Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 12 August 14 August >

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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Al-Saraff

Yousef Al-Saraff (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. 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) 23:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 14 August 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. No agreement to salt the article Guerillero | My Talk 03:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 2015 Pan American Games – Women's tournament

Basketball at the 2015 Pan American Games – Women's tournament (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 borders on a hoax. No references are cited for the factual information within it. For example, it lists the venue for this sport as Exhibition Place, but this website states that a venue hasn't been announced. Aside from the poor grammar, which can be fixed, there are multiple redlinks, and statements which seem to have no basis in fact, such as "there will be just two automatically qualified team, the hosts Canada and the United States." The games will be in Toronto; how is the U.S. a host? Perhaps others feel this article has merit and can be salvaged and sourced. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 23:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  Future event, salt until two weeks after July 19, 2015.  Uses future tense.  No encyclopedic value, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and also there is a risk here of promoting the event.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and comment) - First, agree that it is too early for this article and there isn't enough detail to realistically populate an article. However, this is the second time I have seen "delete and salt until 2 weeks after the event" as a proposed solution to a future event article. First, salting the article after it has been created once is a serious overreaction. If we assume good faith, we would assume that the article was created in error by an editor who perhaps doesn't understand when "too soon" is to create an article about a notable event. Salting is an appropriate response if an article is recreated after AfD review, but would be an inappropriate response over just one perhaps ill-advised creation. Second, if you were going to salt it for some reason waiting until two weeks after the event is done is ridiculous. Real news about this FIBA-sponsored event will be occurring a month or so prior to the start of the tournament - announcement of the draw, suspensions, announcement of the country's squads, etc. And as the event happens, users will update results real-time - in exactly the same way that election results are recorded on Wikipedia real-time, film awards are recorded as they are handed out, and deaths of notable individuals are recorded as the news breaks. As notable events occur, they are encyclopedic. The idea of having a completed notable event without an article for two full weeks after its conclusion is ridiculous. Rikster2 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Rikster2 about these absurd salting proposals that have happened recently. Those are extreme measures taken when articles get re-created numerous times in spite of an AfD. Leave this (soon to be deleted) article alone and wait to see if anyone intentionally loops around the AfD to recreate it. I highly doubt it will happen. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appeals to emotion are not a substitute for policy based arguments, unless, of course, the objective is anarchy.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy basis to your argument to salt the article until 2 weeks after the event. Rikster2 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Jrcla2 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:DEADLINE.  Why write articles in future tense, when editors know that what they are writing has no long-term value to the encyclopedia?  How is that "building" an encyclopedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
No, "real news" serves as sources for encyclopedic articles about notable events and reliable sources begin reporting about aspects of notable events prior to their occurance. Which means that there is sufficient information to start an article that will evolve as the event unfolds. In an extreme case you get a valid articles like
WP:CRYSTAL states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." There is nothing in there that precludes future events, just guidance for the conditions that must be present (which this article has not yet met, but most likely will before it officially starts). There is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits creating articles on notable future events so long as reliable sources are reporting on them and the WP article is not serving as the primary source. Current events are documented on Wikipedia all the time in every domain and is certainly not forbidden. As to the suggestion of salting an article until two weeks after the event - no, there is no policy basis to that argument - and I am quite sure of it. If your issue is that you don't believe the FIBA-sponsored basketball tournaments that occur within the PanAm games are notable at all, that is a different argument that has nothing to do with articles on future and current events. It's also not one that has been brought up as an objection to this article. Rikster2 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
When you initially said "real news", you did not mean "real news sources", so the shift of meaning in your reply says something.  Perhaps you are a newbie who doesn't know the difference between WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and the use of newspapers as sources.  Perhaps you are aware of WP:CRYSTAL and haven't seen WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.  To quote your words, "Real news about this FIBA-sponsored event will be occurring a month or so prior to the start of the tournament - announcement of the draw, suspensions, announcement of the country's squads, etc."  I've below quoted WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which has many relevant points, for example, it specifically mentions "announcements".  How much of such material will be of interest to readers in ten years?  Or is the plan to write in future tense knowing that the material will be dated and worthless within weeks or months?  I still remember an article about the 2012 US Olympics team that began reporting US medal totals over a year in advance.  For over a year, the reports were always up to date and completely accurate, 0 gold, 0 silver, and 0 bronze.  Instead of objecting to not being able to report announcements of future events because a future-event article is salted, I suggest that you use your talent to create timeless articles on topics such as Preparation for the 2015 Pan-American Games.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you know what I meant better than I do? Interesting. Real time events on a notable topic are fine to add to articles. You have an agenda and your best recourse would be to to try and find consensus through an RFC on the topic. Because no admin in their right mind would accept your suggestion of salting an article on a notable topic for two weeks after the event. Rikster2 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of which were created by myself and are well referenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the issue. Your underlying assumption is that this event does not have enduring notability and therefore are suggesting that the material is routine news. this event (and even more so the 2015 NBA draft which was the other future event you tried to apply this argument to) has enduring notability, therefore the argument you are trying to apply is moot. If you disagree that this event has enduring notability, a good test case would be for you to AfD the corresponding article for a past PanAm games to test your theory. Rikster2 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that "issue" is not something I've said so it is a red herring.  For reasons that you've not explained, you want to use the excuse that this topic can be expected to be wp:notable to use Wikipedia to do newspaper reporting as the event draws near.  I again suggest that you use your talent to write encyclopedic material that will stand the test of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think the topic is notable, then you should AfD the 2011 article of the same tournament. The tournament is what it is, either you think it is a notable recurring event or you don't. But if you insist on suggesting that this article be salted until 2 weeks after the event is over (the thing that I have pushed back on all along), then it would be helpful if you could provide examples where this has been done in the past (articles salted until a date a week or two after the future event is scheduled to end) so we can see how this case stacks up to those. I'd offer to help, but I honestly don't know of a single case where this has happened. Everyone agrees this article should be AfD'ed in August, 2014. Let's just leave it at that. Rikster2 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We are not talking about an event in 2011, we are talking about a future event.  There is a difference between the two.  We don't know that an event in 2015 will ever occur, and at Wikipedia, we don't need to WP:SPECULATE, as we can wait.  There is a continuing risk that this title will be used to violate WP:NOT, so salting remains appropriate.  "We've done it this way before" is a logical fallacy, because just because it has been done before does not prove that it has been done in the best way.  I'm not sure as to the name of that fallacy, but it is related to argumentum ad populum.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't have any precedence for what you are suggesting and would like this article to be the first. Got it. Rikster2 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for articles about events that may or may not happen, as we can wait until the event is done, and there is no
WP:DEADLINE.  IMO, doing otherwise risks opening up the pedia to commercial interests seeking to promote their future events.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 17 August 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) .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly Oddparents (Film series)

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

List of films that contains one film, a list is not needed BOVINEBOY2008 21:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 23:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 23:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Bovineboy... I agree that a "film series" article is inappropriate when there is only one film and no "series"... but a franchise article covering the television series, film, toys, games, videos, etc. is a reasonable future consideration. Has the author been approached with this franchise idea? Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm somewhat leaning towards improving the article rather than deletion, as this seems to be about the live action film series as opposed to the cartoon series. Both the animated series and the LA series are owned by the same people, but they aren't technically in the same universe. I'm not trying to pull an
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I'm actually curious as to what you found questionable about my edits as they're pretty standard for most film and film-related articles. In any case, about the other things: We try to avoid using collapsible sections when it comes to articles- the only real time I've seen collapsible fields regularly used is in track listings in large pages. I would also recommend against naming it just "film series" because there are animated films in the FOP series and that were released as such on DVD and on TV. Specifying that these are live action is a pretty normal course of action. I'd also like to caution you against making conditional keep arguments in this manner, since this comes across as you trying to claim
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:27, 17 August 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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Airways Flight 23

Qatar Airways Flight 23 (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)

PROD tag removed with an irrelevant edit summary ("Is this flight code used repeatedly for the same route?"). Entirely unremarkable aviation incident, delete as

WP:NOTNEWS. TheLongTone (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 August 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. Deor (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikrishna Upadhyay

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

Subject does not appear to have any claims to notability other than the Right Livelihood Award. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 00:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
As with most things, we look to reliable sources. The Swedish Government The 2013 Right Livelihood Laureates announced and press from around the world attest to the significance and awareness of the award. See, e.g. (not all links are about this particular recipient), Washington Post and Associated Press, The Independent and Nepali Times. Yes, there are awards that are even more well known but the guideline does not read "has received one of the most well-known or significant awards or honors". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, though, if there's literally no other significant mentions of him, at most we can support including a brief biography on, say, "List of recipitants of the Right Livelihood Award" - not a stand-alone article? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While English language sources may be sparse for now, there may well be more in Nepali and other languages that will become translated over time. I see the purpose of additional guidelines such as
WP:WORLDVIEW. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC) And it can also take westerners like me awhile to realize that we shouldn't be searching for sources using a name with the honorific (Shri, Sri, Shree) attached. All the more reason not to be so quick to pull the trigger. 19:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
That's Speculation. Note that
WP:ANYBIO
- the "won an award" criterion you're quoting - is part of a section that starts by saying "conversely, meeting one or more [of these] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." 01:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is it really a well-known and significant award? Really? So much that it overrules all other notability criteria? To the point that the only sources mentioning him are brief mentions of the award? Even with the award, there's no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. The award may be just notable enough to include a list of recipients, with a one-paragraph biography in the article on the award, but if there's no sources, it's clearly not enough for a stand-alone article on the person. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should have caught this earlier, but we really should be searching for him without the honorific, thus, "Krishna Upadhyay". Immediate hits such as [3], [4] and [5]. My opinion is that he now passes
    WP:ANYBIO. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just so we're clear for the future, ANYBIO, in itself, is not sufficient to establish notability by itself:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 August 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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Nabil Elhussieny

