Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 June	21 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Moneymore. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moneymore Primary School

)

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

NN primary school that provides education for children ages 3-11. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moneymore per nom and per SCHOOLOUTCOMES]] as 2 schools are already mentioned there. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moneymore per long-standing precedent for non-notable schools as documented at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yuval David

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

effectively unsourced BLP of an actor with questionable notability. Article is a recreation of an earlier speedy deleted article by an clearly involved editor. The Banner talk 20:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has 3 references provided. The first is a dead link for an interview in Washington Jewish Week with no information as to title, publish date that would help track down an archive copy. The second, is to a website called GregInHollywood which appears to be a one man show, so dubious as a reliable source, and the article which basically says he us still up and coming. The third web site mostbeautifulman isn't a reliable source. My own search turns up no further coverage. His IMDB entry does not show the significant roles / body of work one would expect of a notable actor. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Working actor, but activity in notable films/television/theater appears limited to bit parts, so lack of substantial RS coverage is understandable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. McCain

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

Does not meet

WP:AUTHOR. Self-published works with no mainstream reviews. Note I have cut down the article from this advertisement NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- despite the grand sounding titles claimed, I strongly suspect that the subject is the minister of one induspendent congregation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:42. Bronx Net TV is a cable access. FWIW, I was born and grew up in The Bronx. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Lacking in coverage from independent
reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Smith (artist)

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

The tone of the piece suggests this is a vanity article. A Google search is not turning up anything meaningful for me. Itsalleasy (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this means you did not bother to look at the first hit, which would have shown that the

WP:BEFORE.TheLongTone (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, am quite new to Wikipedia so learning the ropes here, but am confused by the idea that this article is a 'vanity' one. It's about an important artist and has a range of sources to back up the information listed. There is already an article in German on the subject but not one in English - strange, since he's an English artist. So I see no reason at all to delete the article. [[User:devereux1978|devereux1978] — Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the tone is just factual - this happened, then that happened, etc, so I don't understand the point about tone at all. [User:devereux1978|devereux1978] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devereux1978 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Smith easily passes notability guidelines, as sources in article demonstrate. It's a stub, sure, but nothing wrong with its tone either.TheLongTone (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, as I mentioned before I'm new here so I am finding my way through trial and error. Point taken about it being a stub, I just wanted to sketch out a starting-point that can be expanded...(Devereux1978) — Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Tate and Venice Biennale shows, and the pieces in the Tate and MoMA, are more than enough for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has a very common name, which makes him difficult to Google, but as far as I can tell all of the sources cited are indeed referring to the same person. Per David Eppstein, the subject does appear to be notable. Furthermore, I haven't found any problems with the article's tone nor any implication that it might be a vanity article. It looks to me like a straightforward biographical article. I am not sure why this article was nominated for deletion in the first place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the same individual, see [1], a cite that was in the article when this absurd nomination was made.TheLongTone (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on the Tate and Venice shows. (Devereux1978) — Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable artist - this debate should not have happened...Modernist (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Venice biennale and Tate retrospective are top of the field awards. Suggest nominator withdraws. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the nominator, the clear claims to notability were not in the article when it was nominated, and my comment about the Google search at the top of this discussion is mistaken: I was searching using "Richard Smith painter" rather than "Richard Smith Artist", which indeed does give priority to an apparantly non-notable New Zealand artist. However, at the time of the nomination the article was well enough cited to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well said, TheLongTone. When the article improves, that should be noted in keep comments, in deference to the good faith effort by the nominator. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Surely an artist whose work is bought by the Tate and Metopolitan Museum must be notable. It might be diffenret if he had merely exibited work in a gallery. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Team martial arts (TMA)

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

On notability grounds. Non-notable variation on MMA. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Mixed martial arts. Non-notable by itself. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking for sources I found this link describing the change of name and I can't help but think this is being used to legitimize the new name. Sorry for the cynicism. Padillah (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then redirect to Mixed martial arts per Brambleberry of RiverClan, Seems a better solution merging than deleting. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any significant independent coverage. Appears to be a new creation with nothing to show notability and different enough that it shouldn't be merged in the traditional MMA article. Papaursa (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage needed to meet GNG. It uses weapons, has multiple levels, and bans takedowns so it is far too different from MMA to be merged there.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Marshall

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

I went looking for in-depth coverage in reliable

WP:SECONDARY sources and found just one article from 1993: A Show of Her Own : Mona Marshall performed other people's songs for years, but finally realized she had something to say. Her solo act features all original material", from the Los Angeles Times. None of the current article is based on this, or any other secondary source. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

What is needed is another such source or two of the quality seen in the LA Times source. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
talk • contributions) 19:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

While South Park is easily well known she has had other significant roles especially in Digimon. She played one the the main characters in the first series one of the primary Digimon partners in the third, as well as the main villain in the fourth. I am not saying that Digimon is as well known as South Park but I believe that we should only redirect a VA to a series if their only work of note is from there which is not the case here.--67.68.160.163 (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A simple Google search shows enough RS sources are available to meet
WP:GNG. Simply because no one has taken the time to cite the sources is not a valid reason for deletion. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

