Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 10

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Decade of darkness

Decade of darkness (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)

Several reasons. The article title is unsatisfactory: 'decade of darkness' is just a cheap journalistic phrase, I'm sure it's been used elswhere. More to the point, this is essentially an article which risks being a POV fork. TheLongTone (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article was previously deleted as as a biased
  Soapbox. - Ahunt (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thought it rang a bell. If it's a recreation, can't it be speedied?TheLongTone (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as

WP:G4, it was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness. I will tag it for CSD. - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

...and it is gone again. - Ahunt (talk) 00:57, 11 January 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.  Sandstein  10:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Process education model

Process education model (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)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of new science works. This also seems like an original research. No sources have been provided. Alex ^{discussion ★} 21:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 21:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 11 January 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 Meltdown (EP). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sun in California

Sun in California (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 reference provided and false info given, Sun in California is not the first single from the Meltdown EP Szaboci (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:NSONGS at this time.  Gong show 23:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to official sources Timber is the first and only one single as of now out of the Meltdown EP. As Timber is currently riding high on the charts there is no confirmed single from either Pitbull's website that always announces the next or other reliable sources. ^{[1] [2]} Szaboci (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  talk) 22:28, 12 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy´s knife jazzedition

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

)

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

Seemingly non-notable specialty jazz book publisher with only a few titles. Article has been tagged for notability and reference-improve since 2011. Previously PRODded and contested in 2011. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*

WT:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• weak delete in its current state, as unsourced. I'd be happy to keep it otherwise (I see small specialist publishers as being appropriate encyclopedic subjects), but we do need some independent sources. Even a few decent reviews of books they've published would be enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability or external coverage here. Just as most small businesses are not notable, so too this is not notable. Neutrality^talk 05:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there seems to be quite a bit of coverage in various google books. The Wire source discusses some of their publications with some substance. The article does need a bit more cleanup, but as sources are taking note of the publisher and its publications I think notability is established. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we weren't going to keep it as an independent article, I'm not sure why it can't be merged to the article on its creator? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - or second choice it could be merged to creator, but first choice Keep since seems to have enough coverage in jazz publications to merit keeping by the limited frame of WP:GNG within the jazz world,. We have to make allowances that classical/jazz publications have a smaller pool of secondary sources referencing them than pop music publishers and magazines. I note also that there wasn't a WP Jazz and still isn't a WP Publishing or WP Germany template on the Talk which means this AfD won't hit Alerts. Candleabracadabra notified me of this AfD, knowing that I'm favourable to jazz and classical coverage, but then in the absence of project tag and Alerts it was a fair notification. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  @Caldeabracadabra: Would you do the honors and notify any WikiProjects that you think need to know about this? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notified In ictu oculi because I know that he has expertise in music subjects. I'm not very familiar with wikiprojects or which might be helpful. Itherwise, off the top of my head, I think user:Drmies is fairly knowledgeable and experienced on music subjects and might be able to assist. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nominator In light of the lack of notifications to certain very relevant WikiProjects, I have no objections to "restarting the clock" and waiting until January 1 to close this AFD, assuming it isn't a clear "keep" before then. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Disregard per notification on 22 December 2013. Keep the original timeline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See above (08:47, 22 December 2013) - Wikiproject Jazz was previously notified and this is linked on the project talk page. (The project doesn't have an automated notification infrastructure set up.) AllyD (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable, no proof of notability presented. The reference of The Wire is about the book, not the publisher. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment No objection to merging into the article about the company's creator, Renate Da Rin (and keeping the edit history) instead of "delete", but if it is closed as "merge" I recommend a "hard" close, with the same "force" as an AFD-deletion has. Be aware that the creator's article is currently tagged with {{notability}}. The creator's page has also been PRODded in the past. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 6 January 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:36, 10 January 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.  Sandstein  10:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conscious Robots