Omar Nabil Elhussieny (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in the Estonian First Division, the Egyptian Second Division, and the UEFA Champions League. The first two of these are not confirmed as fully pro, meaning the that playing in them does not confer notability. His appearances in the Champions League were in qualifying, meaning that they do not confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flight (Search the City album)

Flight (Search the City album) (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 album. Hasn't hit any charts that I can find. Several of the songs had articles that have since been deleted via AfD. Will add the other two songs with articles to this AfD. The articles for songs all say they have hit the Billboard Christian Rock chart. However, Billboard says they have not charted. Bgwhite (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whispers & Memories (Search the City song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rewrite the Ending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 00:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NALBUMS says ... must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are no sources at all in the article, nevermind reliable ones. I was unable to find any. CactusWriter was unable to. The creating editor has a history of putting up claims that nobody could find references for, including making up charts. Without reliable sources, it does not pass WP:NALBUMS. Bgwhite (talk) 04:42, 21 August 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 deckertalk 04:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rieker Inc

Rieker Inc (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)

User:Bearian, User:James500

Does not appear to meet

WP:NOTABILITY and remains with no reliable sources after 8 years Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am finding nothing more than a couple of pieces of routine description of products by the company. Unless something better can be located, this fails
    WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 14 August 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 05:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro

Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro (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)

advertising The Banner talk 11:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At first I was willing to save this article (indeed, I believe a major cleanup could leave a fine stub), but now I just found out that the article was created by a corporative account (

User:Sistema Firjan
), also responsible for the following pages (as listed by the account itself):

By glancing at all pages, I'd say they are pretty much promotional material on potentially notable organizations created by a promotional account. This editor did the same thing at the Portuguese Wikipedia, I might add. Could we nominate them all at once so we have one single discussion? Victão Lopes Fala! 20:14, 19 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, all. I was trying to understand what you read in this article that motivated the initiative to nominate it for deletion. Reading the above, I came up to the conclusion that there are two reasons for that:
  1. "find sources" ;
  2. "At first I was willing to save this article (indeed, I believe a major cleanup could leave a fine stub), but now I just found out that the article was created by a corporative account".
Well, regarding the first reason (not enough sources), I worked that out and included another 5 independant and reliable sources - which I hope will solve the problem. But with respect to the second reason... is there any? As far as I am aware of, Wikipedia does not prohibit organizations to edit. Further in cases when "a major cleanup could leave a fine stub". Can we do this cleanup together in order to keep the article? The same applies to the other article's debate, about the
Sistema Firjan (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
No, it is more the case that mr. Sistema Firjan is promoting the work of the company Sistema Firjan based on non-independent sources supplied by Sistema Firjan. The Banner talk 13:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-independent sources"? I am afraid you know nothing about news vehicles in Brazil. I suggest you take a look at the websites below (which are referenced in this article) in order to inform yourself better, given the fact that you are looking forward to eliminating articles related to important themes of my country without the necessary knowledge to do so:
  • G1 portal: a news portal from Globo Organization;
  • GloboNews: an all news TV channel;
  • Monitor Mercantil: a traditional newspaper specialized in finance/economy that exists since 1912;
  • O Dia: a very popular daily newspaper in Rio de Janeiro, created in 1951;
  • Último Instante: a famous real time news provider.
There are other examples, but I won´t waste more time with someone who positions himself with destructive commentaries and is not opened to learn.
And frankly, administrators should limit your influence in Wikipedia, since your behavior seems to go against its policies.
--
Sistema Firjan (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm gonna have to partially agree with Sistema Firjan on that one; the sources above are indeed independent and acceptable. Victão Lopes Fala! 21:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5 out of 22 (in fact 6 out of 23) sources link to the Firjan website. The rest I did not judge, as I don't speak Portugese. But with the company name abbreviated to Firjan and this article written by User:Sistema Firjan, some suspicion about the neutrality of the author and the article are warranted. The Banner talk 21:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, you have all the reasons in the World to question neutrality, and I questioned it too. I'm just clarifying it so that nobody misjudges those sources later. Victão Lopes Fala! 22:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just performed a major cleanup on the article. I removed what I considered to be blatant advertisement that would require a significant rewriting to abide to our guidelines and left what I thought was important to at least let readers know what the institution is about. Victão Lopes Fala! 22:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your cooperation, diligence and wiki spirit,
Sistema Firjan (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The deletion is now up to the community. The tag will only be removed when this debate is declared "closed", which is normally (but not exclusively) done by an administrator. It will depend on how other editors judge the article. If nobody else expresses their opinions here, it might be closed as "no consensus reached", which will mean the article will be kept as it is now, but anyone can nominate it for deletion again anytime. Victão Lopes Fala! 22:22, 31 July 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 _ 03:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: We need at least one more comment to assess the work done by Victão Lopes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 20:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - there's no doubt the new version is better. I still have some concerns that the same sources appear several times - multiple instances of coverage from the same source isn't considered "multiple sources" for the purposes of
    WP:N. But there are other sources there and while I don't speak Portuguese, the subject is mentioned in the title. I think, if nothing else, the "advertising" concerns have been addressed. Though the remaining COI is obviously an issue, it isn't a valid reason for deletion. St★lwart111 13:56, 15 August 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 Withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding delete votes.

Alicia Endemann

AfDs for this article:
Alicia Endemann (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 previously deleted at AfD; recntly recreated Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I fail to understand how someone who has become top model (Miss germany) in a country of 80 million people isn't notable. If a writer won the top national literary award, or a musician won the top national music award, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Endemann also has some prominence as an actor. Sionk (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. National title-holder who has represented her country at an international level in one of the main pageants. There is precedent for considering such articles notable at a basic level. It needs some basic rewording but it is a fair enough basic stub with sufficient sourcing. Mabalu (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The previous delete vote was EXTREMELY close - almost virtually a no consensus. I was surprised it was actually deleted, but I can imagine it was an extremnely close run thing. Mabalu (talk) 09:30, 14 August 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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Willis (footballer, born 1995)

George Willis (footballer, born 1995) (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 footballer. Fails

WP:NFOOTBALL. He has yet to make a senior appearance. At this stage he lacks notability. IJA (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 19:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 19:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 19:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 August 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 deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Gordon

Franck Gordon (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)

No evidence of notability despite being created by

talk) 18:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 August 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. unintentional creation Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel Railway

Tunnel Railway (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)

BILL (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! I ACCIDENTLY MARKED IT FOR DELETION. IT WAS ACCIDENT. DONT DELETE IT. IM SORRY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy on Boxes (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 August 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. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel Intentions (song)

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

Does not appear to meet

WP:GNG. Launchballer 17:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great - withdrawn.--Launchballer 07:38, 14 August 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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Sankaran

AfDs for this article:
Rajan Sankaran (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)

Subject fails

WP:SPAM Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

P.S. See also this related discussion at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As nominator says, this article fails to pass any of the various standards we have for biographical articles. Having looked back at various historical versions of the article the hoped-for improvements to this article have not materialised. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Previous arguments centered around whether the guy was notable as a homeopath. That's an interesting question. We should determine whether there is enough
    WP:SOAP and after two failed AfDs where assurances were made that cleanup was possible, I think it's time to put this to rest. jps (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 August 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panam Percy Paul

Panam Percy Paul (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 BLP. Subject might be notable, but I'm not finding sources for the listed awards. Article has been previously deleted once as an A7 speedy and once via PROD-BLP. --Finngall talk 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets

WP:GNG The subject has gotten coverage from The Nation Newspaper, allAfrica.com, Today Newspaper in Abuja and The Sun. I will be adding these sources to the article shortly. Versace1608 (Talk) 23:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Even though I'm not a fan of the contemporary gospel, this name rang a bell immediately I saw it. Besides, the article is referenced with notable dailies, establishing that the subject meets

WP:GNG. I think it need more verification (references), that's all.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 02:42, 17 August 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. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. H. Salunkhe

A. H. Salunkhe (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)

Unreferenced BLP. Launchballer 22:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a note that there is an entry for this guy on the Marathi Wikipedia linked under the Languages tab. Google Translate gives a pretty entertaining translation. That article seems more developed but I don't see a specific references section.
HOWDY! 04:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment The above !votes for deletion are reasonable enough as the article currently stands (though not absolute policy, given the age of the article), but will immediately fail if and when references are added. For someone largely writing in Marathi, most sources are also likely to be in Marathi, and while there are potential sources shown on the GBooks search, I am finding it difficult to judge whether they are all for the subject rather than someone of the same name. It would therefore be very valuable if a Marathi-speaking editor or someone with some knowledge of the subject could find and add suitable references, and if a second week could be allowed for this discussion, to give a better chance for this to happen. PWilkinson (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatives are to
WP:SOFTDELETE or to see if one can get hold of an editor from the Marathi Wikipedia.--Launchballer 11:07, 10 August 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, Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 13 August 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 deckertalk 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Efektpol

Efektpol (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)

Nonnotable film production subcontractor business

talk) 16:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 August 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. THre is probably an article here, but as pointed out, there is too much OR here for this to be it. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums considered the best

List of albums considered the best (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 entire article is original research. We aren't supposed to take a bunch of random surveys, put them together then compute arbitrary aggregates. The article even repeatedly admits that it uses a "methodology" (which is WP:OR by itself) then that it is "questionable" (as if it was ok for articles to be unsourced as long as you admit it). All in all, such an aggregate presents next to no interest since it's combining data that is not meant to be combined.

talk) 05:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are basically suggesting to edit the list. Problems that can be solved by editing must be solved by editing and not deletion, per
our deletion policy.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:40, 13 August 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 16:00, 13 August 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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Scholten

Jan Scholten (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)

"Dutch practitioner of homeopathy and author of several books." Lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Fails

Location (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per

WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The King of Kings (2012 painting)

The King of Kings (2012 painting) (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)

The sources in this article don't have anything to do with the subject (the painting) itself. And it seems to consist mostly of original research interpretation. Holdek (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I'm actually going to propose this for deletion instead. --Holdek (talk) 15:29, 13 August 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Sinner

No Sinner (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)

The subject appears to not meet

WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article. Source searches are not providing reliable sources. ZeUs SoSo (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ZeUs SoSo (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The sources are few, their fan base is very low, and a up-and-coming band do not need to have a Wikipedia Page. The article has not encyclopedia interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeUs SoSo (talk • contribs)
Has this band won an award, or reached any chart?
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. message me. ZeUs SoSo (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The guidelines for inclusion do not require a band to win an award or reach any chart. — sparklism hey! 07:09, 14 August 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.

