any season of any European league? They including same templates, same informations. Season articles including play-off matches, coaches, arenas, league tables, match scores etc. so this is notable thing I think. I'm a Turkish basketball fan, and I'm trying to improve Turkish basketball articles with right news and informations. After last final series in Turkey, some users edited this articles with away from objectivity. It's normal. But you can't delete this article for just this reason. JoeyFredy ( talk) 14:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

These were the articles I came accross. Saying there are many like these from my point of view is not an argument for keeping these but deleting the others. These pages are mere compilations of stats and could easily be merged into Turkish Basketball Championship. Alans1977 ( talk) 10:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but I think these pages can't merge into any article. Can you give me an example for it? Turkish Basketball League isn't a minor league in Europe, do you know? A lot of people in Europe follow this league, and of course they need these pages. JoeyFredy ( talk) 10:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep; reasonings are arguments for clean-ups, not deletions. If all of these articles will be merged into one article, it would necessitate a WP:SPLIT discussion. Sports league seasons articles are generally notable. Now for other incidents, perhaps a good sourcing will be in order; if no one can find one, then delete. – H T D 02:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - One of the worst nominees i have ever seen around here. It's a notable sports league, with notable teams/players. It contains a league table, results, playoff results, stats and links. So, where is the problem? You DO now that there are season articles for nearly every kind of sport? Kante4 ( talk) 21:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep, the nomination rationale is totally bogus. The guideline quoted is for articles about individual games, not whole seasons. Professional league seasons are almost always notable. Yes, the articles need some prose, but that isn't a reason for deletion. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 08:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

This discussion for deletion has been going for almost 7 days now and despite plenty of people saying this is more of an argument for improvement than deletion no one has added anything to make these pages anything more than mere collections of stats. As per WP:NSEASONS "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." Precisely because these pages are collections of stats they are un-notable. Alans1977 ( talk) 09:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

And you are the only one who wants to delete those articles. I've seen 6-7 "keep" votes so far, so it's as clear as it gets. Kante4 ( talk) 15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I'd like to imagine that references exist (like come on, game summaries, at least for the most recent seasons, should be quite easy to find, right?), only that nobody has made them yet. – H T D 16:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 13:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Dwarves Assemble

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

Prodded yesterday for failing WP:GNG by having no secondary sources, deprodded by the article creator with the WP:ILIKEIT reasoning that the show "deserves to be found and read about. [...] Watch it, you'll understand why." McGeddon ( talk) 08:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete, non notable web content. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete lack of reliable sources. Notability is not inherited. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 13:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The Shopmodern Condition

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

I found three hits on Google for this exact term, with two coming from Wikipedia. I suspect it is made up like Aesthetonomics. Rob ( talk) 06:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Only ever appears in the work of one non-notable person. Antrocent ( ♫♬) 08:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete. as per WP:GNG. Author is trying try to connect both The Shopmodern Condition and Aesthetonomics (containing only the description of coined term being used by Swedish). Both have no-independent sources A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 08:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete, article promoting a non-notable neologism. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( WP:SNOW) ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Johnny Yong Bosch