For the rest of us, please list those reliable
WP:GNG. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Easily passes
WP:ENTERTAINER having significant roles in multiple notable works. Dream Focus 13:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 13:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting fact. If you click the link to VIEWS at the top of this AFD, you'll find Mona_Marshall has been viewed 20065 times in the last 90 days. Dream Focus 13:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting fact is that the article about the Mann Act gets 38k views in the same time period, and the dab page about White slavery gets 12k. Mona Marshall was the name of the woman whose forced prostitution (white slavery) case started the gears turning to result in the Mann Act legislation.[2][3][4] That fact may be part of the views for Mona Marshall. Another possibility is that there is a talent agency's bot whose job it is to keep track of web activity related to Mona Marshall the voice actress, or even to generate such web activity. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
WP:ENTERTAINER, multiple major roles in works done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Added two references; article could use more but the overall picture is a notable entertainer, particularly when she was the voice of a major character on South Park.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Her role in South Park is what makes her notable. I would not support a redirect to South Park on the grounds that it is not the only voice-over work she has done. Bensci54 (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knowledgekid87's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since no one has argued that this article has adequate sourcing for a BLP thi sleaves us with two guidelines in tension. Since wider community norms are that we should source a BLP and an SNG is supposed to be a guide to whether sources exist it appears that the delete arguments are stronger.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Brianne Siddall

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

No in-depth

WP:SECONDARY coverage of Siddall's life or career, only listing entries and mentions-in-passing. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet
WP:ENTERTAINER. Needs relevant cites added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VMS Mosaic (talk • contribs
)

I don't think this meets ENTERTAINER. Can you specify why you think so? Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because some of the roles are main characters in notable series. Dream Focus 23:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes
WP:ENTERTAINER as the person has had significant roles in various notable television shows. Dream Focus 17:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete BLP lacking a single reliable source; also, unable to find sources meeting
WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Joe Decker. I'm starting to think the definition of "significant roles" for WP:ENTERTAINER is really subjective (and probably should be changed). But that's the existing policy. Article subject has primarily one-time or small side-characters. No where near as many 'lead roles' as say, someone like Johnny Yong Bosch. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YuYu Hakusho is a major series, and this person played a main character, Lord Koenma(the guy in charge of things who is seen in most every episode of the show) in the the movie. I didn't bother to look through every single thing on the list, but there have been significant roles they have done. Dream Focus 06:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I don't think there're sources meeting
WP:GNG. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The character in question is listed as supporting cast, under 31 or 32 apparently more signficant characters, and note that our own article lists four voice actors for this role. The role is credited under an entirely different name, which threw me for a bit, I thought at first it was entirely a hoax, but perhaps not. Perhaps. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are certainly less notable VAs with articles, why single out this one? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
  WP:OTHERCRAP --180.155.72.174 (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep but find better sources, and if that is not done in 6 months or so, reopen the debate. In almost all cases better sources exist for people who have had notable roles in multiple shows, we just need to find them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mockingjay (disambiguation)

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

There are only two pages where Mockingjay significantly links to i.e. the book and the fictional pages. I don't think we need a dab for two articles and there's already a hatnote placed on top of each page. Furthermore, the dab is incomplete and contains just one line of context with a link to the novel. Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 18:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added more entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, but the entries are all for, what amounts to, the same thing. The term, on it's own, has no notability outside the novels and this is not a Hunger Games Wiki.Padillah (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How are a book, movie, bird species and alias "the same thing"? The fact that they are accorded separate articles shows they're not (and that's the purpose of a dab page - as an article navigational tool). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the book it is used as a fictional bird species and an alias, in the movie it is used as a fictional bird species and an alias, as a fictional bird species it is co-opted as an alias, and as an alias it was co-opted from the fictional bird species. You really don't see how those are pretty much the same thing? Padillah (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes the usages are all related, but indeed there are now 5 different articles sensibly offered as what a reader may be looking for. This does not convert Wikipedia into being a Hunger Games wiki; a disambiguation page does not host trivia or cruft, it merely provides navigation links within Wikipedia. If one objects to the separate articles existing, like do we really need a separate one for each movie, that is subject for AFDs elsewhere. --do ncr am 22:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend's additions. (Thanks Clarityfiend) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but, if it were up to me, I'd be tempted to reorder the page as follows:

The Hunger Games universe and an alias of Katniss Everdeen, the protagonist of The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

.
Mockingjay may also refer to:

The Hunger Games trilogy
as published in 2010.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1, an upcoming 2014 American science fiction adventure film

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2, an upcoming two-part film adaptation of the novel
I have also added a
For other uses, see
talk) 14:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
{{disambig}}

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Danielle Judovits

Danielle Judovits (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)