WP:NOTESSAY Guerillero | My Talk 04:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Healthy for Life

Healthy for Life (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)

It is an unsourced essay on the reasons how to stay healthy. The article was CSDed, then declined, PRODed, then removed, so this is the last step. Piguy101 (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:NOTCSD (unfortunately), but this is really a hopeless essay/how-to article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that Passengerpigeon's decline was justified. I just hoped that a sysop would
WP:IAR and delete the article anyway. Piguy101 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I U5ed it from the user page, but without an inviting-to-buy link, it's not a CSD for anything else. Peridon (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopaedic. Looks possibly like artspam, but I can't say what for - perhaps the link never got posted. Otherwise, it's an essay. Hmmm, I've just found laabpedseoschool.com - Laabped69 is the author of the article. Interesting. Peridon (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 August 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Bondy

James Bondy (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 couldn't establish that this meets

WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for nearly four years. Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Minor entertainer. Couldn't find any significant coverage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 August 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 Moonee Ponds, Victoria. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moonee Ponds West Primary School

Moonee Ponds West Primary School (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)

New article created by new account. Fails

WP:GNG Murry1975 (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 11:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 August 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 deckertalk 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Poseidon

Children of Poseidon (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)

YouTube prank group from Western Australia. Fails

WP:ORGDEPTH, lacking a breadth of in-depth coverage, which is independent of the subject, in multiple sources. AlanS (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as
WP:NEVENT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 14 August 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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Skype recorders

Comparison of Skype recorders (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)

Interesting, but doesn't seem notable or encyclopaedic. Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am happy to keep this content but the criteria for inclusion is finding a published reliable source which has already done this comparison. If someone already has published any "Comparison of Skype recorders" then I think all comparisons could be developed here. To keep this article I would want to see that this is a topic that an independent authority has already seen fit to publish, even if Wikipedia is much more comprehensive. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 20 August 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 deckertalk 20:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy González

Wendy González (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)

A not-notable actress

Sign my Guestbook 09:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then find sources to add, if there are any. — Wyliepedia 15:52, 20 August 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 Canning Vale, Western Australia. Clear consensus that the topic isn't notable, but redirects are cheap and no one has given a reason not to redirect. As Mkativerata notes, if anyone wishes to they can merge anything by looking through the article history. Jenks24 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston Marketplace

Livingston Marketplace (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 could not establish that this meets

WP:NOTABILITY. Natg 19 (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep repeating things where it has been explained to you that what you say is incorrect?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 15 August 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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Britton

Matt Britton (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 BLP for which no indication is given that the player has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet

WP:NFOOTBALL Hack (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 August 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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Miracle Foundation

The Miracle Foundation (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)

basically promotional article , with no evidence for actual notability DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - If DGG asks it, it should be for some justified reason. I agree with nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A genuine G11 candidate. Peculiarly, the original version from 2007 isn't as bad (although still bad enough). Aside from the promotional nature of the article, the subject does not appear to be notable. There seem to be little snippets of coverage of various activities and fundraising drives here and there (eg [19]) but even if a case for (marginal) notability could be made, that case shouldn't obstruct the absolutely necessary deletion of this article unless fundamentally rewritten before then. --
    Mkativerata (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 August 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 History of the Internet. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy internet

Legacy internet (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 couldn't establish that this meets

WP:NOTABILITY criteria, but it's an unusual page. When I prodded, it was removed with the reason: 16 pages of results in GBooks. Perhaps a plausible redirect or disambiguation page. I propose either deletion, or a redirect or disambiguation page if anyone can find suitable targets and it is agreed that the article as it stands is non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 August 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. Clear keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inflatable tunnel

Inflatable tunnel (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 could not establish that this meets

WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 14 August 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. Opinions are divided, and considering that the article cites sources that appear to be mainstream media sources, such as

Fakty i Kommentarii, I can't give decisive weight to the arguments criticizing the quality of the sourcing.  Sandstein  07:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Requiem for MH-17

Requiem for MH-17 (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)

Unable to find any reliable third-party sources to establish the notability of this poem. WWGB (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WWGB,
Thank you for alerting me. As far as I understand, the main motive for proposing deletion is lack of evidence for notability of the poem, right? Perhaps the reason why you cannot confirm its notability (if you've tried) is that you are looking for it in English. Search in Russian ("Реквием по МН-17" in quotes, I include the link for results below) and you'll see that this - only one week old! - poem returns 54,000 hits, with numerous sites copying it, with radio broadcasts, replies in verse written, some sites closed for commenting it in anticipation of hate statements, some news sources claiming (I cannot confirm whether this correct) that the author's work (not only this but in general) has already been officially banned, etc. etc. It is an important political story developing alongside the MH-17 crash, and attracting in Russia perhaps as much attention (and tension) as the crash itself. It is invisible in the West because of the language barrier, but I don't think such barrier justifies exclusion from Wikipedia. I'd be happy to address other issues as well, but I'd like to hear first whether what I've said makes sense. Thanks, here is the search link [20] Borisovich (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC) BTW, here is a reprint of the poem on an Israeli tv channel page: [21][reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 15:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Some nobody wrote a poem Andrei "Orlusha" Orlov is not a nobody. He is a celebrity in Russia, and if you follow the link to his page in Russian rhyme, rhithm, tomwikipedia, you'll find (in Russian, of course) a link to the article of Dmitry Bykov where he claims that "Orlusha is the principal Russian poet of our time". (Well, to explain who Dmitry Bykov is, it suffices to say that, among dozens of other roles, he is the author of an award-winning biography of Pasternak.) If Orlusha were nobody, then no one would pay attention to his poem in Russia in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisovich (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree that the reading by a well-known actress of a poem critical of the government on "the last bastion of free media in Russia" is definitely notable. English translation is horrid at the moment but better ones are in the works. As long as notable developments in foreign countries are allowed, this should stay.Wilanthule (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia policy or guideline regarding notability do you base this on? --Bejnar (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wilanthule, a better translation would be great. Could you please make sure it's not a pony, but is respectful to the art form of the original (rhyme, rhythm, tone, etc.)? Thanks! Borisovich (talk) 09:51, 28 July 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 00:28, 4 August 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 06:42, 13 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Chaney

Ron Chaney (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)

Only real claim to notability is relation to his grandfather and great grandfather. He has contributed to a few projects about his family and appeared in a few minor independent films. All the sources are either primary, simple genealogical entries, or not about the subject i.e. the trailer for a film he happens to be in. A search for sources on Ron results in nothing for me. [26] Ridernyc (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 August 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 06:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hit publish too soon. He is already well and appropriately covered in the
Lon Chaney, Jr. article as someone who talks about his grandfather at events. AdventurousMe (talk) 10:58, 22 August 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pornosonic

Pornosonic (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)

A hoax, although not a conventional one, that nobody's picked up on for seven years. Not since Fadl Attraction have I seen a botch like this. Not a single statement in the article is true. Ron Jeremy wasn't making porn films in 1971, but got started nearly a decade later; Don Argott isn't a session musician, and wasn't even born until a year after his supposed meetup with Jeremy; and none of the porn films mentioned in the tracklists even exist. Argott is a real person who led a non-notable band of this name, which recorded a joke album, and this article is based on the humorous, but entirely fictional, advertising/hype for that album. Therefore, delete and redirect to Don Argott, where the band is already properly covered. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably speedy: the description in the article is derived from a direct copy/paste of the Amazon description, with very little modification. This looks like a novelty-album that took on a life of its own, which is another way of saying it's a hoax. A redirect is a good idea. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the album has been covered in at least two professional music magazines, I've added the refs to the article and rewritten the content accordingly. That it's fake is of no relevance, Wikipedia covers hoax when they are reliably sourced. Diego (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, I don't know that it's accurate to describe it as a "hoax", since the intent isn't to seriously deceive. With that said, I'm not sure that there is the necessary independent sourcing to push this over the
    WP:GNG line, although searching this on Google does turn up some somewhat unwholesome results, which makes it difficult. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:18, 13 August 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 06:41, 13 August 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 Iran at the 1958 Asian Games#Boxing. Mkdwtalk 22:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian boxers at the 1958 Asian Games