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

I looked for WP:SECONDARY sources (not interviews!) which would satisfy WP:BASIC and I found very little. I don't see enough notability to keep the article. Binksternet ( talk) 06:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: The nominator seems to quickly want this article deleted instead of letting other users find more sources on this actor and lacking patience. - FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 06:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually, I would be happy to see this biography improved to the point of it meeting Wikipedia's guidelines. Your 'keep' vote has no policy basis. Binksternet ( talk) 15:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep - Meets WP:ENTERTAINER; has had several roles and voice roles in notable series. And interviews are fine for reliable coverage. I suggest trouting the nominator for this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 06:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - He is one of the top people in anime and video voice acting, and a film actor, all of which is extensively documented on the web. The issue appears to be that the relevant cites have not been added to the article. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 06:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - notable person as a voice actor and an on-screen actor. It also meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 07:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep- Good coverage in primary sources here, Since artist has been known for variety of the productions. Yes it might need more secondary sources, hopefully available elsewhere. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 08:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep While WP:BASIC is the most general inclusion guideline for all biographies, it is not the only inclusion criteria depending to the field. In this case, as Bosch is an actor, he would also be applicable under the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER. As Bosch has had significant roles in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Power Rangers Zeo, and Power Rangers Turbo and lead roles in the NA adaptation of Bleach, Trigun, Code Geass, Eureka Seven, and Wolf's Rain among others, so he very much fulfills the inclusion criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER. — Farix ( t | c) 15:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep This person passes WP:ENTERTAINER like the other slew of voice actors the nominator has sent to AFD today. Please stop adding new nominations. Dream Focus 17:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - notable voice actor who was a Guest of Honor for Anime Expo in 2013. [58] and if you need secondary sources instead of interviews you can use his convention profiles. - AngusWOOF ( talk) 17:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - per WP:ENTERTAINER. Clearly (1) for having major roles in many anime dubs ( Code Geass, Gurren Lagann, and others). -- Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep As others have said passes WP:ENTERTAINER with major roles played for anime. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Article does need attention, but JYB is clearly notable. Additional Sources: [59], [60]. Esw01407 ( talk) 17:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Sigh. Per everything my fellow editors said above. It would appear the nominator is actually doing more harm than good in this case with all the recent AFDs. —KirtZ^Message 11:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hiro Kanagawa

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

Two biographical blurbs are used as references; one is from a production he was in, so it is not WP:SECONDARY. I looked for other secondary sources but came up empty. Binksternet ( talk) 06:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: The nominator seems to quickly want this article deleted instead of letting other users find more sources on this actor and lacking patience. - FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 06:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually, I would be happy to see this biography improved to the point of it meeting Wikipedia's guidelines. Your 'keep' vote has no policy basis. Binksternet ( talk) 15:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER for his work as an actor and voice actor. Significant roles, in notable works. He plays the reoccurring character of Principal Kwan from the notable series Smallville, as well as doing the original Japanese voice acting for Gihren Zabi from Mobile Suit Gundam. He also did the voice of Mister Fantastic in Fantastic Four: World's Greatest Heroes, that the main character of course. Dream Focus 02:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 12:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER if you cannot cite reliable source coverage — it's the quality of referencing that can be provided to verify that they pass ENTERTAINER, not the mere assertion of passing ENTERTAINER, that actually gets a person past ENTERTAINER. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a new version that actually cites proper sources can be created, but in its current form this version is a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:GNG based on coverage of him as a playwright. -- Rob ( talk) 04:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Lara Gilchrist

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

Notability not shown by way of WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet ( talk) 05:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: The nominator seems to quickly want this article deleted instead of letting other users find more sources on this actress and lacking patience. - FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 06:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually, I would be happy to see this biography improved to the point of it meeting Wikipedia's guidelines. Your 'keep' vote has no policy basis. Binksternet ( talk) 15:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1968493/ Gregkaye ( talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

IMDb does not count toward notability. Binksternet ( talk) 15:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep The article passes WP:ENTERTAINER as the person has had significant roles in various notable television shows. Dream Focus 17:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 01:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
No matter how many "notable" roles a person has had — in actual fact all of the roles listed here seem to be minor or supporting roles, not notable ones, but I digress — the mere assertion of notable roles does not get a person past WP:ENTERTAINER by itself. Rather, a person does not qualify as notable until you can cite reliable media sources (which the existence of a profile on IMDb is not) to demonstrate that they've garnered substantial media coverage for those roles. It's not the fact of being able to list a bunch of television or film roles that gets her over the notability bar; it's the quality of sourcing you can add to support the assertions. And furthermore, no WP:BLP is ever allowed to keep an unsourced article for any length of time — so no, you're not allowed to just demand that the nominator develop some "patience". Either you source it properly now or it goes — there are no options in between those two when it pertains to a living person. Delete if the article is not adequately sourced by closure. Keep per Rob's sourcing improvements — but as I previously noted, it's not the mere assertion of passing a notability guideline that gets her past the inclusion gates, but the sourcing that can be provided to support the assertion. Bearcat ( talk) 22:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
The Invisible Woman in not a minor roll in Fantastic Four: World's Greatest Heroes. There are four of them, she one of them. And as long as you don't say anything that might possibly offend/slander anyone, you don't need references to pass BLP. There is nothing listed about the person. Its just a list of their notable work. Dream Focus 22:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, you do need references to pass WP:BLP. Potentially controversial content is especially critical to reference properly, but a BLP is never entitled to keep an unsourced article at all under any circumstances. Bearcat ( talk) 22:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

