Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 31

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was was speedy delete as the article makes no credible claim of signifance. Non-admin closure. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mamoun

Mohammad Mamoun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I declined a speedy on this because problems with the article are not unambiguous. However, it lacks context or clarity of significance, in my opinion, so I'm placing it for discussion. Tóraí (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources on this person. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Time: Charity Anthology

Prime Time: Charity Anthology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Was nominated for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertisement. I declined because it is not unambiguous IMO but certainly has a very strong whiff.

Adds: Another by the same editor: After Dark: Charity Anthology with the same issues.

Tóraí (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-
  notable publisher. The spammy tone could be managed, if there were a reason to retain this article. The fact that the original editor claims on her user page to be a "marketer and PR girl at a publishing press" certainly makes the whiff of promotion stronger. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment My delete !vote applies equally to both articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. I was about to tag it as a speedy since it's pretty promotional in tone and intent, as all it's missing is the price tag. Either way, these are decidedly non-notable and both should be deleted. I note that the original editor has been warned against using Wikipedia for spam purposes.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Promotional yes, but not a speediable promotion. Fails N. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as promotional. Fiddle Faddle 15:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restored this, per
  WP:IAR or whatever might be appropriate. The nominator and the last delete-voter are each others' socks, and in my judgment this AfD would have been concluded very differently had it not been for the final "delete". One may accept DGG's argument or not, but an argument it is. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is an indiscriminate list of trivia and Wikipedia is not a repository of indiscriminate information. It doesn't offer any insight into Eliot's poem

• DELETE as nom. --
  talk) 19:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per the excellent and well-argued nominating statement. Can't add anything to the comprehensive nomination. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In this minute there is time for decisions and revisions which a minute will not reverse. (That is, as quite adeptly argued above, delete.) Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  talk) 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Hardly encyclopedic. It's just a random collection of pop culture references better suited to TV Tropes than Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Only logical decision here. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly.

These references are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. Not for lack of trying. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nonencyclopedic listcruft. Hierophant443 (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Darius

Dani Darius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable author. None of the "references" demonstrate that the subject meets the relevant guidelines -

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  talk) 02:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. I've removed all of the merchant links on the article, but I was unable to find any sources to show that this author meets notability guidelines. There is a possibility that foreign language sources exist, but my observations have usually shown that if an author is notable in FL sources there is usually at least one reliable source in the English language, either in-depth or brief/trivial.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satyabrat Sinha

Satyabrat Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested speedy deletion (of sorts). An article with the same name was

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. BLP revived 8 months after unanimous delete. Cites in
  WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete G4. Not significantly different from the version deleted after the previous AfD. And no obvious reason for a change in notability has surfaced. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find anything in a couple broad commercial databases. The "Reviews" listed are by Sinha, not about Sinha, confused me at first. Need sources about Sinha. --
  talk) 02:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete G4 and salt.
  Too soon, wait another 10 years. --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhesh pai

Siddhesh pai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced biography of an apparently "professional dancer". Article creator

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent coverage, mainly youtube videos. Why is he considered a sportsman?204.126.132.231 (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of mayors of Tower Hamlets

List of mayors of Tower Hamlets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipeidia is not a repository for lists and the post itself the list is created for is not notable enough to have a separate Wikiepdia article of its own. Wikiepdia is not for creating articles just for the sake of it, which this this article is. If individual holders of the Office are notable then that should be included in the main Tower Hamlets page and a separate page is wholly unneeded. The guidance which should be followed when creating lists can be found here and this list falls foul of not being notable and should be deleted. Sport and politics (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Clearly meets
  WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources, including those that are independent of the subject. MRSC (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • Reply The office which is and of itself not notable, therefor makes a list of holders of that office is not notable. It is just a list for the sake of it. It clearly fails
    WP:GNG as opposed to meeting them. indiviual office holders if they are notable should have their own page and the notable people should be included in the main Tower Hamlets page a separate page clearly fails notability. Sport and politics (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep The office appears to be notable, passing the
  WP:GNG clearly, which makes a list of its holders notable as well. This could be converted into an article about the office, with a list as a section, or both an article and a list could exist. That is a question ofm editorial judgement, and should not be a matter for AfD. DES ^(talk) 23:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 'Comment I think there may be misunderstanding this article is only for the council appointed office holder which has only been in existence since 1995 not the post elected by the public which has been in existence sine 2010. Sport and politics (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it well er notable that this AfD nomination occurred just after a move of a closely related page to which the nominator objected. A bit of forum-shopping perhaps? DES ^(talk) 23:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is part of a POV fork and should be deleted as it is not a notable subject to warrant an article. Sod all to do with when the page created remember always