Very poorly referenced biography; I looked for good references to save the article but found very little, mostly PR blurbs based on agency representation. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judovits voiced Batgirl for three seasons, but this fact is only mentioned in passing in this book source. There is no in-depth discussion of her career. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. She is a good voice actor and has done other roles like the ones that she did in The Batman and Naruto. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The debate isn't about whether she is any good. The debate is about whether she is notable and mentioned in reliable sources. Padillah (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes
WP:ENTERTAINER. She has had significant roles in notable series, such as TenTen in Naruto, Shadowcat in an X-men cartoon, Batgirl in a Batman cartoon, etc. Dream Focus 00:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 00:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her roles have either been dubbing-only or not major characters. Bensci54 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:ENTERTAINER. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The GNG is the real basis, and she clearly does not pass this. I think there is too broad an interpretation of "notable roles" in "notable works" if she is seen to pass that guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A review of the roles described as "signficant" does not convince me that they are, and so WP:ENT #1 is plainly not met.
WP:ENT #1 are laid bare. In addition to the non-primary language dub comments, digging through the dozens of roles listed at List of Naruto characters, for example, we find that this character of the many dozen protagonists, "receives the least amount of screen time in the series." --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Naruto has 220 episodes for the first anime and 366 for the second. Check out this list here [5] showing different story arcs she was seen in, and to what extent. And these are professional voice actors, not dubbers in notable shows like that. As for her role in the X-men cartoon, Shadowcat was a major character seen in every episode. The Batman cartoon at The_Batman_(TV_series) list season three and four as having Batgirl in them, and you click on the links to those seasons and search for "Batgirl" you can see how many episodes she appeared in. Dream Focus 01:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowcat was in Wolverine and the X-men, and while ten or more characters had merchandise produced representing them, Shadowcat was not among them, whcih seems to undercut your argument, mindful though I am that the omission of her and other female characters may also reflect sexism in the industry. While this is less weak than your claim of significance for Tenten, it still doesn't seem to meet the bar of significance for me, or for many of the suggested indicators of significance being discussed in the current ENT 1 RfC, e.g., the opening credits test. Batgirl is, without a doubt, your strongest case for a signficant role, weakened only by the fact that she was more or less dropped for s5. In any case, Batgirl can't prop up ENT #1 by herself. (If her role at Batgirl really turns out to be, in the community's consensus, the only signficant role she's had, a redirect would, of course, be a valid alternative to deletion.) Sadly, the general notability guideline isn't met, which I still take very seriously for living people. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She has ample merchandise already. She had voice roles in 14 episodes of the 26 episodes of that series. [6] Anyway, no matter how many of her many roles are proven notable, it doesn't matter to you, you still ignoring ENTERTAINER apparently. As for as the GNG is concerned, she has done interviews in places. [7] Dream Focus 20:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
susceptibility the list might have to promotional edits is not cause for deletion. postdlf (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

List of restaurants in London

List of restaurants in London (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 Can never be near complete and can only serve as advertisements for selected restaurants Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list was derived from
WP:LISTPURP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep. There seems to be no any advertisement. Article is purely in neutral tone and contains list of all main Restaurants in London, plus it clearly qualifies for an alone article as per
WP:NOTDUP. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

It seems clear that the consensus is likely to be 'keep' but I wonder if those who support that view are willing to spend the necessary time monitoring this page to decide which are, 'all main Restaurants in London' and on what basis this will be decided. It is clearly to the commercial advantage, in attracting tourists for example, of any restaurateur to have their restaurant in this list so I can see it being a continual commercial battle ground. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such lists are not required to be complete - they serve as an index to our articles. The topic is notable per
WP:CLN applies. Andrew (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, we know list cannot be completed ever. But as we said earlier to
WP:PROMOTION. But unfortunately, article doesn't falls under this policy in its current form. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 07:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I sympathize with the nominator's concerns, but multiple guidelines explicitly say that these sorts of articles are acceptable. If the article were nothing but hours of operation, driving instructions, or other promotional content, you might be on to something per
WP:NOTGUIDE. The promotion must be truly blatant to fall afoul of policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per everyone above - Article's fine as it is. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Where do we stop, how can we decide which restaurants go in here and which do not? It is going to require continuous monitoring, or at least it would if we had any well-defined basis for inclusion. I see there is currently no List of restaurants in New York, List of restaurants in Paris, List of restaurants in Rome, List of restaurants in Moscow, List of restaurants in Beijing. Do we plan to have all all these? What about a 'List of restaurants in Westerham', should we have that? Let us stop this craziness before it starts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of notable restaurants. That means that each restaurant needs to have an article. See this article in WP:LISTN. The Wikipedia article probably does need citations, but that can be easily remedied. By the way, you're not allowed to vote multiple times. I have struck out your duplicate vote. Not that the AfD vote count tool works anymore. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I am puzzled about why you call my one vote a duplicate so I have reinstated it. If there is another one somewhere, please feel free to strike that one out.