No. It says " All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." Do you see anything that is likely to be challenged there? Dream Focus 22:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter a whit whether there's anything controversial in the current iteration of the article or not. If the article is not adequately referenced, then she doesn't even pass our notability cutoff for actors regardless of how many unsourced film or television roles you list — because the referencing, not the assertion itself, is the thing that even gets her past our notability rules for actors in the first place. So the fact that the article isn't strictly violating BLP's provision against controversial content is irrelevant, because until you add proper reliable source coverage which demonstrates that she has actually been the subject of substantial coverage, she doesn't even pass the basic notability rules which would allow her to even have a BLP at all. Bearcat ( talk) 22:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." It doesn't need the GNG if it passes a subject specific guideline such as WP:ENTERTAINER which it does. WP:V can be met by her name listed in the credits of the works she has done. Dream Focus 22:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Every single subject-specific notability criterion still specifies that the use of referencing, which properly demonstrates that the person has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources, is still a mandatory and non-negotiable part of even passing that subject-specific guideline at all. GNG is not the only notability guideline that requires actual referencing — they all do, subject-specific or not. Bearcat ( talk) 22:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Really? Can you link me to an actual policy or guideline page that says that? You only need coverage of them for the GNG, not for the WP:ENT. Dream Focus 22:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:ENT is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people), not a standalone document — so kindly read the "basic criteria" section of that document (as well as the part where it explicitly says that successfully meeting one or more criteria in a subject-specific checklist does not guarantee that an article topic will be kept, if the article does not cite proper references to support their meeting of the criteria) if you think referencing is optional as long as a person nominally meets one item in their subject-specific checklist. Proper referencing is always mandatory in a BLP, regardless of which inclusion guideline you're trying to pass. Yes, you do need proper referencing to pass ENT. You do need proper referencing to pass POLITICIAN, or AUTHOR, or ECONOMIST, or CRIME, or PORNBIO, or even ANYBIO — no matter what inclusion guideline you're citing, you still need proper referencing to pass it. Bearcat ( talk) 22:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict)It says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." None of that would exist if the GNG had to be met for everything. And nowhere in the BLP guideline page does it say you need to have reference for everything, just things that are likely to be challenged. Dream Focus 23:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

People frequently create BLPs which deliberately lie about meeting one or more Wikipedia inclusion standards (e.g. the winning of awards that don't actually exist, or aren't notable enough to make their winners notable; "hit" singles or "bestselling" books that were never actually hits or bestsellers anywhere verifiable; etc.), so the meeting of any given inclusion guideline is always conditional on the quality of reliable source referencing you can provide to support the assertion in question — no matter what criterion you claim the subject meets, they do not meet it if the assertion that they meet it is not referenced. Referencing to reliable sources is always mandatory in a BLP, regardless of what notability criterion you're trying to pass, and no amount of arguing about it going to change that fact. Bearcat ( talk) 23:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

No such claims are made here. All it says is "Lara Gilchrist is a Canadian stage, screen and voice actress." Oh no! We don't have any proof she is Canadian, her official website just list two Canadian addresses for her agents. Should we change it to simply say she is a screen and voice actress? Would you need a reference for that, or is it common sense based on her credits appearing for acting and voice acting jobs in various television shows? Dream Focus 23:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, you do still need a proper reference for the "fact" that she's Canadian. Every BLP must always cite proper reliable source coverage to demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article — the presence of reliable source coverage being the definition of what notability is. It does not matter what notability guideline you're trying to get the subject past; proper referencing is always still mandatory in a BLP. Bearcat ( talk) 23:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I removed any mention of being Canadian from the article. There is no other bit of information that needs to be referenced. Dream Focus 23:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Wrong. The basic question of whether she's even notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in the first place still needs to be answered by the use of reliable source referencing. Bearcat ( talk) 23:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You're correct that we must have a reliable source to show she meets a notability criterion and imdb is not such a source (which is what justified the nomination). Where I disagree is your initial assertion that it requires "substantial media coverage for those roles". If there is RS-coverage of major roles, than it's no longer necessary to show "substantial media coverage". -- Rob ( talk) 01:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