Conscious Robots (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 book of popular philosophy from an unknown publisher. Peter Ells (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 21:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete - Certainly not finding enough to pass GNG or NBOOK. Also Think Ink who printed it is a self-publisher. The imprint, fittingly named "Peacock's Tail Publishing," doesn't seem to return any immediately discernible Google hits unrelated to this book, which is strange (but irrelevant to this discussion, I suppose). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:27, 13 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Beck (Entreprenuer)

Barry Beck (Entreprenuer) (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 executive, fails WP:BIO and the GNG. Of the three sources proffered in this article, the first is about his company and his wife, the second is a mere stat block, and the third is from his alumni magazine. A search for sources turn up various social media, blogs, press releases, and articles about his company in which he's quoted (something the GNG explicitly debars as a valid source supporting the notability of the person being quoted), but which do not describe him in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. Article was created by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity involves the articles for the subject, his wife and his company. Ravenswing 20:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Barry Beck is a notable business executive. Has has founded 2 companies - Bluemercury & M-61 - the first of which will have 50 locations in the United States by the end of 2014. It is a multi million dollar business. He has also been interviewed for his insight into the luxury beauty industry. For example, found here: http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/shoparound/hair-beauty/5-things-i-cant-live-without-bluemercury-cofounder-barry-beck.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gremlin700 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Yes, that's the piece that led me to make the comment about people being quoted. I suggest you review
  WP:GNG, which sets forth that in order to pass the notability bar to qualify for an article, a subject must be discussed in "significant detail" in multiple third-party, independent, reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking. Those sources cannot be solely about his company or his wife, they cannot be pieces doing nothing more than quoting him, they cannot be press releases; they have to discuss him in significant detail. Whether his company or his wife pass notability standards is irrelevant. Ravenswing 21:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Barry Beck was featured in the book "The Intelligent Entrepreneur: How Three Harvard Business School Graduates Learned the 10 Rules of Successful Entrepreneurship. This reference has been added to his article. It is a significant, reliable third-part source. TheGoogle eBook links directly to the pages discussing his involvement in the founding of the company. Please advise if this addition suffices to have the deletion marker removed.User talk: Gremlin700, 13 January 2014 —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have deleted superfluous information and added an additional reference to Washingtonian Magazine, another third-party reputable source.. User talk: Gremlin700, 13 January 2014. —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI want to remove this warning. Could someone please respond to the above edits and conversation. User talk:Gremlin700, 14 January 2014

• Reply: He is mentioned in the book you cited, but not in the "significant detail" the GNG requires; the section is actually about his wife. The Washingtonian piece is the one that was already in the article to which I refer above: it quotes Beck about his opinion on several beauty products, but the GNG debars pieces where the subject is quoted talking about something else as supporting the subject's own notability. Ravenswing 19:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I wasn't able to find any independent sources to indicate notability separate from that of the company he is a part of. -DJSasso (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply How is it you were unable to find sources? Here: https://www.ourtownkey.com/business/index/id/196. And here: http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x987654207/Bluemercury-rising. And here: http://www.beautynewsnyc.com/skin-care/m-61-the-blue-mercury-new-skin-care-line/. I can't understand how these aren't sufficient. And there are more sources on the page. User talk: Gremlin700, 14 January 2014 —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Because those three references you mention only say that he is the co-founder of this company. They say nothing else about HIM, or why he is noteworthy. As others have noted, merely being the founder of a company and the husband of someone more noteworthy than himself - as it would seem - is not sufficient. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Echoedmyron pretty much sums it up. Being mentioned isn't enough to pass
  WP:GNG. The articles have to be in depth and talk about him in detail. -DJSasso (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:58, 14 January 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.