I do understand the concept that only restaurants with an article should be in this list; it is exactly the same criterion used for people in List of vegans for example, even though the restaurant criteria for inclusion seem to be rather more arbitrary and variable, as your example shows. The restaurants in your example are not notable in themselves but only because a particular newspaper happened to run an article on budget restaurants in central london/soho. Does that make the expensive restaurants in Chelsea less notable?

The problem though is that the commercial value of being in this list is much greater than that of having an article in WP. Clearly, having an article in WP on your restaurant is beneficial but only if people know it exists. Being in a list like this is much better as the list becomes more of a restaurant guide for visitors to London and every restaurant in town is going to want to be there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop voting multiple times. You get one vote. Your nomination was that vote. I suggest you read through
"I don't like it". It's a valid list with clear inclusion criteria, and it fails to be promotional in any sense defined by Wikipedia policy. I suggest you find a policy-based argument. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Perhaps you might like to read
Wikipedia:SPIP#Self-promotion_and_indiscriminate_publicity. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Sheh

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Stephanie Sheh

Articles for deletion/Stephanie Sheh (2nd nomination)

Stephanie Sheh (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 references for eight years now... I looked for some reliable sources to save the biography and found none. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If no sources have been found for 8 years, then this article is groundless. --Coo coo pigeon (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. She is a popular voice actor and has done a lot of projects including the ones that she has worked with Michelle Ruff on. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the Ruff bio, which looks like it has too much reliance on primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, the question isn't about whether the actress is good. It's about whether she has been notable. Padillah (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below. Please put some effort in next time. Padillah (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found below, Although I should've double checked - It would help if the nom done all this before nominating really. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources: [8], [9], that and her name being in the credits and in bonus features on the DVDs fr the series she has been in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough sources are available to meet
WP:GNG. The fact that no one has taken the time to cite them is not a valid reason for deletion. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

@VMS Mosaic: - That's because we all assumed the nom done the work & research first .... Evidently not!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Including the sources and information I provided above the article also has sources but the references are not cited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those interviews; unfortunately, interviews are primary sources, so they do not count toward establishing notability.
WP:BASIC says the sources must be secondary. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Given all the roles she has played though this passes per
WP:ENTERTAINER. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The ENTERTAINER guideline asks us to look for significant roles, not minor roles or voice-dubbing jobs. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She has the role of several major characters in the anime's she has dubbed. These include Mikuru Asahina, Akira Kogami, Yui Hirasawa, and many others. You should follow the links back to the anime articles in which she did dubbing for. Her name will appear under "Main characters" = Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
WP:ENTERTAINER based on significant roles in notable shows. Anime companies don't just hire random people to dubs things anymore, they find professional voice actors. And interviews are not primary sources for deciding notability of an article, they only considered that based on the content in the article. Dream Focus 17:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - She voiced
csd new 11:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per potential sources from
WP:A&M/ORS with [10], [11], [12], [13]. Esw01407 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per reasonings by Esw01407 and Knowledgekid87. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wind power in Delaware

Wind power in Delaware (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
I'm proposing deletion of the article as being non notable. A 'Notability' header was present on the article for two months. The state also has very little potential for developing any significant amount of electricity from wind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflafla1 (talk • contribs)

Keep. The topic of windpower in Delaware seems notable; there are multiple references and sources; I just added some material using information from one of the already-linked external links, adding a new inline reference for that. What matters for notability is the existence of sources. It is off-topic to argue about the amount Delaware's wind potential, but i have seen wind power maps that are really clear about coastal / off-shore wind power potential being vast, while in most of the U.S. east there is little wind power otherwise (there is lots in midwest though), and Delaware has the off-shore type of potential, AFAIK. --do ncr am 22:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - part of a series on
WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Obviously notable topic. Plenty of reliable secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In addition to the close, I also want to note substantial cleanup by Curly Turkey. Thank you. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and Sequential Art

Comics and Sequential Art (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)

Largely summary (that is, plot) and is long-unreferenced. Both external links are dead. Claims to be well-regarded by notable individuals, but offers no references. Claims to be referenced by another book, but offers no references. Mikeblas (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The present article is fairly ghastly, but I am left wondering about the quality of the nominator's
WP:BEFORE. The book was apparently not aimed at the academic market, but a GScholar search on the book's author shows over 600 citations of the book, and apparently an additional 400 of a Portuguese translation - I find the book's notability effectively undeniable. Though if the article is not improved during the course of this AfD, I would have no objection to stubbing the article back to its first and third paragraphs and the infobox (and not very much to redirecting it to the author) pending re-expansion into a properly sourced article concentrating on its influence. PWilkinson (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep: the first formalist work on comics in the English language, the one that introduced the term "sequential art"? You have to be joking! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above responses. BOZ (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Porto (disambiguation)

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

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

Completely redundant disambiguation page. The various sub articles are already mentioned in the main
F.C. Porto article. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is legitimate need for a disambiguation page regardless of what is mentioned in the main page. ~~I also didn't see any wiki-links in the main article to the subs.~~
(talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Take a look at the Sports section of the
F.C. Porto article (near the bottom). It seems to me that every sub-page of every article should be listed in disambiguation pages by this reasoning. Whether divisions of a single sports club are notable to have their own article is another question.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Far more useful to readers to have this than not. Valid dab. Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page is legit and valid. HealthSX (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