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

No need for separate articles like this. We do not have other articles of this kind, someone made this one only because he is interested or related to one of the athletes (

talk) 03:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominators rational. There already is Boxing at the 1958 Asian Games and Iran at the 1958 Asian Games and this seems to be nothing more than overkill. Any novel information should more properly be inserted into the latter article which itself could do with a bit of text rather than listing of results. To be fair in the contest to the original PROD the author mentioned 2012 United States men's Olympic basketball team as precedent. Still I don't think its quite the same with basketball article clearly demonstrating notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notable, but doesn't really need it's own page. Constance Lahaye (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the prose to Iran_at_the_1958_Asian_Games#Boxing. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has the same situation as 2012 United States men's Olympic basketball team, since there is an article on Basketball in the 2012 Olympics and United States in the 2012 Olympics there are many other similar articles to these. The Iranian Boxing Team at the 1958 Asian Games which did not change mainly for about a decade were the first to participate in an Asian grand tournament leading the way for Iranian Boxing to find its way in the Asian tournaments after Tokyo 1958, as a basis for Iran Boxing to be counted as a known force in Asia laying the foundation of many obtained medals and achievements after 1958. The new Iranian and Asian generation have a right to obtain a minimum information through an online encyclopedic source; such as Wikipedia, on the mentioned team and its participants, which many of them have also been Olympians. It should be mentioned that since the Iranian National TV Network does not broadcast any news or videos on previous or present Iranian Boxing, which is very unusual, the need of keeping this article is highlighted. There is no rational on why this article should not be kept. I disagree with Mohsen1248 since he has not given logical reasons for his claims which are his own point of view, and it seems that what he has mentioned could have personal, social, or biased opinionated motives or has resulted from a personal grudge towards the participants of the mentioned team or maybe lack of sufficient background knowledge on the mentioned team and Iranian Boxing history, as the mentioned team has contributed greatly to Iranian Boxing between 1955 and 1965, participating in many international tournaments, and also to future greater achievements. These could be mentioned in the article after expansion. Although it has been mentioned to keep this article, then it could also be merged with Iran_at_the_1958_Asian_Games#Boxing depending on the administrators' decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faertompakandam (talk • contribs) 04:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Iran_at_the_1958_Asian_Games#Boxing I haven't seen valid reasons to keep this as a separate article, but merging it makes sense to me.Jakejr (talk) 04:26, 8 August 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 06:41, 13 August 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. Mkdwtalk 15:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Haley

Kevin Haley (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 MMA fighter - does not come close to meeting

WP:MMANOT. According to Shedog (but not the article) only three professional fights (one a loss), none-top tier. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 11:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Which of these sources do you think show significant independent and non-routine coverage?Mdtemp (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 August 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 06:40, 13 August 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 deckertalk 18:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move Your Body (Johnny Gaddaar song)

Move Your Body (Johnny Gaddaar song) (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)

Proposing deletion. Fails

WP:PROD contested. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to fit to me. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 13:02, 4 August 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 06:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Gee

Emmy Gee (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 supported by mainly

primary sources which does not conform with Wikipedia's notability standards. Needs better independent reliable sources, and if they can't be provided Delete. Stanleytux (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 15:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 July 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) 14:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Am Giving it a keep vote as

Darreg said --Nicholas Nde (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Nicholas Nde is a sock puppet of User:Coal Press Nation. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:55, 6 August 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 06:38, 13 August 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 05:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Undisputed (Deep Dish album)

Undisputed (Deep Dish album) (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 believe this album fails WP:NALBUMS.

I can't find this album on musicbrainz [27] or discogs

Can't be notable if its not on either of those, no indication of chart position or sales Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 29 July 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) 14:55, 4 August 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 06:34, 13 August 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashoke Viswanathan

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

Unreferenced BLP. Launchballer 21:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article is no longer an unreferenced BLP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:31, 13 August 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. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroko Yamashita (actress)

AfDs for this article:
Hiroko Yamashita (actress) (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)

Unreferenced BLP. Launchballer 21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - When the article was prodded in 2013 for being unreferenced, I removed the prod, stating "Not a valid reason for deletion. Older unreferenced BLPs are not deleted solely due to being unreferenced. If you searched for sources but couldn't find any, that would be a valid reason for deletion." I stand by that statement. Furthermore, since sources were presented in the previous AFD, just stating that the article is unsourced seems like an even more insufficient deletion rationale now that it did back before that AFD. Launchballer, have you reviewed the sources presented in the previous AFD? If you think the sources don't show notability or otherwise are insufficient to keep the article, then please give an expanded deletion rationale. Calathan (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being unreferenced is a very good reason to delete an article per
WP:BLPPROD.--Launchballer 22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you completely missed my point. BLPPROD was exactly the policy I was alluding to when I mentioned "Older unreferenced BLPs". BLPPROD policy was created after a big discussion, as a compromise position where newer BLPs would be deleted solely for being unreferenced, and older BLPs could not be deleted solely for being unreferenced. This BLP was created before March 18, 2010, so it cannot be deleted just for being unreferenced. In order for an older BLP to be deleted, it must meet some other criteria for deletion. Examples of reasonable criteria would be being unverifiable (i.e., having no sources that can be found, not merely no sources currently in the article), or being non-notable, or being an entirely negative unsourced BLP. You should consider the sources that were presented in the previous AFD, and either give another deletion rationale if you think they are insufficient, or consider adding them to the article yourself and withdrawing this AFD if you think they are sufficient. Calathan (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 12:33, 6 August 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 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the absence of third-party sourcing and in-depth coverage, notability has not been adequately demonstrated here. --DAJF (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the person who found many of the sources during the first AfD (the result of which was keep), I should apologize for not inserting those references later. I just forgot to do that as I tackled other articles. But the fact still stands: she has had a solid career as a stage, film and TV actress and there are sources to prove that, enough to pass criterion 1 in
    WP:NACTOR. I have added some of these sources to the article. The main Asahi article, however, I don't have access to at this moment, and will have to add it later. Michitaro (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just make sure that you do and don't forget again. --Launchballer 08:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But given that you only cited the lack of sources when nominating this for deletion, do you have other reasons for continuing this nomination now that there are sources? Michitaro (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This can only be speedily kept if I withdrew with no outstanding delete votes. There are two. However, this will probably be kept in another couple of days.--Launchballer 15:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My question had less to do with whether you wanted to withdraw the nomination than whether you have any other arguments for the nomination. Michitaro (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None whatsoever.--Launchballer 11:06, 18 August 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Werner

Zack Werner (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)

Unreferenced BLP. Launchballer 22:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 5 August 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 06:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably keep I don't think "unreferenced BLP" is a valid reason for deletion of a pre-BLPPROD article. The criterion is unreferenceable, or non-notable on the basis of what references can be found. It is wildly unlikely that someone with the sort of career described in popular music would not have some findable references if the information in the article is correct. A nomination should say what efforts have been made to look for one. I see it is referenced now, so the the only reason I'm not saying "keep" is because I am reluctant to judge in this subject area unless obvious, and it is not obvious to me that being a judge on Canadian Idol is intrinsic notability, and his presidency is of a division of EMI, not an independent company. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 14 August 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 Gary Snyder. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist anarchism

Buddhist anarchism (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)

Vague, tenuous, connecting sources in a synthetic manner, bulk of article is not sourced. Largely original research. Semitransgenic talk. 22:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that very brief essay is mentioned in the article, problem is, the discussion of the "concept" touched upon by Snyder, as presented in the article, is
WP:OR
.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My read is that that the one single paragraph I mentioned can be sourced to the reference I provided and would thus not be OR. But I do not feel strongly about this if others disagree. Even if no content is merged, I think a redirect would still be warranted given the title of Snyder's essay but, somewhat in the spirit of the topic, it's all good. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 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 06:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do better than what? "Buddhist anarchism" is not described in books/articles (gbooks, LexisNexis, JSTOR, ProQuest, Questia, etc.) as a concrete, separate philosophy. The phrase is associated with Snyder, so I recommended directing the phrase there. czar 
♔ 02:53, 16 August 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 00:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Can't Be Heaven

Can't Be Heaven (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 has no sources, and the only reliable third-party source available giving much coverage is one article from The New York Times. Was PROD'd for failing WP:NFILMS, WP:GNG, and WP:V but was de-PROD'd without adding any references simply because of having "famous actors". After four years of no sources or much third-party coverage, it's time to delete this article as I find the de-PROD'ing reason to be unconvincing. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 00:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Original(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
USA:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Germany:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spain:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Portugal:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • The policy-mandated verifiability of facts is not at all the same as notability, so please do not confuse the two. Per MOS:FILM, cast is allowed from the film's onscreen credits themselves, so if the release dates are not in contention, then the AMG citations can be removed. Since this had non-English releases under non-English titles, we would do well to also search for non-English coverage. Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, this only seems to provide medium coverage as well (at least as far as English sources go). Unless there's significant non-English coverage, this doesn't warrant its own article as the only third-party English source providing significant coverage is Film Threat. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:39, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 17:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Film Threat and TV Guide reviews, at least, suffice as substantive coverage in reliable sources. Certainly not the best-known film ever made but notable enough for our
    WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:46, 5 August 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 06:23, 13 August 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Stan's Brewery

St. Stan's Brewery (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 local brewery. No reliable sources. Google and Google Books searches turned up nothing more than directory entries. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is significant coverage, both in reviews of its beers and for its involvement in major case against mega-brewer Anheuser-Busch. Numerous articles in news database (not free) include:[4][5]
  1. ^ http://nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=17803#.U_aoOLySyHs
  2. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=EXHVTLms96oC&pg=PA252&dq=%22Legacy+internet%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=so7rU__PKoSayAT_soGQAQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22Legacy%20internet%22&f=false
  3. ^ https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
  4. The Atlanta Constitution
    . p. H1.
  5. Wall Street Journal
    . p. A3.