Canadian Guild for Erotic Labour

Canadian Guild for Erotic Labour (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 non-notable organization, only ref is a dead external link. Meclee (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete
  WP:A7: No assertion of importance or significance — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete. non-notable. jni (talk) 13:30, 11 January 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Stopper Sanchez

Juan Stopper Sanchez (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)

Couldn't establish

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that

Nomination withdrawn - please close He appears to be both notable and to have another article where this is clear. I will instead start a merge discussion. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 15 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RTL Kockica

RTL Kockica (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 indication of significance. Itsalleasy (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Right now, this article is essentially spam, however, the TV channel is nationally broadcast (which is a set of maybe a dozen channels?) and should be notable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is that notability?
  talk! see 09:49, 13 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe "Zicró" Neto

Felipe "Zicró" Neto (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 martial artist Peter Rehse (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to meet
  WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Doesn't meet
  WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 05:18, 17 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kounter Kulture

Kounter Kulture (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)

One-off art event, now long past, with no clear evidence of notability: Wikipedia is not an art event listings magazine. The Anome (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This was a one off show. There was coverage in art web sites like [5] and [6]. Not sure if they qualify as reliable sources, but I can find no coverage whatsoever since then. As such, I see no lasting impact that could b used to argue in favour of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 16 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We Are The Becoming

We Are The Becoming (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)

Possibly a case of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't appear to satisfy any of the criteria of
  WP:NMUSIC. I couldn't find much coverage beyond a (very brief) Allmusic album review. --Michig (talk) 13:33, 11 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Thompson

Conor Thompson (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 saying there are "many newspaper references". These seem to mainly be

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails
  WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Aveline

Carlos Aveline (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 martial artist Peter Rehse (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for MMA fighters and does not appear to meet the notability standards for martial artists. Astudent0 (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails both
  WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 17:53, 15 January 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 Southern Levant. Consensus is that this is an undesirable content fork, and that any useful material should be merged to more specific history articles. In the meantime, I'm (editorially) redirecting the article to a neutral redirect target.  Sandstein  08:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Southern Levant

History of the Southern Levant (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:CFORK from History of Israel and History of Palestine. We really don't need three articles covering the same topic - this article has very few eyes on it, compared with History of Israel and History of Palestine, which are much better articles.

According to google books, there are 49 books with the title including the words "History of Israel", 67 with "History of Palestine", and none (really none - both of the links shown are wikipedia duplicates) including the words "History of the Southern Levant".

• It should be examined for material that can be usefully merged into History of Israel, History of Palestine, Land of Israel or another of the many overlapping articles. However, unlike those articles much of this one is unsourced so it isn't just a matter of copying material. Then this fork should be retired. Incidentally, the phrase "southern Levant" is popular in archaeology but much less in history, as you can check by searching for it at Scholar. It is inappropriate to use it for historically recent events. Zero^talk 04:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I performed exactly that review vs. History of Palestine prior to submitting this AfD. I do not believe there is a single piece of material which is covered in this article that can usefully be merged into History of Palestine - the latter article already includes all the quality information within this article. The other articles (eg History of Israel) arguably have slightly different scopes, and I would have thought we only need one article to ensure no work is lost.

Out of interest, how does retiring differ from delete+redirect?

talk) 07:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge them all -- As nom says, we have multiple articles covering the same subject. The use of the terms Israel and Palestine is liable to produce all sorts of POV issues. In dealing with the 20th century, there is probably no NPOV solution, but there is no reason for multiple articles for the preceding period. If anything the Palestine article has the better structure with plenty of cross-references (via main and see also templates) to more detailed articles on particular periods, etc. On the other hand, the present article has found a NPOV title. I suspect that Palestine is the primary article and all the rest are POV forks, but Palestine is cognate with Philistine, which raises difficult issues over the existence of ancient Israel

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:46, 10 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quillan Roberts

Quillan Roberts (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

• Delete per failing
  Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters was filmed and released. Let it be recreated or undeleted when we have more toward actual production. If someone wishes to write of it in related articles (producer or production company) AND source it, that would be fine. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:26, 12 January 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.  Sandstein  10:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeet hakam

Jeet hakam (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 don't believe this passes GNG or the notability criteria for musicians. The person appears to have only self-released material on youtube, and internet searches reveal his youtube channel and facebook page. He does not appear to have received substantial third-party coverage. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. Fails

WP:MUSBIO. Europa man (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim to notability. Fails

WP:MUSBIO.Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:49, 11 January 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.