2013–14 Turkish Basketball League

2013–14 Turkish Basketball League (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 reads as propaganda for one team Alans1977 (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable."
WP:SPORTSEVENT Alans1977 (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Since nominating the article, the nominators seems to have removed from the article the content which prompted the nomination. What is left is an article very similar to at least a dozen other season articles on the same league. If this article is deleted and the rest stay in existence, it seems quite likely that the article will be recreated with something close to its present content. And on balance, there seems to be an imperfect consensus that such articles are allowed provided the league is highly notable. Therefore, either this article needs to be kept, or there needs to be a discussion on all the season articles, or a fairly strong reason needs to be given why the season under discussion should be regarded as less notable than a dozen previous ones. PWilkinson (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have also nominated all the rest for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014–15_Turkish_Basketball_League. You'll have to excuse me. This is the first time I've ever nominated anything for deletion. If I were to have done it all correctly I would of had it all on one page the first go. Alans1977 (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Better course is to repair the article rather than delete. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to repair. It's simply a collection of stats. Could easily be incorporated into Turkish Basketball Championship along with the rest of the season articles. Alans1977 (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very stupid question, and I forgive me I don't know as I've been here for a long time, but is
WP:DEL#REASON but it reads like "everything else we haven't said" which isn't very convincing at all. –H T D 23:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

For me it comes down to notability
WP:SPORTSEVENT regular season games by themselves are not inherently notable. Alans1977 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, but it seems the articles' scope includes playoffs too. Either way, I see
WP:NOT, perhaps deletion is a good reason, but in this regard it isn't. –H T D 12:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I see these article as more in need of merging than saving. As far as I can tell all of these seasons could easily merge into Turkish Basketball Championship. There is nothing notable of them by them selves. Alans1977 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Season articles of top-flight sports leagues are generally notable by themselves. This is more like adding prose than "merging" or "deleting". You can't possibly "merge" into one article all of these seasons. It'll be a reasoning for a
WP:SPLIT. –H T D 15:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

What exactly are you suggesting to be merged, anyway? –H T D 15:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rework. Howard the Duck is right in that seasons of top-flight sports leagues are themselves notable. Most of the top European basketball leagues have season articles, at least for recent years. See, for example,
France, Lithuania, and Israel. — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, this article is notable of course like I said that for 2014–15 Turkish Basketball League. Turkish Basketball League is a major league in Europe, important league for basketball fans also. They need seasons articles like this. Like Dale Arnett said, most of the European major leagues have season articles, and including same templates and same contents. So your reasons and suggestions are meaningless. These articles could improve and repair with good resources, but can't delete. JoeyFredy (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Obvious
WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Works of fiction set in 3026

Works of fiction set in 3026 (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)

Completely trivial list. PRODed this since I could not quite see which speedy template to use: surprise surprise, PROD removed by article creator, with the rationale that he/she thinks it important. TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A trivial list with, currently, only one item on it. No encyclopedic value. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

zzzzzzhweck! to delete One Ultraman episode that only mentions an event that will happen in 3026 is surely not enough. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
(talk) 16:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One Percent Full

One Percent Full (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 source is an IMDB entry, and IMDB not considered reliable. Notability of film not established. McDoob AU93 14:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable film with unreliable references.
(talk) 16:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 20 June 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)

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

Delete for lacking the coverage to meet
notability criteria for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources found; appears to fail
WP:NF. Gongshow talk 22:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that Ambassadors are inherantly notable lacks a policy basis (DIPLOMATE states For the purposes of this guideline, ambassadorships are not considered international offices.) and but there is a wider meta consensus that BLPs require decent sourcing that manifestly does not appear to be the case. On that basis the policy based arguments are to delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

John Michael Owen Snodgrass

John Michael Owen Snodgrass (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 absolutely no inherent notability of ambassadors. Those wanting to show keep must show sources to demonstrate WP:BIO is met. All I could find is one line mentions confirming he was an ambassador LibStar (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also could only find confirmation of his ambassadorship. Hence non-notable.
(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that most permanent ambassadors are likely to be notable, and that notability should therefore be presumed. [14] discusses Snodgrass's experience as consul general in Israel. The index of [15] includes three references to Snodgrass. Author Tim Heald quotes him in [16]. This autobiography [17] has a chapter about Snodgrass. According to [18] he had a significant role in negotiating independence for Tuvalu. He also has references in numerous Who's Whos, although the notability of such is questionable. Pburka (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call this article in-depth coverage. It merely confirmed Snodgrass attended an event as a rep of the foreign office. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the other sources later but I do thank you for actually looking for sources unlike other keep voters. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the other sources you've found, to be honest they're not in depth:

According to [19] he had a significant role in negotiating independence for Tuvalu. really? All I found was is a small one line mention on p.74, in a 192 page document.