I added a bit to the article. Improve, don't delete. --doncram 05:21, 30 July 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, Rcsprinter123 (indicate) @ 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was unconvinced by the references added to the article (and re-cited above) because none of them carry links to the source - making it impossible to tell if there was significant coverage or a mere mention. However I was able to find a linkable LA Times story [35] which I added to the article. This brewery may be better known for its activism than for its beer, but that activism appears to have gotten it national recognition. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 8 August 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 06:22, 13 August 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 06:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Abby in Wonderland

Abby in Wonderland (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)

Deproded without reason, Non-notable direct-to-video film part of a larger franchise, propose deletion or redirection BOVINEBOY2008 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (cackle) @ 17:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I do not see an independent notability from the franchise, and there are no sources proving such notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 12 August 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 06:21, 13 August 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 06:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Computer Business Solutions (CBS)

Computer Business Solutions (CBS) (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)

Inadequately sourced article about an IT company. I am unable to find sufficient sources to establish notability per

WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 17:10, 4 August 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 06:21, 13 August 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 Arid Forest Research Institute. While more discussion here would have been ideal, after two relistings consensus in this very short discussion is to merge. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFRI Model Nursery

AFRI Model Nursery (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)

Not notable enough. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 11:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter123 (chat) @ 17:11, 4 August 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 06:21, 13 August 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 06:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

National College of Computer Sciences (Gujranwala)

National College of Computer Sciences (Gujranwala) (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 can't find any evidence that this college exists. The official webpage doesn't work, nor does the usa.edu link. If I search on the usa.edu page for Gujranwala it doesn't come up. Google doesn't find anything, so if it does exists it fails GNG IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like this was a side branch of
University of South Asia, Lahore, possibly shut down since. Closest thing I could find was an advertisement looking for faculty in March 2013.[36] LionMans Account (talk) 16:01, 29 July 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:32, 5 August 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 06:20, 13 August 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 06:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Technetics Group

Technetics Group (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)

Fails

WP:ORG.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:50, 28 July 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:47, 5 August 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 06:19, 13 August 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. MER-C 02:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jarvis (author)

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

I have reviewed the external links and references in this article and found them to be questionable: Reference 1 is a book review by a staff writer at Forbes. Reference 2 is a link to blog posts that Paul Jarvis has posted. Reference 3 implies that Adobe endorses or is somehow related to Paul Jarvis. Reference 3 also appears to be a blog NOT hosted by Adobe. Reference 4 is also a blog.

External link 1 takes you to a podcast interview (that I did not listen to) with Paul Jarvis. External link 2 is a blog hosted by someone interviewing Paul Jarvis. External link 3 takes you to a blog and a post about Paul Jarvis. External link 4 takes you to the website of Paul Jarvis where he states: “My newest articles are sent to my newsletter first, then tend to show up on Inc., Fast Company, The Huffington Post, Forbes,Lifehacker, The Next Web, Smashing Magazine, Adobe’s 99u and many more quality publications. There are already 10,000+ intelligent and attractive folks signed up.” I didn't find any articles in the publications he listed except for a self-published book review with Forbes. I question the notability of this living person and the lack of reputable sources.On his website he says that he has authored four best-selling books. These books are self-published and I have no way to determine whether or not they are best-sellers. I checked amazon… one book was ranked 45,344. This is not my definition of a best-seller. bpage (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 02:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand: are you !voting"delete" on your own deletion nomination? You may comment all you want, but only one !vote per customer. Striking through.
talk) 03:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I am a relatively new, new-article reviewer and didn't realize that tagging the article was the same as 'voting' against it. You taught me something that I didn't know before. Thank you, friend. I spent about a half an hour researching this guy and I hope that he gets what he deserves - deletion. bpage (talk) 03:59, 13 August 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 06:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that ref 3 is from the 99U blog from Behance: "s a network of sites and services specializing in self-promotion", to quote the WP article. He seems to be a self-published author and non-notable blogger. Enough said. PamD 14:36, 15 August 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. It is indeed difficult to justify even a redirect whilst the school does not ectually exist Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neumann Classical School

Neumann Classical School (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)

The school has not even opened so it cannot be notable see

WP:NOT Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 30 July 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) 03:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    common outcome for primary school nominations is to merge/redirect the article. The Education section of Yonkers, New York seems like a good place for this information about a planned school. —Mz7 (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A redirect may make sense. Or a delete. But contrary to what the implication is in Outcomes, deletes are more common than merges (though redirects are much more common than deletes). Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason it isn't as commonly applied as other outcomes is because there is almost always relevant information already present at the target of the redirect. (For example, if it were a public school within a school district, the school district article may already mention the school, and only a plain redirect would suffice.) In this case, there isn't any information at the merge target, and it wouldn't make sense to redirect this title to a location that doesn't even mention Neumann Classical School. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at many of our school AfDs and redirects over the past few years, and the most common redirect is to a page that does nothing more than reflect the name of the school as being in that location. Often, the target does not have that information beforehand, and it is created as part of the redirect process. Merge I've seen very rarely -- far more rarely than delete, which has in fact been a much more common Outcome ... though less common than redirect. Epeefleche (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nomination assertion that "The school has not even opened so it cannot be notable" is incorrect. It might be unusual, but if there is plenty of reliable coverage in advance, a proposed school could indeed meet
    wp:GNG and deserve a wikipedia article. Like for movies that have not yet begun filming, the standard is that those are not likely to be notable, unless indeed there is a ton of reliable coverage. --doncram 01:39, 8 August 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 06:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is this school not notable, it hasn't even opened yet and its opening is not scheduled for at least another year, plus the fact that this is a low and middle school only, it should be deleted without a redirect, and only recreated as a redirect when its existence and operation can be proven. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 22 August 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

Torchmark. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America

Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America (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)

The company is not

notable Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 30 July 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) 03:10, 5 August 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 06:15, 13 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pun Films

Pun Films (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)

Subject lacks significant coverage in multiple

Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 19:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 29 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:44, 5 August 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 06:15, 13 August 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 06:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Trials of Death

Trials of Death (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)

Fails

WP:NBOOK.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 15:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 29 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:46, 5 August 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 06:15, 13 August 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Gold

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

I couldn't really find anything past page one on google, this seems to fail

WP:BIO. Jab843 (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

she has enough credits to be worthy of inclusion in my opinion, more than some articles that have been given a pass. She has a supporting role in the upcoming film Birdman which is going to be big. HesioneHushabye (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 09:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (banter) @ 09:39, 5 August 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 06:14, 13 August 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 deckertalk 04:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Jeanne Morrow

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

Written like a resume, this person is relatively senior within Cisco but that doesn't make her notable enough for an encyclopedia article IMO Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a recreation of a page already deleted: "Nick-D (talk | contribs) deleted page Monique Jeanne Morrow (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): No clear claim of notability or references attesting to this)" (see log). I agree with the nom that this article has promotional, CV-ish, non-encyclopedic tone and fails to justify
    WP:BIO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 5 August 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 06:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - [39] has significant coverage and may be marginally reliable. We need multiple source and the others do not qualify. I didn't find anything usable on Google News or Highbeam. ~KvnG 02:53, 15 August 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 deckertalk 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conducive Isocracy

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

Non-notable term coined by a book's author. No evidence from Google of use by anyone but him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:27, 5 August 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 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The fact that it was created by a
soapbox. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 15 August 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 00:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Yosemite Sam (shortwave)

Yosemite Sam (shortwave) (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)

No evidence of sources or notability Geogene (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 30 July 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, Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 09:19, 5 August 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 06:10, 13 August 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 06:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Between Floors

Between Floors (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 film with non-notable director and cast. found one reliable references [40] but nothing past that. Fails

WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary - Between Floors was a ho hum art film directed by Jen White who felt she was the next Lena Dunham. While the movie played at a number of minor film festivals and even picked up awards there, it failed to play at a film festival of substance. Between her investors have since developed cold feet and the lack of product from Jen White since(partially for her general refusal to associate with anyone that had different political views from her) it can be argued that she isn't a relevant figure but Just another product of the "Austin Film Scene." Carbonflyer (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (state the obvious) @ 09:20, 5 August 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 06:10, 13 August 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khashayar Karimian

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

Long-term unsourced BLP. Article contains little claim to notability as an academic. Google Scholar has several results but mainly as a co-author, and on the most-cited papers not even first listed co-author. Michig (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Unsourced BLP and found nothing about him on the web other than from social networking sites. And some sites claim that he died at the age of 4.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQ Editor (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 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 06:10, 13 August 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.  Sandstein  07:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mishal Awad Sayaf Alhabiri

Mishal Awad Sayaf Alhabiri (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)

The subject is one of a huge group of enemy combatants captured and then detained for an extended period of time, part of an even larger general trend over the years of capturing and detaining enemy fighters. Nothing about him sticks out above the rest, just much more documentation developed on such people in the last 20 years, but even at that there is not enough to make him stand out and be justified in having a stand-alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 09:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisting to enable more input per sources provided in the keep !vote above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:09, 13 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W C Dons

W C Dons (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)

Sounds like a non notable club that has now closed. Tagged for notability since 2008, lets make a decision either way. Gbawden (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter123 (natter) @ 09:25, 5 August 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 06:06, 13 August 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. Doesn't really seem like there's anything worth merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VPN-1 VSX NGX

VPN-1 VSX NGX (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 software package, tagged for notability since 2008, lets make a decision either way. Alternatively we could redirect but who on earth would search for VPN-1 VSX NGX I don't know Gbawden (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 09:26, 5 August 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 06:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VNIIS Exemption Letter

VNIIS Exemption Letter (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)

Still trying to work out what on earth this is about. Non notable, a case of WP:NOTHOW or WP:NOTMANUAL Gbawden (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter123 (gimme a message) @ 09:26, 5 August 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 06:06, 13 August 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. I don't believe the nomination and the one redirect comment are enough to suffice action. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Moose (cyclecar)

Baby Moose (cyclecar) (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 does not meet

cyclecars and the Baby Moose is already mentioned in that article, this subject is sufficiently covered without its own article. Furthermore, the sources provided do not indicate that this particular cyclecar is, on its own, notable. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter123 (whisper) @ 09:26, 5 August 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 06:05, 13 August 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. No consensus to either delete or redirect.  Sandstein  07:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Nicolino

Venus Nicolino (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 had been mistakenly created in project space. As requested in the MfD discussion, I have moved to article space and have opened an AfD instead. Notability is the issue. Safiel (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to LA Shrinks. The most substantial coverage I could find was this LA Daily News article. There's some other coverage about her in the context of coverage about LA Shrinks likethis LA Times review of the show. It's not enough for me to say an independent article is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter123 (state) @ 09:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, redirect to LA Shrinks seems good to me. I certainly think we should not have a red link but the present BLP and the sources I have found look very weak. If anyone wanted to expand a bit at the target article, that would be fine. Thincat (talk) 16:55, 10 August 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 06:05, 13 August 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. (