Novim

Novim (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)

Really a G11, but since it was accepted at AfC I bring it here. A purely promotional article, claiming credit for everything done by anyone working on any of their projects. DGG ( talk ) 10:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional. Sources to establish
  WP:NONPROFIT not found. -- 101.119.14.134 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I am not sure where I wrote anything that the organization was "claiming credit for everything done by anyone working on any of their projects". Can someone suggest edits on that? The article discusses projects done by the organization, the people involved in those projects and the people involved in the organization. The projects were significant, the BEST study was discussed in national venues. This was my first WP article so if this is somehow promotional I would like to know how I can edit it to conform to WP standards.--Keithacarlson (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Relisting comment: Daniel (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think that there's some editing here that needs to be done - but this clearly looks like a notable organization, from the number of times it's referenced by other sources. And, it appears that the article was well-written and sourced - but there are parts that need a more objective, less dramatic tone. There are some things readily apparent that I'll try.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made edits to the article and it still needs more work to show how their work is used for public policy and change (i.e., to Daniel's point a study is interesting but that in itself does not make it notable)... specifically by showing how governmental and non-governmental organizations have used the information. I am happy to do that if the article is kept.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:16, 9 January 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, Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of the issues here is the notability of Novim's projects vs Novim itself. The first two projects have gained notability through coverage in independent sources. But I've found very little in independent RS about the organization itself. According to
  WP:COI. The apparent non-notability of Novim itself, the promotional nature of the article and the conflict of interest lead me to suggest deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Mark viking: I'm a bit confused, which could be because I just need to understand the related guidelines better:
    • If the article has been edited to remove promotional content and is properly cited, why does it matter if Mr. Carlson first brought it to Wikipedia? (This would help me, because I review a lot of new articles, should I nominate articles for deletion, rather than try to copyedit them, if it clearly appears to be a
      WP:COI
      issue?)
      • In some cases, a COI does play a role in deletion. For instance, in speedy deletion via
        WP:G11, COI could help make the case that the article was unambiguously promotional. For AfD, you're correct that COI by itself is not a reason for deletion. But COI's effects--a non-neutral POV and promotional prose--do play a role in deletion. Non-notability of Novim is the reason I suggested deletion. I noted the inadvertent/undisclosed COI as a warning to other editors that this article bears close scrutiny; it has framed my perception of the article. Promotional articles with COI origins can be rescued, but notability would need to be established first. --Mark viking (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Good points. I'm not sure how many new users are aware that COI is an issue (unless the article is tagged, etc.) and that it's incumbent upon them to declare it, but I see your points.
    • I'm trying to extrapolate the points about the studies being notable - but not the organization. Would that mean that instead of having one Novim article, it could be better to have 2 articles about the first 2 studies?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's right--if a project has had enough impact that multiple independent reliable sources have discussed the project in depth, one could in principle write an article that would withstand an AfD test. This is no different than the relation between notable work being done by a professor and the department where they work. The Nobel prize winning work in physics done by David Gross is notable, but this confers no notability upon either the Kavli institute or Novim. --Mark viking (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this case, since purpose of the organization was to create the studies and then communicate study findings, I guess I'm not quite computing this part, but that's ok. It's a consensus driven process, so I'll be interested to see the final voting and decision. Thanks for addressing both points thoroughly!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 11 January 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.  Sandstein  10:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MVRS(Muzzle Velocity Radar System)-3000

MVRS(Muzzle Velocity Radar System)-3000 (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-