The discussion at WT:Notability (people)#Voice actors is covering much of Bearcat's complaint and Dream Focus's defense. I think Dream Focus is saying that the end credits of the animated programs that Gilchrist has voiced are enough support for this biography to be notable, which represents one side of the debate about having voice actors specifically included in the WP:ENTERTAINER guideline. I don't agree; I think the ENT guideline was written for actors and entertainers that are recognizable by face, not puppeteers or foley artists or body doubles or stunt doubles or voice actors. Binksternet ( talk) 03:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, when I say "substantive coverage" I don't mean a minimum of forty ref tags and a book about her — but we do need more than the mere inclusion of her name in a directory of "all people who've ever had any sort of film or television credit". We're not actually in any substantive disagreement here; you're just assuming that my use of the word "substantive" was implying a heavier volume of sourcing than I actually intended it to. One or two non-directory sources which properly confirmed that she passed ENT would have been enough to flip my !vote, and you've already added more than enough that I've already done so. Bearcat ( talk) 16:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep I've added the first of several offline stories I found about her, so she meets WP:GNG. -- Rob ( talk) 01:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I see that this source has been added, one that mentions Gilchrist one time in passing, for her major role in a very tiny production. Then there's the March 2007 Vancouver Courier article, "Invisible woman gives geeky teenagers, German lesbians a voice", which cannot be found anywhere online nor in the archives of the Vancouver Courier. I looked for parts of the article's title, parts of the quoted section, only to find nothing at all to verify the article. Such a complete failure of verification is very rare of newspaper articles published in 2007. Then there's the major role in a very tiny play called "Hippies and Bolsheviks". So it looks like Gilchrist is a working voice actress, with no significant roles, who also does stage plays in small productions. I don't think this stuff rises to the point of notability for Wikipedia. Binksternet ( talk) 22:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- If you have an account on ProQuest, you can visit http://search.proquest.com/docview/359443166 which will only work if you are logged in. If somebody emails me their email address through Wikipedia, I can use ProQuest to directly send them a copy of any article I added. I obviously can't copy/paste the whole article here for copyright reasons. I've already included a quote in the citation. If there's any information missing from the citation that would help in finding it, please let me. -- Rob ( talk) 00:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Brittney Karbowski

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

Non-notable voice actress; no in-depth coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet ( talk) 05:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: The nominator seems to quickly want this article deleted instead of letting other users find more sources on this actress and lacking patience. - FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 06:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually, I would be happy to see this biography improved to the point of it meeting Wikipedia's guidelines. Your 'keep' vote has no policy basis. Binksternet ( talk) 15:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - appears to be properly cited per WP:GNG and meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Comment - perhaps AfDing just a couple of these voice actors to see if consensus had changed would have been a much better approach so as not to waste the time of other editors. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 06:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Can you point to the specific cites which support GNG or ENTERTAINER? I don't see any of them establishing notability. To me, it looks like Karbowski performed in minor roles and dubbed some English voices with little fanfare. Her wedding photos, her agency promo piece and her resume don't count, and the passing mentions don't count. Binksternet ( talk) 15:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep voice actress who made dozens of appearances in anime conventions, and stars in a number of titles. If you're questioning why the resume sources are used, it can be replaced by secondary sources. - AngusWOOF ( talk) 00:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - Tons of major dub roles in anime, including Mikoto Misaka! ' Nuff said. Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 11:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:BEFORE, A ton of sources have been found by AngusWoof. If the nom had issue with WP:ENTERTAINER then he should have just gone and made a discussion about it before placing these all up for AfD. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:BEFORE and the reasonings by AngusWOOF. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Daran Norris

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not satisfied by in-depth coverage by WP:SECONDARY sources per WP:BASIC. Binksternet ( talk) 05:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: The nominator seems to quickly want this article deleted instead of letting other users find more sources on this actor and lacking patience. - FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 06:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually, I would be happy to see this article improved to the point that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Your 'keep' vote has no basis in policy. Binksternet ( talk) 15:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep per keep consensus of first AfD. Nothing has changed since which would suggest another AfD would result in a different outcome. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 06:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