WP:AGF. I don't really think one local newspaper demonstartes the notabilitiy of the post either more just the notability of its reporting on council business and the Council itself being used as a source is not a demonstration of wider notability. Currently (at the time of writing) seven of the sources are Tower Hamlets council itself 2 sources are the London Gazette and are for Mayors before the current Borough of Tower Hamlets was established in 1995 One is a local government directory which the equivalent of a phone book for local government and the only other source is one local newspaper who appears to be focusing more on the person taking up the office than the office itself. It appears in no doubt that the office exists but the sources do not establish any notability of the office. All the sources do is say this person held this office they give no reason as to why this office is a notable office which warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 19:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Blackman

Jamal Blackman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As was the case seventeen months ago, Mr. Blackman has not yet played for Chelsea's senior squad, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Minor youth footballer who has not accomplished anything garnering significant coverage yet. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until he actually meets NFOOTY.204.126.132.231 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and
  WP:NFOOTBALL notability guideline. - tucoxn\^talk 02:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't appeared in a fully pro league yet or received significant coverage, which means it fails both
  talk) 14:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete but not salt -- He is certainly not notable yet, but may be one day. The artile is this TOOSOON. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haakon Faste

Haakon Faste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Originally deleted as an uncontested PROD, and restored per a

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Negligible cites in GS. No pass of
  WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete Way
  WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkinhead (rapper)

Pumpkinhead (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Musician fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets
  WP:GNG through non-trivial coverage in reliable sources: [6][7][8][9]. — sparklism ^hey! 15:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 17:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sparklism.LM2000 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Johnson, Sr.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Seems reasonably un-notable, the only sources regarding this person are his obituary. Dying doesn't seem to be something that makes a person notable. Frumpylittlefellow (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is not his death that made him notable, but rather his many accomplishments in fighting against political corruption in the labor movement and New York City politics. Hint: the New York Times does not run 14 paragraph obituaries with two photographs about non-notable people. His extremely common name makes separating the wheat from the chaff challenging when searching on Google, but I am highly confident that many additional sources can be found, in addition to the three already in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The New York Times published at least six articles in the 1951-1953 time period discussing his work to reform the International Longshore Association. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am under the impression that the NYT published the obituary because they considered the deceased to be worthy of notice on account of events which took place during his life. James500 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is generally held that an obituary in a major newspaper such as the NYT easily meets our notability bar. Obituaries are given to people because they deserve them, not just because they die. Otherwise everybody would have an obituary! So in what way is it only his dying that's notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel L. Young

Joel L. Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article filled with minutiae and non-independent sources. Subject fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on
  WP:AUTHOR
  #3, multiple book reviews in reliable sources.

• Adams, Angel. "ADHD Grown Up. A Guide to Adolescent and Adult ADHD by Joel Young". Journal of Family Therapy, Vol. 30, No. 1, February 2008
• "ADHD grown up; a guide to adolescent and adult ADHD", SciTech Book News, Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2007
• Sickel. "ADHD Grown Up: A Guide to Adolescent and Adult ADHD", Psychiatric Services January 1, 2008; Vol 59, No. 1; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.59.1.123
• Diana Pederson. "Review - ADHD Grown Up", Metapsychology, January 8, 2008; Volume 12, Issue 2
• McCabe, Marcia. "Why don't you grow up?" PsycCRITIQUES, Vol 52(46), 2007

--

talk) 02:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Tiny cites in a highly cited field (biomed). A handful of reviews. Does not cross the high bar in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