This source merely confirms he was consul general and he explains the British presence in Jerusalem , rather than explaining his actual contribution, or anything biographical. LibStar (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" autobiography [4] has a chapter about Snodgrass" yes just a one page chapter . LibStar (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My personal view is that Ambassadors are notable enough to justify inclusion but frustratingly wikipedia doesn't have any specific guidelines vis a vis members of the diplomatic service (including UN permanent representatives). Some people (like me) think that Ambassadors and UN permanent representatives should be considered inherently notable, others argue they are just mouthpieces for national governments and have no real power. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep -- Ambassadors (and other heads of mission) are notable. More junior diplomats will normally not be. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability of ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only was he an ambassador (and I agree with Flaming Ferrari and Peterkingiron that ambassadors should be seen as inherently notable), but we have generally held that any recipient of a British honour of the level of CBE or above meets the requirements of
Who Was Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete unless enhanced. This lacks substance and needs more to be a worthwhile page.
WP:BIO. sig1068 — Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not a valid argument for deletion. This discussion isn't about the article, but about the topic. That it can be improved isn't relevant. Pburka (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.
G7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Iambulbash

Iambulbash (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 is a non-
WP:GNG. Google search returns just 4 hits ([20]), two of which are game's official web page. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A11 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monkey Quest characters

List of Monkey Quest characters (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'm not sure if this list has enough WP:Notability for a stand-alone article. There are no reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - AfD isn't warranted here (although Vanjagenije deserves praise for AGF). Karsad147 has history of creating vanity articles. This is one of them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next Polish parliamentary election

Next Polish parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is about future elections. Author does not know when the elections will be held, but he wrote all the results (!?) Since
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we cannot write about a future event about which we do not have reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete with no prejudice for reinstatement when election dates are announced and some editing to remove fake election results. Ridiculous to have already assigned the victor before the election dates have even been announced. Cowlibob (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Standard parliamentary "they'll have to have elections some time but we have no idea when" article which will just have to be renamed anyway as soon as any real information becomes available. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, originally it was an odd article. I removed one phrase about a newspaper scandal that seemed coatrackish and was waiting to see but there is nothing to back up anything here and no one seems to want to improvement it either.
talk) 01:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

keep These kinds of articles are at least potentially useful & informative. They can contain basic information such as major political events between elections (background); election rules and procedures; any changes to the election law or districting; opinion polling; etc.
Next Greek legislative election is an example of a fairly well-ordered page of this type. Fixing an inadequate article is the solution, rather than deleting it. Gabrielthursday (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Trivia factoid, not an encyclopedic topic. Fails GNG. When the "next election" is actually called for a specific date, then an article with an appropriate title can be started. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No meaningful content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Normally, I would go along with pretty much any idea for a redirect, but there are some strong arguments put forth why a redirect would be wrong, so just plain delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swetang

Swetang (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)

Since PROD was removed by anon, nominating here. Questable notability ~~of not so popular epithet of Ganesha~~ Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though the article claims it to be an epithet, found no proof of it. It however can be used as a generic epithet for fair-complexioned deities. (see below) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ganesha. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is not a common attribute of Ganesha, I suggest deletion. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection does no harm whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection intimates that this is a phrase that may be commonly searched. It gives weight to the assumption that this phrase is moderately common in usage. If that is not the case we need to acknowledge that and delete the article. Padillah (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It intimates no such thing. It merely helps anyone who may be searching for Swetang. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ganesha as this article relates to just that, Completely agree with Necrothesp redirecting does no harm at all. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although
Vishnu sahasranama has. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This doesn't feature in either the Ganesh Ashtotra (108 names) or in the Sahasarnama (1008 names), so it's not even 1007th on the priority list for redirects. Besides, it is used to refer to Ganesha only in the adjectival form and not as a noun, and even that isn't common within major literature and this usage is also quite varied in references. A redirect does far more disservice to readers here by implying something that isn't the case. —SpacemanSpiff 04:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmadhyaksha, Swetang (श्वेतांग; literally "white-bodied") does not figure in the names of Ganesha. [21] says it is an epithet of Balarama. [22] In feminine form, it applies to Devi. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and SS now. Its more of adjective than noun and has been used to describe various gods; Shiva in this example. So delete it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. See
WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Nepotilla triseriata

Nepotilla triseriata (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)

Unnotable snail with little information Youngdrake (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is sourced, but doesn't meet
WP:GNG to warrant an article for this single species. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 12:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Snow Keep: per
WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 15:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Species are automatically notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all species have by definition been formally described, so we know they can be reliably sourced, and as has been said, we take all of them as notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -
(talk) 16:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Species are notable. Plantdrew (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others have pointed out, species are always notable. References in reliable source always exist for a species, typically the initial description (and subsequent descriptions or reclassifications) in a scientific journal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Failed
talk) 22:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Sabīne Jemeļjanova