There was no "consensus" in the first AfD that TenPoundHammer brought; there was instead a great lack of participation. The WP:ENTERTAINER guideline should show that the voice actor received major coverage. Binksternet ( talk) 15:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

It ended as "keep" not "no consensus". Consensus isn't measured in numbers. Dream Focus 01:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER with major roles played for anime and shows, you may think that a guideline should say something but that does not make it true. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep I agree this one clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 23:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep Per WP:ENTERTAINER: some major roles, some stand-out supporting roles in vastly cultish and written about TV shows and films: a main role in Fairly Oddparents, recurring in Veronica Mars, regular on Big Time Rush and Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, in cinemas in Team America: World Police, a bunch of other voiceover work. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 12:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep, because stupid admins shouldn't be allowed to go through with their stupid ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.107.22 ( talk) 18:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

GetWellNetwork

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

Borderline-to-non-notable company, most citations I could find were to primary sources, article appears to have primarily been written by the company itself. (If the decision is 'keep', it should at very least be stubbed so someone can rewrite it not as an ad.) rahaeli ( talk) 12:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Leaning to keep. Looked at a number of sources, but most were healthcare or IT industry publications that might be considered more advertorial than independent journalism. Left me with impression that is a large corporation that might be notable but could use more independent, reliable sources. Canuckle ( talk) 05:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD ( talk) 13:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Kadambini Sharma

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

Not notable and has no secondary sources. ASCII-002 I ^Notify_Online 01:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep, anchor at major news show. Not that difficult to source, see for example http://www.bestmediainfo.com/2014/03/ndtv-india-decodes-the-2014-election/ -- Soman ( talk) 06:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep, anchor is definitely Notable, is NDTV not a RS. Please keep page to edit/add more information and other RS GKCH ( talk) 05:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep, she's a notable anchor and the article has enough reliable sources to establish notability.-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 06:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Vasile Chirtoca

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

Spam article from a single-purpose account. Other than paid puffery, there really is no coverage about Chirtoca that might indicate notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete A BLP we can't handle. Shii (tock) 10:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete as no evidence of notability. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Additionally, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Early phenomenology