• Delete. The equipment exists, but it has not been written about in sufficient breadth or depth in reliable sources to meet inclusion criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concur is not overly notable. There are several other systems that do the same task. If anything we need a general page on the subject of Muzzle velocity radar systems. N.b I am 'involved' as I messaged the page/s creator regarding what appeared to be cut & paste moves. 220 of ^Borg 10:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Mallet

Antoine Mallet (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:PORNBIO as the Venus Award is not a "well-known and significant industry award". Internet search located no sources which would indicate he passes WP:GNG Finnegas (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article contains no reliably sourced content. The cited source does not even mention Mallet, and does not in any way confirm the award claim. I can't even find a reliable source for the claim that the Venus Awards even included a "Best Gay Actor" category; the english-language Gsearch results are pretty much limited to wiki sites and wikimirrors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While the Venus Awards are, in fact, "a well-known and significant industry award", there is currently no good citation for the claimed 2001 award of "Best Gay Actor" that I am aware of at this time. This article appears to me to have been copied from another Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I searched the Wayback Machine for the Venus Award citation that was removed. I found this from 2010 apparently confirming the award win. The Venus Award is a notable enough award for PORNBIO. Is German Adult News a reliable enough source? • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent question. The website is in a language that I don't speak and searching for "German Adult News" at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard archives gives me an error ("An error has occurred while searching: The search backend returned an error") at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid a rather questionable source apparently confirming the award win does not indicate notability. Finnegas (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the great difficulty we're having in even verifying the fact of a relatively recent award is pretty much a demonstration that it fails the "well-known/significant" standard for awards, especially given the absence of evidence that the award category was recognized by the award-giver in any other year. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary successor to the Venus Awards was the

Eroticline Awards, which indeed gave out a "Best Gay Actor" award at the same festival that the Venus Awards are held at each year. What we're really running into is trying to verify the reliability of a website that's in a language (German) that apparently no one in this thread can speak fluently. Guy1890 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, I think that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has hit the nail on the head with his comment above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 18 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Sood

Kunal Sood (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 relies on primary sources or non notable sources. Article seems to promote subject than an encyclopedic content. Itsalleasy (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure why you say this? The article is covered with reliable sources. The man addressed to General Assembly of the UN and is a global health expert cited worldwide, all covered in references. --BiH (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 09:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm not seeing the notability. The reliable sources only mention him in passing; the more detailed mentions are more in line with college yearbook bios, or are promotional in nature. It's not quite clear from the opening sentence what it is he does, or is notable for. The opening sentence appears to be asserting his notability rather than proving it: "a known global health expert" - known to whom? A Google search is not turning up anything meaningful for me. He appears to be an academic involved in some student publications, and has assisted in some conferences. I'm not seeing anything significant. The tone of the piece suggests this is a vanity article - and it was created by a single purpose account. I'm inclined to support a delete unless somebody turns up something more significant. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The man addressed to General Assembly of the UN (official UN document: [19]) and is a global expert on sustainable development cited worldwide (mentions in serveral books: [20] ; mentioned in various papers: [21]). Recently, he curated TEDxUNPlaza event, hosted by the UN. All of this is covered in references. In my opinion, nominating the article for deletion was an act of bad intention (not to mention is was not done properly by the nominator, so I did not take it seriously). --BiH (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with SilkTork's analysis. As for the arguments given just above by BiH: addressing the UN only makes someone notable if this address was noted (i.e., written about) by independent reliable sources. The book references are nothing substantial (an acknowledgement, for example; the first book that pops up may or may not refer to this person). The Google Scholar results are very revealing: several publications pop up. None of the publications by Kunal Sood seem to have been cited even a single time. To pass
  Twinkle) and in any case, that has been remedied and is completely irrelevant to this discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The low-quality sources with which the article is padded are not good enough for
  WP:GNG and I did not find better ones elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Multiple passing mentions do not somehow eventually total up to substantive coverage. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Offline 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Offline 22:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Offline 04:07, 18 January 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.  Sandstein  10:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aetrium