♔ 01:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Kish Khodro

Kish Khodro (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, believe it or not, has been around since 2006. I declined a speedy delete on the article (A7), although I'm not sure why. I could see the article had been vandalized. Perhaps that influenced me. It had zero sources, but with some difficulty, I managed to find the company's website. The template says the company doesn't exist anymore, which is why I used the past tense in the first sentence (I did some copy editing, too), but I'm not sure that's true. There isn't much out there on the article, but because it's Iranian, it's possible I just can't find it. So, I leave it to the community. Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter123 (deliver) @ 09:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much appreciate the work that's been done to improve the article. I really don't care what the outcome is of the nomination as I figure it's a win-win situation. I do have one question for those who have now looked more closely at the company. Is the company still operating or is it, as was originally claimed, defunct? It'd be good to get that rather basic question right.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 6 August 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 06:04, 13 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Cap Marine Towing and Salvage

White Cap Marine Towing and Salvage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the local newspaper articles I have my doubts about the notability of this company Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (deliver) @ 13:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (confer) @ 13:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the problem is that the NYTimes article is (quite clearly) from the "N.Y. / Region" section of the paper. It benefits from the rigorous editorial standards of the NYTimes but it is unquestionably local in focus. In that context, the NYTimes is the same as any other local or regional paper covering subjects of interest to locals. It's disingenuous to suggest that local coverage of a local subject is "international" or "national" in that context. The NBC source doesn't even mention the subject - it mentions the owner in the context of an article that couldn't possibly be considered significant coverage of the subject in any context. There's clearly not enough for the subject to pass
    WP:CORPDEPTH. St★lwart111 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Respectfully, the first half of this reasoning isn't consistent with
WP:CORPDEPTH is a somewhat circular standard to use as it simply demands "a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization" - i.e. if you can write a decent article on the subject from secondary sources, it passes! Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, not really. There would be thousands of "Mum and Dad" businesses that have received one-off coverage in the locally-focused regional sections of international papers; those businesses that just happen to be located in regions serviced by international papers - Greater Chicago and the Chicago Tribune, the Sydney Metropolitan Area and the Daily Telegraph, Greater London and the Guardian. Surely your not suggesting that a 3-person business can circumvent
WP:CORPDEPTH if they once (ever) received coverage in the local news section of an international paper. That's absolutely not the spirit or intent of that section and I think you know it. St★lwart111 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I did a little more digging and found that they were briefly cited in the WSJ too, again under "NY Region", which suggests that the print article was in the new "Greater New York Area" section of the Journal (unlike the Times, the WSJ doesn't give page refs on the webpage). The fact is that the business has attracted a lot of major media attention. Probably this is because it's a generally interesting business. Possibly it's because they have hired a PR flack with exceptionally good contacts. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Greetings to you in Australia, by the way - they only have "Mum and Dad" businesses in the fair land of Oz, so you must be from the lucky country! Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My regional idioms must be showing. Yes, you're absolutely right. C'mon, though, there's no way the company has "attracted a lot of major media attention". They got one article in the local section of the NYTimes and passing mentions (some of which don't even mention the name of the company) in some other press. They do interesting work. Interesting does not equal notable. Again, are we really suggesting that local businesses that receive local coverage that happens to be in an international paper meet
WP:GNG which are clearly intended to include genuinely notable companies of interest, not companies like this. But hey, you're allowed to interpret policy any way you like. Let's leave it to consensus to decide. St★lwart111 01:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep I started this article and I continue to think the firm merits inclusion. The criteria for inclusion is not whether we personally find a topic interesting, or think it is important. The basic criteria of GNG is whether references found it notable. I believe the firm measures up to that standard.
Ive written about this before, the time when I attended what I thought would be a really boring talk on the middle ages, that turned out to be fascinating. First the historian spoke about how we knew practically nothing about the everyday life of ordinary people during the middle ages, because those who were literate found their everyday lives so commonplace it never occurred to them to document it, and most aspects of the everyday lives of ordinary people was literally beneath notice, de facto invisible. He then spoke about analyzing the transcript made by monks who sat beside the torturers, during the inquisition. He had come across a cache of these transcripts, and they had answered many questions.
Today, we are oblivious to much that is around us, information that really is worth documenting, worthy of a standalone wikipedia article, like this firm. Yes, the largest salvage firm in the USA mertis a standalone article. And when a smaller firm, like this one, has been covered in multiple articles, on multiple occasions, for multiple reasons, I suggest it to meets the criteria for inclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 7 August 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 06:01, 13 August 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 St. Joseph, Michigan.  Sandstein  07:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian Festival along St. Joseph River

Venetian Festival along St. Joseph River (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2009, lets make a decision either way. Written like an advert, I don't believe this event is notable, even though it has been going for a while, it sounds very much like a local event Gbawden (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 11:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A cursory search finds little more than the one source. SPACKlick (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is out of date, since the festival was cancelled after the 2011 edition [41] and has now, apparently, been terminated permanently.[42][43] Many local sources and a few non-local sources apparent in Google searches (see the second "find sources" link above), and this seems to have been a big (and controversial) event in the city (for example, a 2001 article called it "the region's biggest social event" [44] and its significance is described here [45]). I'm not yet decided whether I think there's enough coverage to justify a separate article; if not, there might be room for more content about the festival in the main St. Joseph, Michigan article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:55, 5 August 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 05:58, 13 August 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Pierce

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are all minor in nature and include press releases, blogs, mention in lists and interviews. Lacks secondary references. Fails notability and associated guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As an athlete, he was an NCAA Champion (both individual and team), a member of the U.S. National Team, and a gold medalist at a major international competition. As an entrepreneur, he has founded/co-founded two multi-million dollar companies. OriginateX (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)OriginateX[reply]
Comment - Please explain how does this meet the criteria in
WP:BIO? reddogsix (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - The #1 criteria in
WP:NCOLLATHis a notable national award. Pierce won the 200 butterfly at the NCAA National Swimming Championships (the highest individual award in that sport), as well as gold and bronze medals in the 1999 World University Games in Barcelona. These are individual awards that are independent of team success where his teams also won the highest awards (NCAA Division I National Title). To comply with #3, he was also mentioned by name in coverage of the 1998 NCAAs via multiple sources that he did not control. [[46]],[[47]],[[48]] He was also named in multiple articles at the World University Games by SwimmingWorld (the largest publication for swimming and diving in the world) including a specific mention of how Pierce rallied from 2 seconds behind in the butterfly leg to guide the US to gold over Japan and Russia. [[49]],[[50]]TechCoast (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)TechCoast[reply
]
Comment - Winning an event is not the same as winning an award. (e.g., Cy Young Award or Heisman Trophy) The coverage is
routine coverage. The www.swimmingworldmagazine.com coverage are trivial mentions of the individual. Far from in-depth coverage of the individual. reddogsix (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Added new article from "Built in LA" (another project emphasizing LA entrepreneurs)[1] - a longer article with many quotes from Pierce about O Labs and Versus that's almost entirely about thought process and issues around entrepreneurship and company creation - not a press release. Also re-added article from Variety. Expecting an feature in Forbes later this month. The company, and Pierce's role in creating it, are becoming more notable.OriginateX (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC) OriginateX[reply]
Comment - Blogs are not considered to be
independent sources. reddogsix (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Unforgettably, the coverage referenced by TechCoast is trivial in nature. Winning an event is not the same as winning an award. (e.g., Cy Young Award or Heisman Trophy) The coverage is
routine coverage. The www.swimmingworldmagazine.com coverage are trivial mentions of the individual. Far from in-depth coverage of the individual. reddogsix (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (natter) @ 13:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (state the obvious) @ 13:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 13:41, 5 August 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 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm a bit surprised that
    WP:NSPORT doesn't include a specific guideline for swimming. But the US colleges have long dominated competitive swimming, attracting the top athletes from around the world. Winning an NCAA individual championship IMO clearly evidences a high level of notability. By comparison, NSPORT does include a specific guideline for track and one of the inclusion criteria is: "Has won their country's senior national championship ..." Can't imagine why an NCAA championship in track would suffice, but not in swimming. Cbl62 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Given the absence of specific notability guidelines for swimmers, I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swimming seeking input from those who deal with such issues more regularly. Cbl62 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (although I voted above, so Keep Continued). A new article came out in Forbes today with a lengthy interview of Pierce regarding his "looking for ugly" theory on investing in/incubating startups. [2] This is more interview/feature piece than press release and Forbes is a credible, non-trivial source. TechCoast (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)TechCoast[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Chris Wardman

Chris Wardman (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)

He is associated with acts that are notable, but he lacks the significant coverage needed to satisfy

WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I've been trying to maintain a belief that this editor is acting in
WP:POINTY, to say the least. At any rate, this is another stub that they have AFD'd, which has everything sourced. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't have any vendetta against you, as you are suggesting. The only issue I have is that this subject fails
WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, suspicions aside for now, I have added additional references and facts to the article about Wardman's production career.Echoedmyron (talk)
I'm still not seeing anything that satisfies
WP:GNG. The associated acts are notable, but that doesn't make him notable by association. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This musician/producer/composer is obviously notable, IMO, but the article is a stub and needs expanding.
    WP:MUSBIO as producer of a certified gold album. This stuff just needs a few cits. The appropriate action has been taken - classifying it as a stub. Echoedmyron, can you expand this article and maybe source it a little more? He appears to be all over the Canadian music industry, and very notable. This article only needs a few cits to support that. Any professional Canadian (or other?) music writers you can quote? Dcs002 (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Does
WP:MUSBIO apply to producers? I didn't think that it did, but maybe I'm mistaken. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
MUSBIO does not explicitly say so, which is why I specified that as my opinion. However, in the biz, the producer it regarded as the one responsible for the final product, and a recipient along with the band, of the award. (I don't know if it's that way in Canada though.) But look at the big picture - he did produce a gold album, and he has produced and performed with multiple notable acts. He meets notability in at several ways without needing the producer route, even if as a composer alone of a notable album. Certainly that AltMusic review is RS for independent media coverage from a staff music writer. I haven's seen the Billboard cit yet, but the guy needs to be notable to merit a stub, regardless of the proff. (Again, irem 7 has to preceed item 8 in
WP:deletion - he sure seems notable, but the thorough search hasn't yet been done yet, so we can't say he lacks notability just now and therefore deletion is not indicated. Notability and proof of notability are separate issues. This seems to me pretty open & shut, but that's my one voice. Dcs002 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Echoedmyron, here is a quote from Roch Parisien in his review for AllMusic: "Producer Chris Wardman pulls off a neat coup in working Danny Greaves' commanding lead vocals to the forefront..." That's online here: http://www.allmusic.com/album/mclaren-furnace-room-mw0000102671 That's a good reliable source for notability. From Dcs002 - I forgot to sign this one earlier. Dcs002 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 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 15:35, 5 August 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 05:56, 13 August 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. As Bejnar points out, the "keep" opinions convincingly argue that this was a historically significant event, but they mostly do not address the reason advanced for deletion, which is a lack of sources establishing notability in Wikipedia's terms (

WP:N). Therefore I must give the "keep" opinions less weight. This very short article might fit as a section in Zaporozhian Cossacks; it can be restored for the purpose of merging the content there.  Sandstein  07:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

500th Anniversary of the Zaporozhian Cossacks

500th Anniversary of the Zaporozhian Cossacks (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)

WP:1E IMO - This was a once off anniversary, although I am sure there will be a 600th. Although the Cossacks are notable I don't see how this celebration was notable Gbawden (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This event was significant in the fact that during Soviet times, such celebrations of Ukrainian statehood were banned, where even the use of the Ukrainian national flag was banned. The Soviet Union was a tightly controlled society, so a large social movement within its borders is highly significant. It was not a parade that just occurred in one specific city--it was conducted all throughout Ukraine with the support of a major national political party which pushed for the independence of Ukraine from the USSR. This is a highly notable event in early Ukrainian post-USSR statehood. § DDima 16:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major public expressions of Ukrainianness in the closing years of the USSR have rather obvious notability, in the light of Kravchuk's 1991 decision to go for independence. It is also significant that major events were held in the streets in Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhe, which are in the Russian-speaking east of Ukraine. Note also that the source for the article is a magazine article published in Donetsk in 2009 - i.e. people 19 years later thought it was significant enough to write about.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page 135 of The Legacy of History in Russia and the New States of Eurasia vol 1, discusses the way the event was handled in the press at the time.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 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 15:38, 5 August 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 05:55, 13 August 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 Withdrawn by nominator - Speedy Keep. Natg 19 (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CBN Act

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

Merge and delete. Unless someone can expand this article with more information about the CBN Act. Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Satisfies GNG. There is plenty of coverage to be found in GBooks and elsewhere. I strongly suspect that there is also a lot of undigitised material in Nigerian libraries. The chances of the piece of legislation establishing the central bank of any large country being non-notable are exactly nil. Please note that this Act is also referred to as the Central Bank of Nigeria Act (which is probably its real name), the Central Bank Act, the Central Bank of Nigeria Ordinance, the CBN Ordinance, and possibly by other expressions (eg citation by year and number). I should also point out that AfD isn't an appropriate venue to propose the merger of an article that is obviously a plausible redirect. I don't think that any valid rationale for deletion has been advanced, since the criticism of this article appears to be that it was short. James500 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 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 05:54, 13 August 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 Swiss Air Force. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Puma Display Team

Super Puma Display Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single aircraft used for military displays are rarely notable and not that uncommon. Most air forces have at least one and sometimes many solo display aircraft that appear at air shows and displays. As an aside, a single helicopter is unlikely to be aerobatic and certain not a "team". Contested PROD MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no need to delet this page, only because it is performed whit one aircraft, and it can be done with any of the swiss air force Superpumas or Cougars. It is a official Team of the swiss Air Force since years and shown every year inside and outside switzerland. It matches to the category like this = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solo_T%C3%BCrk

Also if it should not fit to the category "Aerobatic teams" is no need to delet it, it can still stand in the category "Swiss Air Force".

I am the opinien that there is no need to delet it and still have it as own page in the Swiss Air Force category because the Swiss air Force it self see the Super Puma Display Team as an equal Team to the other teams of the Swiss air Force, like PC-7 Team, Patrouille Suisse,. Please have a look at the Swiss Air Force Page about the Super Puma display Team [53] Flight patern of Superpuma Display = http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/verbaende/einsatz_lw/kunstflugteam/superpuma/teil.html Program (see for eg. Superpuma at RAF Tatto Waddington http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/aktuell/airshows.html

This are my points against deleting it.

On the other hand i like to rise the question: If single aircraft used for military displays dosent fit into the category Aerobatic teams, would it not bee good to create a category for them? ther are quite a few single aircraft "Teams" who are since years part of airshows (Ramex Delta (2 French M2000), Solo Türk (F-16) ,Belgian Air Component F-16 Solo Display Team, Rafale solo Display Team [54] HAF Demo Team [55] and so one.

talk) 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

BTW: The Super Puma Display Team fly not onlysolo, it fly a few times also together with the PC-7 Team [56]

talk) 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Well it has to do with the Swiss Air Force, it is one of the official Display Teams for the Swiss Air Force. It's a differend if an Air Force just shows a aircraft on an airshow with flying a few rounds or if ther is shown a whol programm from pilots. please have a look at the links i put in by the discusion (BTW also with the picture search you see this exist since a long time,and is an Importent part of the Swiss Air Force [57] So it should at least still exist in the Swiss air Force category]

@Bushranger, The Patrouille Suisse and PC-7 Team are already both own pages and fit in the category I don't think it made much sens to put the all in one page or create a page with all 4 teams and have still seperat pages for the ps and pc-7 Team. A new category for single Aircraft display teams would not only bee for this two, it would also bee for the Solo Türk, the Greek Solodisplay and much more, I think it would be interesting to have them to on wikipedia.

talk) 10:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep Well enough and important enough to stay in the Category Swiss Air Force. FLORAKO (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC) User is a confirmed sock of FFA P-16. Mike V • Talk 19:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have add 3-party refs[58] [59]

talk) 19:47, 10 August 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 05:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Swiss Air Force for now. The issue as far as I can tell is simply one of notability and it seems like the subject should be notable. But for whatever reason I'm having trouble finding enough in depth coverage from reliable secondary and tertiary sources to ring the N Bell. Only one of the cited sources passes RS and that just isn't enough. Am open to reconsideration if additional RS sources are found. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Famous display team of the Swiss Air Force. The request started with the strange arguement that it is "certain not a team". Grammar aside, the article lists all current pilots of the team by name... --Kreteglobi (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the not a team was related to the fact the article presented a single Super Puma as an Aerobatic Team, which was clearly wrong. I have removed the list of current pilots as it is not really encyclopedic, although it does give an indication that the "team" is fairly ad-hoc and doesnt have a dedicated display pilot like other solo display aircraft. I cant see any evidence of fame, most air forces take examples of current aircraft and display them and the references indicate that but hardy raise the level to famous, clearly notable Patrouille Suisse doesnt even make that claim. MilborneOne (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne The Swiss Air Force declar it clearly as a Team equal to the Patrouille Suiss and PC-7 Team, this are not just some Pilots who made some flights in front of the public Ad -hoc. This Pilots stay at the team for a few years and only the Pilots of the Team do these shows, all other swiss air force helicopter pilots don't fly such shows. By the PC -/team also not all members are flying at a show, you have the commander, 2 speakers and a spare pilot. The super Puma Team is performing now since many years inside and outside switzerland at air shows it is ntable like the patrouille suisse. If dosent fit in the Aerobatic Team category it is still importetn enough for the Swiss Air Force category. A other thing ist to restore the Hornet Display Page and merge them together to a Swiss Air Force Solo Display Team page.