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

I really do not see the basis for this being a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ Weak keep or merge (see comment below) - Early phenomenology is not distinct from the rest of phenomenology; it's the foundation for the rest of phenomenology. Heidegger is hugely influential, of course, but it's difficult to talk about phenomenology proper without talking about Husserl, which is claimed here as part of "early phenomenology." If anything, the different directions it was taken later are what should be split off (as existential phenomenology is, despite not being a great example). Regardless, fails GNG as insufficient sources talk about it as a distinct subject. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment - What would be needed to bring this article up to standard? Most of this information is not covered in the article on phenomenology (which itself is a bit of a mess, because it tries to cover too much material both at the historical and theoretical levels). Also, literature on the subject of early phenomenology in English alone dates back to 1943, in Marvin Farber's book The Foundation of Phenomenology.-- Rodney.k.b.parker ( talk) 04:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)-- Rodney.k.b.parker ( talk) 04:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete as "early" seems to be indiscriminate/made up time frame and not supported by the sources as a distinct period. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep or merge - Given the state of the article as it stood when nominated for deletion, I can understand the reasons for doing so - the article was clearly transferred from AfC prematurely and, while containing references, effectively boiled down to a definition of what the article creator, User:Rodney.k.b.parker, understands by "early phenomenology" and an implicit assertion that it deserved its own article separate from phenomenology (philosophy). However, I would commend User:Rodney.k.b.parker for persevering with expanding and improving the article during this AfD period - some of this (such as the quotations from Husserl, which are unduly long in an article of this length) does show his inexperience as a Wikipedia editor, but he has the makings of a distinctly good one. A fair amount of the cited material he has now added is not in phenomenology (philosophy) and, even if the article topic is not deemed suitable for stand-alone treatment, should probably be included there rather than deleted. However, his comment, made above, that phenomenology (philosophy) is a bit of a mess is, I think, justified - the "historical overview" in that article is a list of rather disconnected facts and the rest of it moves almost randomly between historical and theoretical sections without giving a comprehensive overview of either aspect of the subject. In that respect, provided User:Rodney.k.b.parker expands the latter sections of this article into properly cited text rather than just lists of names, we actually have something that should work as part of either the historical section in a restructured phenomenology (philosophy) article or a split-out article on the history of phenomenology. Finally, I would remark that while I see relatively little justification from GBooks sources for the use of "early phenomenology" in the sense used in this article, the periodisation (as distinct from the title) does make sense - up to the 1930s, for instance, phenomenology and analytic philosophy were mutually interacting parts of the German philosophical scene in a way that they weren't anywhere after World War II. But, despite that, I am not sure what title to use whose notability for describing the article with its current limits is sufficiently demonstrable. PWilkinson ( talk) 23:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 04:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep The topic is notable as there are papers such as Theories of Reference in Both Early Phenomenology and Early Analytic Philosophy and Early Phenomenology and the Origins of Analytic Philosophy. Andrew ( talk) 23:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep The entry describes a distinct phase in the development of phenomenology that requires an autonomous treatment. It is not just concerned with Husserl's (early) phenomenology, but with a central foundational phase in the phenomenological movement as a whole, both prior to as well as beyond Husserl's works. It is what Spiegelberg indicates as "The German Phase of the Movement", excluding Heidegger. This phase, under the label "early phenomenology", has received recognition in the scholarly community through an organization (NASEP), conferences, lecture courses, and as pointed out above, papers and journals. For philosophical topics, it makes more sense to look at a specialized database, such as PhilPapers. Furthermore, with respect to notability, the label "early phenomenology" is also in use in other languages relevant to this topic, see e.g. "frühe phänomenologie". The entry is already longer and more detailed than the corresponding parts in the general phenomenology entry. Give it some time to develop. Cat ( talk) 08:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment - I changed my delete !vote to weak keep or merge. I think if I came across this article as it exists right now, I would say it's too soon to put it up for AfD. I'm still not completely sold that it needs to be its own article, but there's no doubt the material is notable and the content is worth having on Wikipedia somewhere. Based on the trajectory it's been on thanks to Rodney.k.b.parker's continued work, I'd want to see where it was going. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep. Ekabhishek^talk 15:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Non-Municipal Census Towns in Kerala

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

naveenpf ( talk) 03:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Individual towns are notable, and I would think the list is as well. I wonder where the list came from. Should it be attributed to the state or national census agency? Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep Nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion. By definition, a list of populated places (which are inherently notable when verified) is a notable topic because such lists often feature in books. This is no different to the hundreds of other settlement cross-categorization lists, including List of census towns in the Republic of Ireland, List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus and List of populated places in the Tibet Autonomous Region, which the community agrees should be retained. Philg88 ^♦
talk 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦
talk 09:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 12:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax. postdlf ( talk) 18:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Paul Oates

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

Hoax article. Sources don't pan out, leading to 404 errors and suchlike. Article asserts "Oates is best known for his collaborations with various different bands and artists, including Moving Vehicles, Safari, Dire Straits, Duran Duran, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Go West, Dead or Alive, The Damned, Brian Eno, Los Pacaminos, Foo Fighters, Mike + The Mechanics and Eric Clapton"; if this was indeed true, then there *would* be sources online to verify this. However, there aren't - the only thing connecting the subject with these artists is this article. Created by author connected to the Moving Vehicles bundled nomination below. (Photo in article is of Pino Palladino, BTW) FlowerpotmaN·( t) 02:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete, possibly speedy - Obvious hoax is obvious. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 16:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as blatant hoax ( G3). Neither the collaborations/credits nor references check out. Gongshow talk 17:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Kevin Howarth