"many books are published each year, only a small fraction of them are reviewed".[10] --

talk) 17:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep. As pointed out by Green Cardamon, this person appears to meet the threshold of notability. However, the article is promotional and non-neutral. My !vote is weak, and I am open to a good argument to the contrary. The COI is highly disturbing, however, I don't believe that COI alone is a proper reason for deletion. Changing to Delete. Convinced by subsequent arguments. This one is too much of a disaster to be salvaged. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He might just be notable as WP:A?UTHOR, but the article is so promotional that the only practical thing is to start over. The combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism is a good reason for deletion--we have enough to do improving the articles on really important subjects, rather than by rewriting these to make them acceptable/ . DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A point that is applicable outside BLPs too. Wikipedia has developed to a high degree of maturity and there is plenty of good material in its several million articles. There is now not the need for editors to devote large amounts of esoteric research to bringing articles about insignificant topics up to par. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Weak delete unless someone cares enough to clear the promotional material and write a properly neutral article about the subject before the close of the AfD (I certainly don't) and then continue policing it for recurring COI problems afterwards. Borderline G11 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per
  WP:COATRACK done by a paid editor across sock accounts.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Wow! Rarely seen such an article. Professionally done, I have to admit. If you don't look closer, you might actually think that this guy is a giant in his field. We should keep this gem somewhere, as it is a beautiful example of what paid advocacy editing can mean for WP! Dr. Young, unfortunately, doesn't even come close to meeting
  spam, spam, with spam (indeed borderline G11, as David Eppstein said). --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Agree with the above. As far as his professional qualifications, he appears to be a run-of-the-mill psychiatrist who has given his practice a fancy name to make it sound like an important "behavioral center". As far as
  WP:AUTHOR goes, aside from Psychiatric Services I am not impressed with the journals/magazines that chose to review his book; it doesn't exactly sound like it has rocked the field or flown off the shelves. It was put out by a mainstream publisher, but I don't feel it has made him notable as WP defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

João Rodrigo Silva Santos

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Non-notable footballer, who fails

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. Minor footballer, his death has received a little bit of coverage purely because of its nature, but that is not notable either. GiantSnowman 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - now shows to meet NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this guy played for
  talk) 16:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Mentoz86: - Östers IF have only spent 1 season in the Allsvenskan recently (2006), do you have any idea if he was even signed with them in that season, let alone if he played? Basially here we have a potential claim to notability, but one which is unverifiable. How is that notable in any way, shape or form? "He may be notable but I can't prove it" - um okay then! GiantSnowman 16:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me rephrase that: this guy was contracted to

talk) 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough. But even if he has played in the Allsvenskan, has he received

"significant coverage" in Brazil, Scandinavia, or eslewhere? GiantSnowman 17:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: He played six matches and scored one goal for Öster in Allsvenskan in 2003, according to svenskfotboll.se -77.222.192.193 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - technical NFOOTY pass. Agree with GS, unlikely there is much significant coverage in footballing terms, but add what there is to his recent grisly murder and there is a case for GNG. Would be interested to see what additional sources can be provided and also prepared to change my view should there be little coverage on his death. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - his death has already been reported in the Guardian. not enough on its own for GNG by any means, but if additional sources can be found to show his death received wider international coverage, added to his NFOOTY pass I would remain happy to keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - because of his professional appearances. Spiderone 13:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – per NFOOTY but it's pretty tenuous. Maybe see how it looks in a month or so, perhaps it will satisfy GNG by then. It can always be reviewed later. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

OC Public Libraries

OC Public Libraries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

redirect needs to be deleted since original article was deleted on 25Oct2013

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 16:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete. Technically, this is the wrong venue -- redirects go to
  WP:RFD, not AFD. But in this case, it's an uncontroversial candidate for speedy deletion criterion G8 (red-linked redirect), and I've so tagged it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gallow

Jack Gallow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability: All the works are self published. The only independent source listed is when Huffington Post show a cover of one of his stories in a short article on free zombie stories from Wattpad (which is an online community for users to post articles, stories, and poems). A search doesn't show up any independent sources. 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 15:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self published author with one book. Does not meet minimum
  talk) 01:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Aguinaldo College ROTC