Aetrium (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 indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although Aetrium is publicly-traded, this is not generally accepted as enough to preserve notability according to
  WP:BLP1E. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:38, 18 January 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. I have considered the redirect option, but there is no consensus for it, runs counter to normal practice for redirects, and the suggested target article does not cover it beyond it being in the "External links" section. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualMalaysia.com

VirtualMalaysia.com (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:NWEB. I could find no indepth coverage. for example looking at Malaysia's biggest English language newspaper. [22] LibStar (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 06:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I find these sometimes silly - virtualmalaysia.com is the official website of an organisation. The organisation has a wikipedia page - then that is the place to report the website (it is generally listed as the official homepage, and all information about what the organisation represents is there as well on the wikipedia page). No need to have also a wikipedia page for the website, that is just a form of extra promotion of the website. In principle: merge into the mainpage, practically: delete (no redirect, that would help the promotion of the website, and is utterly unnecessary). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with
  Ministry of Tourism (Malaysia) says all that need be said about the organisation, and there is no call for a separate page on their website. Let's hope they are not themselves responsible for this piece of pointless spamming. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Unfortunately, Chiswick Chap, it appears differently - see note below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Spam WikiProject discussions --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, but it seems our !votes are correct. I've added the link to the tourism ministry's webpage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:WEB fairly comprehensively, as outlined above, but redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]

It doesn't matter how cheap it is, organisations should not be using Wikipedia to advertise their websites. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder whether this would be a 'reasonable' redirect - is this something that people would search for on Wikipedia and hence should be redirected, or should it just come up in the search results in the Search engine of Wikipedia - I vote for the latter. No redirect. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they, if they were looking for tourist information or for the tourist ministry? No, it's just the name of an advertising website, not a sensible search term. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 18 January 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 nomination withdrawn. Discussion on a possible name change for this article should take place on the article's talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Anthony Mobley

Stephen Anthony Mobley (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)

Just your garden variety executed murderer who fails

• Comment There is one unusual fact not mentioned in the article which might provide some notability: at his trial, Mobley's lawyers tried to argue that he had a genetic disposition to violent behaviour. This has been reported in various sources, over a long period of time.[23][24][25] I've now mentioned this in the article, including the claim that it is "Perhaps the most widely cited case in which defence lawyers used genetic factors in the defence of their client".[26] But further editing would be good to bring out the importance of the case. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, The nominator was not incorrect to make this nomination, especially since the article was originally a verbatim copy of a web page at the county prosecutor's office. On looking into Colapeninsula's links, however, it became clear that this subject is definitely notable. I have completely-re-written the article and provided numerous sources that are substantial and reliable. See the complete list of references. It is actually impressive to me the breadth of interest in this subject, not only national and international news coverage such as Time and The Independent, but also articles in law review journals and scientific journals and chapters in psychology textbooks. A lot of fields are interested in the genetic defense argument that Mobley's attorneys raised. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination. Should this be renamed Mobley v. State? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 18 January 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.

Failing Man

Failing Man (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)

Does not meet criteria of

• Delete - fails
  WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Obviously fails
  Pylon 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete. Fails WP:NBOOK, no coverage in any Google-searchable sources. Latest additions to the page show that it's a self-published work, and the reviews appear to be personal correspondence from the author's friends. I don't think it meets
  criterion A11 for speedy deletion, but I certainly don't think it warrants an article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  WP:NBOOK. —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:37, 10 January 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) 08:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia Ice Hockey Association

Indonesia Ice Hockey Association (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