Sabīne Jemeļjanova (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
reliable sources. Sources to lads mags for whom she poses without much clothes, not reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

delete fails WP:BIO. Lacking reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. No significant press coverage apart from what is expected for a run of the mill Page 3 model. Cowlibob (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable glamour model. Molly Ann Lewis (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seapunk

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Seapunk

Articles for deletion/Seapunk (2nd nomination)

Seapunk (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)

Flash in the pan fad with questionable notability, deleted once already. Several sources used in the article are of questionable quality as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notability questionable but there was coverage in a number of mainstream news publications, those particular references are usable. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice deal of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My goodness. How many reliable independent secondary sources does anyone need? I stopped counting after the Chicago Reader, the Village Voice and the New York Times. (It's in the NYT and we're debating notability?) Msnicki (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A large number of independent reliable sources provide extensive coverage about the subject, easily meeting general notability standards. I think the article is poor structured, and seems almost like it was written with the goal of cramming in a different source for almost every sentence, rather than to explain the topic, but that's a different issue. (Note for editors: reliable sources on a subject do not need to be included in an article to establish notability; they merely need to exist, and can be listed on a Talk or AfD page if questions of notability arise.) Per nominator's other deletion rationales:

Flash in the pan: While single events may not warrant articles (see
WP:ONEEVENT
), fads that extend for months or years are not like single events, and just the cited sources in the article indicate span 11 months. Seapunk is still mentioned regularly in the news; Google News shows 16 occurrences in the last month, including eight in English (including US, UK and Australian media), six in French (including Canadian and French media), one in Arabic, and one in Turkish. While these are mostly trivial references, as a description of colors or appearances, some are not, and even the trivial references are indicative of its lasting cultural notability (in the generic dictionary sense, not in the Wikipedia sense).

Deleted once already: The previous AfD was in 2011, before any of the references cited in this article were published, and the single opinion given was that it was a very recent movement not covered by any reliable sources, which seems like it was accurate in 2011.

Some sources questionable: While some of the sources cited in the article may be questionable, the AfD guideline section at
WP:BEFORE
says "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." You can challenge sources as not reliable, and information not supported by reliable sources.

--Agyle (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not anyone's job who sends an article to AFD who feels that the article has no merits to fix it. I don't know why this is constantly brought up like it's a requirement that the nominator have tried to clean the page before deciding "this doesn't belong on Wikipedia". Seapunk was a 3 month thing at best. A "microtrend" does not get a Wikipedia article no more than any of the memes that we apparently document.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest the nominator should clean it up, merely that issues which can be fixed through normal editing are not grounds for deletion. Since you did list a fixable issue as a reason for the nomination, it warranted repeating. Notability is a grounds for deletion, and you mentioned that as a reason too, but I think that was the only reasonable basis; microtrends, memes, and fads may or may not be notable. Agyle (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes
WP:GNG having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to, The New York Times, The Guardian and Chicago Reader. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, it was clearly a short lived movement, but as we have a source published a while later indicating it had influence on mainstream culture (the Guardian link at the end), we should have an article. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 23:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wouldn't have created an article on this, but it seems like a valid article to me. I guess the old adage that
notability isn't temporary applies here. I don't think Wikipedia exists to catalog every minor fad, but when The New York Times writes an article on it, it's not easy to argue that the topic is non-notable. With no real notability guideline for fads, memes, or internet culture, we default to the GNG, and this does seem to satisfy the requirements. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
But surely, fads like these should be the epitome of things that Wikipedia should not cover. Everything that becomes popular for like a month online gets covered by mainstream media because they've got fuck all to talk about otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One would think so, but it's still getting coverage in 2014: Sydney Morning Herald. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One paragraph though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ann's Snack Bar

Ann's Snack Bar (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 single hamburger shop among the millions in the world?? and hardly worth nothing despite advertising on Wikipedia Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This "simple hamburger shop" with only 8 seats has been written about by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN, and other independent sources with national/worldwide distribution. Does that not meet
WP:GNG? --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Bigpeteb. Sufficient evidence that this place is an Atlanta culinary landmark that has received national coverage, as shown in the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don;t know if it's the best hamburger in America, but the coverage in reliable sources show the restaurant is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fergburger

Fergburger (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 single hamburger shop among the millions in the world?? Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you are trying to say. There was an original article that was biased. I rewrote it from a more wikipedia style view. Yes there is only one place but it is so much more than that. Locals all know it and the vast majority of visitors already know about it before they arrive. It is often mentioned in foreign media. I am not an employee or linked to it so I am not trying to promote it. But discussion on this topic is welcome. kind regards, --Grapeman4 (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)--[reply]

Keep. I think the February 2014 CNN article declaring that "New Zealand's Fergburger may be the best burger joint on the planet" puts this over the top, when added to the extensive coverage for this place in books[23] as well as earlier mentions in international media like The New York Times[24] and The Daily Telegraph[25]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Arxiloxos. Needs a tidy up, but Fergburger meets the minimum requirements for
talk) 04:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - As this single hamburger joint has received the coverage that establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Karagiannis