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

Prodded last week and contested by an IP yesterday. This article fails basic WP:BIO guidelines - there are no secondary sources that discuss Howarth in detail. (Interviews are not secondary sources.) Article creator has a conflict of interest, with a link to Howarth's PR agency. McGeddon ( talk) 08:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment. I tried checking Bloody Disgusting and Fangoria, but I didn't see anything obvious. However, he's got coverage from the other usual genre sources, such as Dread Central: Seasoning House review and Last Horror Film review. Both reviews specifically comment on his acting. His awards got coverage from Ain't It Cool News ( [61]) and Twitch Film ( [62]). These are basically reprinted press releases, but they're still coverage. Maybe he passes WP:NACTOR? The article can probably be cleaned up enough to make it presentable. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 13:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Lübeck Waste Treatment Facility

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

fails WP:GNG. waste treatment facilities are rarely notable, the references merely confirm what the facility can do technically. The claim this was inspiration for similar facilities in Manchester is not actually stated in the sources provided. There is also no corresponding article in German. LibStar ( talk) 14:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax. postdlf ( talk) 18:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Moving Vehicles discography

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

Discography for a band that seems not to exist in the sense that the only mention of them is on Wikipedia. I will be bundling a couple of Moving Vehicle related articles in this AFD. All of them contain links to sources, which turn out to be 404 errors and suchlike. Which is odd, as the articles assert that the band had numerous highly successful albums including number ones in the US and the UK; odder still, there are absolutely no other mentions of them online. Simply put, if this band existed, they would be a household name. The band personnel page does actually include real performers, but nobody else seems to have associated them with the band outside Wikipedia. This is hoaxing on an ambitious scale. (and per the Keith Barry AFD below, a hoax created by Jake Picasso. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 02:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are obviously related hoaxes:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 03:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 03:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Suggestion Possibly this should be sent to some other venue such as Miscellany for Discussion, but seeing as it's related, I'll bring it up here. The history of Moving Vehicles should also be deleted as, until it was redirected to other articles, it was what was the parent article of all this walled garden. The version of this article, with the band in its full glory is here. It should be noted - and I *am* going to note it :) - that one of the people who decided to make it a redirect was a confirmed Jake Picasso sock, Tamon4. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 03:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment I am usually more than willing to consider, and so I would imagine other admins would be as well, a deletion discussion such as this a reasonable venue for which to consider revision deletion of the old article revs (or, somewhat equivalently, delete-then-redirect.) -- j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete all And not a single reference was what was advertised. Breathtaking, really. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 16:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as blatant hoax ( G3). No act with this name entered any of the claimed music charts, none of the articles' references establish the existence of such a band, and there is nothing on Google to suggest otherwise. Gongshow talk 16:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Limerick. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Riverfest, Limerick

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 07:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment - If not notable for a standalone article per Wikipedia's standards, an alternative to deletion is to merge to Limerick. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge to Limerick. Snappy ( talk) 16:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge to Limerick per above. – Davey2010 • (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I am also happy to change my vote to merge as nominator.-- Laun chba ller 08:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Merge to Limerick. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Sven Groeneveld

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

Not notable. Fails gng, nsports, and nperson Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

'Comment may well be notable as Maria Sharapova's coach. Not my special field, but the possibility seems to warrant discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep: Aside from anything else, he was the subject of a 55-minute radio programme on the BBC World Service. He repeatedly comes up in mainstream press articles as an important figure in tennis - with Sharapova, Rusedski, and Kiefer. None of these offer particular depth, but there are dozens of articles like this in the UK press alone, which add up to a demonstration of notability. I imagine someone with more knowledge on sports sources could dig up even more. Moswento ^talky 09:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep Wiki has numerous articles on coaches. Groeneveld is one of the most successful coaches in recent tennis history and does not fail nsports as claimed. Per Moswento, if the BBC has an hour long broadcast on him in a series on the world's leading coaches it says all we need to know.-- Wolbo ( talk) 09:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - looks like general notability is a lock. per Tennis Project Guidelines the minimum requirement that can qualify without doubt for coaches of players are any of the following: 1) The player has reached the final of or won one of the Grand Slam professional tournaments. 2) The player has entered the ATP or WTA top 10 for a week at least. 3) The player was member of a champion team competing in a Davis Cup, Fed Cup, Hopman Cup (reserve players and team captains don't count). 4) The player has won an ATP Masters 1000 or WTA Premier event and has reached at least one other final in Masters 1000 or WTA Premier. Looks like a slam dunk to me as far as tennis notability too. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 22:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. While more participation here would have been ideal, the nomination basis of the radio station being a probable hoax has been sufficiently countered by respondents herein. ( Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