• Strong delete not even an official organisation and Indonesia does not compete internationally in ice hockey. this text from the article says it all "e association is not recognized in its own country. They have been waiting on the paperwork from the government. Bureaucracy is very complicated in a country, but the association press forward by sending there ice hockey players routinely to international competitions so they can get recognized by the government". LibStar (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 06:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 06:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The lack of any official recognition by the government is bad enough, but the lack of any reliable sources out there is adequate to warrant deletion, albeit possibly not a speedy one. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 12:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no coverage for this organisation even from unreliable sources let alone reliable ones. The organisation is not an IIHF member. If they ever do attain the status of an official governing body, then we can revisit whether an article is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Whpq said, we can always come back to it if they ever gain notability. ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 17:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Melt - While normally organizations like these have automatic notability per
  csdnew 10:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - unrecognized federation of dubious legitimacy. No reliable sources. Resolute 23:34, 13 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Rossiter

Jordan Rossiter (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. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
  WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - passes
  WP:GNG. A Google News search finds over 200 articles, including features articles about him. Nfitz (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - Most of it being
  routine news coverage JMHamo (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - sure ... most, but not all. And not all of 200 articles is significant enough for GNG. Nfitz (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above, has not played in
  a fully professional league or senior international football. No significant in depth coverage, just the usual brief coverage of a young player yet to play in a significant match. Fenix down (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And that may be the case. But where are you folks who vote delete based on brief coverage, when there's very clear evidence of significant international features articles, such as in the AFDs for Jack Wilshere previously, and Quillan Roberts‎ Nfitz (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that Quillian Roberts is also at AfD suggests that at least one other editor thinks that there is not the significant level of coverage you claim. Fenix down (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see no need for mentioning
  WP:FOOTYN. Nfitz (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 19:32, 13 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Smith (economics)

Larry Smith (economics) (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 that he meets

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Instructors are almost never satisfy
  WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's possible to be notable for teaching but the article doesn't present adequate evidence for it, nor for passing
  WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, sounds like he's pretty good at his job but that's not a notability criteria. Doesn't seem to meet
  WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 18 January 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) 07:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dong han Kang

Dong han Kang (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)

Sources are misleading, and do not appear to meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - see
  WP:BLP it needs to be strictly verifiable to merit inclusion, so what's left is blank article about a topic for which no one can establish proper notability. Manager of a possibly notable organization isn't notable. Also "CHARITY MAGAZINE" (stop yelling) isn't a detailed enough ref for AGF to force me to believe it. common sense say this is promotion. aside from shanghaibang.net, whatever that is, the only other ref is the website for the company that the article is mostly about. It should set off a few red flags that the article was created and written by a blocked single-purpose account called "Shijingsteel", the name of the company the article is mostly about. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I believe shanghaibang.net is a Korean-language news site about China. Like I said, it's possible there is an actual source on there, but I don't know how to find it, and the link to the front of the site makes me skeptical. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is simply an unreferenced biography of living person, and as such needs to be deleted under
  wp:promotion and almost certailny an wp:autobiography. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This page is written by himself. He is owner of Shijingsteel in Shanghai, China. Please, look at the editing history. The first editor's id is shijingsteel. I'm Korean and I can speak Mandarin Chinese. And I'm now in Shanghai. You can trust me. By the day, I made this page yesterday blank. I cannot understand English Wikipedia's rule. I'm really sorry about that. --Philobiblic (talk) 05:52, 16 January 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) 07:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Camacho

Frank Camacho (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)

MMA fighter who fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Into the Rift (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above - completely non-notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for MMA fighters. Astudent0 (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely A. Warren

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 all so notable. "First black woman mayor of Rochester." Kind of straining. Maybe in 1974 but not today, 40 years later. Spitzer clerk but just for the "summer", which sounds pretty cursory. Citations are mostly handouts and local cruft except for slight mention in Buffalo paper, down the street from Rochester. While beside the point for Afd, not sufficiently edited either. Lots of cruft,