Emilio Aguinaldo College ROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails notability for organizations. It has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; it has not even seen trivial coverage. NoyPiOka (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Philippines), merging any relevant content as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Examining the two articles, I see nothing mergable, and there's no reason to refer from the name of an individual university's department of something to the general topic. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing to merge to the ROTC article, as this article is only about the ROTC program of one school.
  csdnew 08:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Normal University – Agusan del Sur Army ROTC

Philippine Normal University – Agusan del Sur Army ROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails notability for organizations. Tt has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; it has not even seen trivial coverage. NoyPiOka (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Reserve Officers' Training Corps (Philippines), merging any relevant content as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no reason to redirect, as there is no mergable content. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing to merge to the ROTC article, as this article is only about the ROTC program of one school.
  csdnew 08:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Staff appreciation

Staff appreciation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is written as a how-to essay. Only sources cited are two subpages of a single website, which requires registration. Overall subject might be incorporated into a small subsection of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete blog-like how-to. Work motivation, among others, covers this in a far more encyclopedic manner. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTESSAY. Seems to me like a pretty clear-cut example of someone using Wikipedia to host a personal essay. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTESSAY. More of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as an unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of national football teams by highest FIFA ranking

List of national football teams by highest FIFA ranking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was "There is no need for an entirely separate table (and article) for this subject." PROD was removed with the rationale "Page details topic not individually represented elsewhere. Without this page individual teams have to be sourced to their own page, proving both inconvenient and resulting in comparisons being unable to be drawn between historical team performance." The counter-argument is, of course, that

Note: This discussion has been included in

Jay 13:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NOTSTATS. Interesting? Yes. Encyclopedic? No. GiantSnowman 15:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -
  WP:NOTSTATS. As mentioned by the nominator, the goals of this page could be covered in an existing page with the right type of formatting but this page doesn't warrant its own article. C679 11:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - the subject fails both
  talk) 15:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Cerutti

Steven M. Cerutti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to fail AUTHOR, PROF and GNG - and to be
  talk) 20:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A few books, a few cites. Not enough for
  WP:Prof#C1. Not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC).[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will Rawdon

Will Rawdon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Samwalton9 (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the deletion reason by the nom?204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced biography with no evidence of notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Per GS, no intl apps nor has any of the teams he has been involved with been involved with been in an FPL. Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a youth player in a minor league. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – hasn't played for any significant teams, not notable in his own right. C679 21:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tangu Railway Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Typo. Should be

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - A merge to
  Tanggu Railway Station appears to be in order here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge is the best solution me thinks. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Tanggu Railway Station and tag {{R from misspelling}} - nothing to merge. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Query Are we sure these refer to the same station? Because "Tangu" says it is on the Jinbin Passenger Railway, an under-construction route, while "Tanggu" says it is on the Jingha Railway... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chinese Wikipedia says both those lines go/will go through that station. _dk (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  ^talk 20:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9 Queens

9 Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be an advertisement, not neutral

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a bit promotional, but not too bad. Many of the links are dead, but I can find the articles with a web search. Looks to meet
  WP:ORG is a bit more questionable. Hobit (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Looks way too parochial to me. Coverage in local press, but not nationally/globally. If every 'local' initiative of this type had an article, Wikipedia would be flooded with them. Don't forget, there will be similar initiatives all over Europe and further afield also. I have no problem with initiatives that are being rolled out and supported on a national basis, as they should have articles in the chess press, national newspapers etc. However, my impression so far is that these sources don't offer enough gravitas to confer notability. Rather than being entirely promotional, per the comments above, I feel that the author is also relying on the high profiles of the individual founders to attempt to strengthen the case for the article. This too, sets the alarm bells ringing. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Brittle heaven - the coverage is all local. And nothing really links to it except Jennifer Shahade. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-per
  WP:MILL. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Victor Colicchio#Personal life. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dionna Dal Monte

Dionna Dal Monte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn´t agree more. The page should be deleted. Antifascisti (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the nom. Her attention-starved antics may have caused a brief controversy among bloggers, but she's hardly notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]