DXRR (Nasipit)

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

Probable hoax for the following reasons:

For a radio station claiming to be established in 2001, it is not listed in the NSO 2010 Yearbook in the area of Agusan del Norte. (see Table 20.7a, under "XIII - Caraga" [63])
The callsign DXRR-FM is assigned to an FM station operating on 101.1 MHz in the area of Davao (NSO 2010 Yearbook, Table 20.7a, under "XI - Davao Region").
The claimed frequency, 93.5 MHz, is assigned to a different radio station, DXPN (NSO 2010 Yearbook).

-- Bluemask ( talk) 03:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. I don't think it's a hoax unless it's a very elaborate one as DXRR on 93.5 Mhz is mentioned in a significant number of Google search results including at least one from a government agency. Confusion over frequency allocation may be due to it's former name and mixed designation as "DXRR-FM Hot FM" or "Hot FM 93.5 Nasipit" - see Hot FM (Philippine radio network). Article is unreferenced but that can be fixed. Satisfies broadcast notability based on its established broadcast history regardless of the change in name. See also this FM Transmitter Map. Philg88 ^♦
talk 06:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦
talk 05:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC) reply

None of the nominator's concerns prove that this is a hoax, as such, particularly given the other evidence that it does exist. The nominator's evidence might prove that maybe this station is being erroneously listed under the wrong call sign by a couple of sources, but that's about it — the claim that it's an outright "hoax" is completely unsupported by the evidence at hand. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat ( talk) 17:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦
talk 05:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 13:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keith Parry

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

Article for an actor created in 2012 containing unsourced and downright fallacious material, added by the article creator and IP editors. I came across the article in the sock-puppet investigation archives for prolific hoax creator Jake Picasso when I noticed what should have been a red-link had become blue again. While there is an actor named Keith Parry, the career arc in this article bears no resemblance to that of the real actor. The chief claims to fame for the subject in this article are appearances in Coronation Street and in a sitcom called "Life on the Block"; his appearance in Corrie is surprisingly unverifiable, as is his role in the sitcom, which is also surprisingly unheard-of for a sitcom that apparently ran for 5 years. His appearances in quite a lot of the more famous films of the 1990s, including Titanic, The Fifth Element and The Talented Mr. Ripley also seem to have gone unremarked upon anywhere on the Internet, as do his stage appearances. In other words, this article is pretty much a hoax, and in addition, a hoax in the inimitable style of Jake Picasso. Perhaps it is a candidate for speedy deletion, but as there is an actor of the same name, I decided to take the matter here. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 01:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 01:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 01:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete There does appear to be an actor of the same name, but some of what is said here is unverifiable and hoaxy, and even if some of it is not, WP:TNT is the best process for creating an article we have the slightest confidence in. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 18:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment I would have to go with virtually everything being hoaxy; I can't find any detail that would coincide of what I can find of the biography of real actor of the same name. The creator of the article is aware of the real actor as he included what was the only valid link in the article to the IMDb page, but even putting aside for a moment the fact that IMDb isn't a reliable source, nothing coincides with the IMdb entry anyway. If there was something worth saving here, I would be all for it, but there isn't. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 01:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Alexander J. Clements

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

Not notable person whose political run fails WP:POLITICIAN MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 00:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. While he fails WP:Politician, he does "Meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" There are several stories in the New York Times about him. -- Holdek ( talk) 03:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. I agree with Holdek -- Clements is not a notable politician but there are multiple independent sources about him. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Keep - he was a major defendant in a major scandal in American history. Bearian ( talk) 20:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply
- Comment - Would that be a case of WP:ONEEVENT? The event might be important, but I'm not sure if he is notable enough himself that allows his own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrLinkinPark333 ( talk • contribs)
  It's a reasonable question, but I think the existence of an NYT obit, albeit a fairly short one (four paragraphs), that covers other aspects of his life than the single event just about makes him notable enough for an article. Based on the sources we have now, if there were a separate article on the scandal I think his article could be merged with it, but as it stands I think the article is best left to grow until that happens. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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