• Keep. Elected mayor of a city of more than 200,000 people, with plenty of news coverage, is notable. Clean up the boosterish text and keep it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She is the mayor of a major upstate city. Bring the first African-American female mayor in city history is a big deal. The upper half of the page gives insight into her political history and education before reaching this point. It's Rochester so there is going to be more local coverage than national coverage. The first citation provides a good insight into her past which is why I chose it. There is only so much editing you can do with this kind of article. There is no "hype" about this article. I talk about the election due to it's historic nature in that all the polls were wrong.--Mo2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Arxiloxos XXX antiuser ^eh? 05:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per views expressed above by Arxiloxos & Mo2010. Finnegas (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Elected mayor of a city of more than 200,000 people. Enos733 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Elected mayor of a city of more than 200,000 people. Elected mayor of the third largest city in New York State. Request for deletion of this article smacks of a feeling of Damnatio memoriae on the part of the Student7 because she's a black woman who won an election. Kusovski (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please
  African American
  and descendants and in-laws that are hyphenated Americans. Most of my Afds have been aimed at white guys with similar minimal qualification.

WP:BIO

guideline.

I am concerned about the steady degradation of qualifications for notability that allows people of lesser attainments to rate an article. Student7 (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "steady degradation of qualifications" on evidence here.

WP:OUTCOMES: "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office). Note that this criterion has not generally been as restrictive as the criterion for city councillors." The near-unanimity of opinion here speaks to the accuracy of this distillation of consensus as to mayors. Your phrase "lesser attainments" appears to be a value judgment, not an accurate summary of the substantial coverage available here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

As mentioned above she's the first African-American female elected mayor of a NY city, in Upstate NY, which makes it slightly more notable due to the more rural character of Upstate. There's an entire article devoted to African-American firsts. I think she's notable enough to warrant an article of some length. I don't think we need to write a enormous biography of everything she ever did in her life. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have an African American specialist of whom I think a lot. One of my best doctors. I suspect her attainments are above Ms. Warren's. They are not political, however. I would not write a bio on her even if she were the first African American woman (whatever) under 5 feet six inches. The qualifications for "first" become somewhat absurd as well.

I have lived in several areas with a overwhelming white population. We have, on a number of occasions, selected African Americans as leaders. We didn't do it self-consciously. "Gosh! Another blow for Equal Rights." But instead looked for the person with the best credentials, which they had. Rochester has an African American population of 41%. Hardly surprising that they would elect someone African American on occasion. As in most places, women outnumbered men 10:9. Not too surprising that they might elect a woman occasionally. They have been voting Democratic since 1974 and maybe before that. So nomination as the Democratic candidate is tantamount to election.

To become nominated in this city of 200,000, a major deal to editors of these articles, she obtained less than 9,000 votes. http://www2.monroecounty.gov/files/2013Primary%20Election%20Cert.pdf. Not what I would term a smashing mandate.

If the underlying threshhold for notability for a general article is "9,000 votes," there should be a lot of articles on hundreds of thousands of local politicians from around the world. Student7 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep She ran in a primary against an incumbent mayor that was heavily backed by the democratic party with alot of money behind him and a well established administration that originally belonged to the lieutenant governor Robert Duffy when he was mayor from 2006 to 2010 who did not want her to run and won. The incumbent mayor was also a former CEO of the local power utility which made him a millionaire. She beat a lot of money to win this election. I am not taking about this as as a african american rights thing, I am talking about this as as a person who was able to defeat a heavily established and funded administration to win. Something that rarely happens in politics. Dhe also happens to be the first women mayor which is important in that she is the first.

Also she is of note due to the fact that she is the mayor in the 3rd largest city in the state which has much importance. She could have been elected by one vote, She is still the mayor of an important city both in history in currently. Her background is important for the same reason it is for other politicians where the article goes though their past political and educational history.

ALL Rochester mayors have been well documented up until now. For evidence look at the page of Robert Duffy (politician) the original mayor of the last administration. Mike Spano of Yonkers, Stephanie Miner of Syracuse both have pages despite their cities being even smaller than Rochester. Warren is an important figure for these reasons alone in the grand scheme of things. Mo2010 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 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.