talk) 16:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment - lacks sourcing at the moment to meet GNG. The only independent source cited is a Swiss newspaper article for which the sum total of its coverage is (via google translate): "Spectacular is the flight demonstration of the Super Puma Display Team. The specially trained pilots show with their performance dynamics and a portion of the capabilities of the Super Pumas. For this purpose, they fly a normal Super Puma or Cougar, which is commonplace in use. Optimize their round eight minute program for each of the geographical and meteorological conditions at the film screenings." GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of the discussion on here seems to be ignoring the only issue that matters, that being notability. At present the article does not pass
    WP:GNG
    for want of in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. Until that changes, all of the other discussion is neither here nor there.
Reply That is not actually true. What N actually says is that a topic which satisfies GNG is presumed to be notable. N does not say that a topic that fails GNG is inherently non-notable, or even that it is presumed to be non-notable. GNG does not work in reverse. The idea that it does is a persistent but complete misconception. The implication is that a topic which fails GNG is nevertheless notable if there is sufficient local consensus that it is "worthy of notice" (a concept that is not ultimately defined). I should also point out that there is a template at the top of N which warns that it is only a guideline and is likely to have exceptions. James500 (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore GNG itself does not in absolute terms require multiple sources. Nor does it provide a meaningful definition of "significant coverage". The canonical example of insignificant coverage is a single sentence. The level of coverage in this case is actually several times greater than that. James500 (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are exceptions to N. IAR and COMMONSENSE both come to mind. My view of those exceptions however may be summed up in the memorable words of one of our former presidents (on a different subject). I believe that invoking IAR should be safe, legal and rare. In my experience that would seem to be the consensus in the community. With respect to your interpretation of GNG, again I'd have to say that if almost everyone else disagrees with you, then your view might be outside community consensus. Your suggestion that a single sentence might be sufficient to meet the standards for coverage in GNG is one that I feel fairly confident is not consistent with consensus. And yes, GNG does state that multiple (as in more than one) sources is required. It repeatedly employs the world "sources" which is the plural form of the word "source." That's pretty clear to me. But all of this is not terribly important on this particular discussion as I see nothing that would remotely justify an IAR KEEP for this article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I did not suggest that a single sentence would suffice. I suggested that several sentences might suffice. (2) GNG says that multiple sources are "generally" required. The word "generally" means "in most cases" (Compact OED). It does not mean "in all cases". It could mean "in 50%+1 of all cases" and that is how I think it should be construed. (3) Keeping a topic that fails GNG does not necessarily involve invoking IAR. It is allowed by the wording of N if there is consensus that the topic is worthy of notice. James500 (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of GNG and notability requirements is I think, outside of established consensus within the community. That doesn't make your opinion illegitimate. Point in fact I too have a few areas of deep disagreement with community consensus. If you dig around you might run into one or more of my rants against the near carte blanche presumption of notability extended to high schools and colleges. But it is what it is. I am in a small minority and I understand that. Which is one reason I usually avoid those articles and related AfD discussions. In any event if you want to make an argument to keep this I will happily look at it. I try to keep an open mind, but I am afraid I don't agree with your interpretation of the guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say it agiant the Swiss Air Force see this (and the Hornet Display) as an team equal to the PS and PC-7 Team. The Team exist aporx since 10 years. It performs every year shows in solo or together wit other teams of of the swiss air force So it is definitiv important enoug to exist in the Swiss Air Force category. We have the (official Federal!) Page of the Swiss Air Force as referenc, but we have also the Homepage of the Superpuma Team itself, we have the Facebook page of it, we have it also on the hermankeist page. We have the DVD of the Superpuma Team, ther are many clips on youtube. In my eys this is proof enoug. *Swiss Air Force. "Super Puma Display Team" in German

talk
) 21:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC) @MilborneOne, No the Swiss Air Force Page dosen't cover the SUperpuma Team and it dosent not cover the Hornet Display. It says nothing sonce when it exist, it doesnt say something about the relation aircraft to the pilot's sqd. You are right that this page is now deleted but this does not exclude the possibility to create one single page for the Swiss Air Force single display Teams. Also I don't se why the Solo Türk can exist but the ones from the Swiss Air Force not.
talk) 21:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Please see that this is not an ad-hoc team from 10 days of the air14 they perform on 8 days (saturday30. superpuma is also the superpuma team) [62] & [63] and that they perfrom reguraly each year on axalp [64].

talk
) 21:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC) @Chris Troutman. It is not promotionally, because the Super Puma Display Team don't need to be promotet, they get every year many requests to fly a display , more requests as they can do. Also the don't earn money with this, every display flown, by the Superpuma- Hornet- PC-7Team and patrouille suisse is free, the airforce don't charge any money for it so it can't be a promotion.
talk) 22:50, 21 August 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Invasion

Star Wars: Invasion (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)

Commercial article. Lists un-notable comics with prices. Nathan121212 (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is notable because it was nominated for an award. I removed the prices from the article. Frmorrison (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep - appears to be
WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:53, 14 August 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 Equations of motion#Constant linear acceleration. If anyone feels there is useful information to merge, it remains in the article history. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formulas for constant acceleration

Formulas for constant acceleration (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)

Whatever article you could make of it, it's already covered by

books} 15:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 July 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 15:34, 5 August 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 05:32, 13 August 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Boateng

Henry Boateng (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)

Already tagged for notability. There is no indication of notability, bio reads like just another doctor. He doesn't meet any of WP:NACADEMICS. Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what about
WP:Academics #3, if he is a fellow of a higher institution, (in this case American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons) then he is more then notable. I might not understand a difference between being a fellow and being a member.--Mishae (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Physicians are wonderful people and I am glad he and all the others worked so hard to gain those skills. He's a member of a professional group that can bring 30,000 people to San Francisco, filling hotel rooms and packing the restaurants and cable cars. He's a rank and file member, who meets the qualifications and pays his dues. Does this make him notable enough for a Wikipedia biography? I don't think so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article does not clarify why the subject is relevant. Membership of the stated organisations does not confer relevance. - Taketa (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Membership in AAOS does not make a person notable. Virtually all orthopedic surgeons in the US become members while in residency and remain until they retire. We're talking about a guy who completed his training and became a practicing surgeon only five years ago. This isn't even a close question. Qwertyzap (talk) 22:15, 17 August 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 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Librarians' Information Literacy Annual Conference

Librarians' Information Literacy Annual Conference (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)

There is no reason to think this particular series of conferences is of any special importance. The references are merely their published proceedings or routine announcements. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a redirect. In fact, I should have thought of it myself. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical foul

Tactical foul (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)

Delete: This article is but a duplicate of information that can already be found on the pages Fouls and misconduct (association football) and Professional foul. -- Kndimov (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's widely used in soccer though. See https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&as_q=%22soccer%22+%22tactical+foul%22 - surely then there should be some kind of disambiguation page in Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Nfitz, "association football" is soccer. -- Kndimov (talk) 13:51, 19 August 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.

WP:SNOW Secret account 02:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

List of tallest professional wrestlers

List of tallest professional wrestlers (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)

Trivial and un-notable. Fails WP:N.

Head90 | #RaysUp 02:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 02:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
This one does lay itself wide open for humour. --Bejnar (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, there are so many wrestling examples in the Numbers and statistics alone. starship.paint ~ regal 13:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:36, 13 August 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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Landscape of Lies

A Landscape of Lies (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)

It might be "notable" as it is a failed multi-million fraud case, my only real issue with this article that it is neither notable as a film project (which only exist in a trailer form) (per

WP:CRIME) which is what this film project literally is. Almost all of the news coverage came from when those involved were found guilty just like every other cookie cutter fraudsters when they get caught. Unlike Madoff, they haven’t made enough impact enough to be that notable and there are lots of failed fraud cases that is, therefore I am very doubtful of its notability, plus 18 months later, this case seemed to be almost forgotten. Donnie Park (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Awards:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reviews:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Working title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep per meeting
    so what? The topic, as covered in-depth in numerous sources,[65] meets our notability standards. Any concerns with how to present this information can be discussed on the article's talk page, and does not require deletion because its filmmakers were naughty. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The film was written, filmed, edited, was actually screened and acknowledged by peers. No matter the reasons for its creation, IT was created and is not hoax AS a film. So... no matter the ultimate reasons for such, it received coverage allowing a neutral and well-sourced article to speak about it being produced.
    WP:NF is met. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:46, 13 August 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

List_of_Qawmi_Madrasas_in_Bangladesh#Dhaka_Division. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Darus Sunnah Madrasah Boshundhora

Darus Sunnah Madrasah Boshundhora (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)

Fails

Sign my Guestbook 10:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 4 August 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:37, 13 August 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 deckertalk 04:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CutThroat

CutThroat (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)

Band seems to fail to meet

WP:NOTABILITY, as a google search yielding nothing. Jab843 (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

See references below. / Suggest possible page name change to: CutThroatLA [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krasp1 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ http://cutthroatla.com/
  4. ^ http://www.theprp.com/2014/07/25/news/former-downset-members-return-as-cutthroat-reclaim-songs-they-released-as-downset/
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 August 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:36, 13 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ClickInsurance

ClickInsurance (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)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by

WP:SPA. Msnicki (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be cleaned up, to be sure, but I don't think deleting it will help consumers in the least. There's a lot of good information in there. - SweetNightmares 17:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I made some changes to the page and add the sources. The text is informational and is written with a neutral point of view. --WilliamCloutier (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a non-notable company. Even if it has press coverage then that coverage should say something useful. If one checks the statements being backed with citations, they are so mundane that they deserve to be deleted because they only establish that this organization is, in fact, a typical insurance provider and give no depth at all to the description of the organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do say interesting things about the company, which isn't actually a "typical insurance provider"--in fact, it's not an insurance provider at all. The problem is, since I appear to be in the minority here, why improve it if it's just going to get deleted? Surely there exists good content on the Radio-Canada show, but apparently the episode isn't available online. Radio X's clip talking about the role of these kinds of companies driving insurance prices down in Quebec looks to be promising, and Protégez-vous indicates some problems with the service that I'd add in, as well. However, the former is not working on my computer right now and again, why bother wasting my time listening to it if the article is just going to get deleted by people who--with all due respect--are unfamiliar with the subject matter? - SweetNightmares 00:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources may say interesting things but the article is not reflecting this. Perhaps some of this content could be moved to an article on this general kind of company, rather than this article about this particular brand. In that way, the research already done would be kept and more accessible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB and, per nom, set up by an SPA. I really don't see why on earth we would need an article about an insurance comparison website which appears to have only two staff and be available only in Quebec unless it's done something super-notable, which it appears not to have done. 02:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deckertalk 04:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Truck Routes in Pennsylvania

Alternate Truck Routes in Pennsylvania (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)

Declined PROD. Unsourced listcruft. These alternate truck routes can be covered in the article about the parent route. Dough4872 00:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an entirely unreferenced article, and a search for sources turns up very little. And sources that I can find seem to focus mostly on temporary situations: Road X has heavy traffic. Use road Y as an alternate. How about alternate car routes? Alternate motorcycle routes? How about alternate routes that cross the Pennsylvania border to adjoining states? My research led me to the conclusion that this specific topic is neither discrete, nor notable, nor encyclopedic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    reliable sources.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_August_13&oldid=1142552367"