Nick Karagiannis (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)

BLP built on a lie. Karagiannis did not star in Pascali's Island. If he was in it at all it was as an extra. No hint of real notability here. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Duffbeerforme. The only claim of notability is wholly unverified and is inconsistent with the film's credits; and even if it were true that this person appeared in that picture it wouldn't be sufficient to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Even if he starred in the film he doesn't meet
WP:NACTOR. Cowlibob (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to meet
WP:NACTOR.Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as a possible hoax, I haven't been able to find a single skerrick of evidence that someone with this name appeared in the film. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to DayZ (video game). (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enfusion (game engine)

Enfusion (game engine) (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 find hardly any sources which discuss the engine, and if it should be written about anywhere it's within the DayZ article itself at this stage. Sam Walton (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The engine name was only formerly announced at E3 in the last couple of days hence the lack of sources, it is the Enfusion engine however (not Infusion as it has been changed to in the DayZ article, unfortunately the original interview where it was announced was transcribed incorrectly as Infusion, because of this a lot of sources are incorrectly referring to it as Infusion.
Here is another developer referring to it by it's correct name (Enfusion) http://www.reddit.com/r/dayz/comments/27umee/before_everyone_loses_their_collective_shit_omg/ci4mpsj
I've also verified this myself with the DayZ developers as I have direct communication with them being a member of the DayZ forum team. http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/user/65596-smasht/
Here is the CEO of Bohemia Interactive clarifying the name. https://twitter.com/maruksp/status/477010484324233216 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmashTAU (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As noted on page 23 of the BIS brochure this engine will also be used for future Bohemia Interactive games and as such I believe it deserves it's own article rather than just being listed on the DayZ article. http://www.bistudio.com/files/pdf/bohemia_interactive_brochure_2014.pdf?5
SmashTAU (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)SmashTAU[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DayZ (video game). Lack of independent notability, although there's a bit of info e.g.[26]. DayZ seems to be the first (and maybe only) game using the engine. An engine that's only featured in one game wouldn't normally be separately notable, because it is only discussed in the context of the game. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DayZ (video game) per Colapeninsula. Twitter posts and reddit are not sufficient sourcing for claims, and while the pcgamer article mentioned above is closer to significant coverage, it still appears that this engine does not have relevance independent of DayZ.Dialectric (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
too soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's Hard Rock Hallelujah

It's Hard Rock Hallelujah (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 this compilation album is notable. Article is little more than a track listing. Fails
WP:MUSIC. PaintedCarpet (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found in reliable sources for this compilation; does not appear to meet
WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - A Google search is not turning up anything meaningful for me. I'm not seeing anything significant and I'm inclined to support a delete unless somebody turns up something more significant. Ireneshih (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 08:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is only coverage by unreliable blogs and primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudiesWorld (talk • contribs) 10:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hollywood Undead discography. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Hollywood Undead

List of songs recorded by Hollywood Undead (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)

All of this is 100% original research with no references to any reliable primary OR secondary sources and is completely pointless! At this point in time, they don't need such an article, they don't have that many songs and if you really wan't to see the information about them, just go to the
talk 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: You can just get on YouTube and see which members perform in which of their songs. That's about where all of these came from, I can assume. Also, I don't think it is that useless. I wouldn't call 70-84 songs "not that many." And I see get information about Hollywood Undead from the list of their songs than that discography page you linked to. I'm for keeping the page, and not because I've edited a lot. I just feel it is useful for people just learning about the band, and need a way to look up their songs, etc, etc.--BarrettM82 Contact 14:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hollywood Undead discography. Content fork. All this adds is track-by-track credits and some trivia, none of it sourced. I'd like to point out that YouTube is not considered a reliable source. — Gwalla | Talk 21:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was the lyrics videos that TheExtremeUndead made for all of Hollywood Undead's songs. Anyone who is familiar with Hollywood Undead's music can confirm that list is 100% accurate, and so are the new versions of TheExtremeUndead's lyric videos. (I just wanted to clarify more as to what I meant when I mentioned YouTube.) But basically all of that information is true, regardless of the lack of sources. I didn't think to save the links I found when I did 2 1/2 hours of google searches last month; I wish I had now.--BarrettM82 Contact 23:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That only confirms the fact that this is completely original research. TheExtremeUndead is no more than a YouTuber who creates fan made lyric videos, so even if you did reference to his channel, video by video, it would still class this as original research as the channel is not officially associated with the band itself.
talk 23:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't say I used his/her videos to determine who performs in all the songs, and I wasn't around when the article was created, so I don't know if anyone dide. The only thing I did use them for was to listen to the songs, because I know what each of the singers sound like, right down to background vocals, I've been listening them so long.--BarrettM82 Contact 12:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is still original research, therefore unreliable.
talk 12:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 08:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research is the base of the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudiesWorld (talk • contribs) 10:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment the only points that I would make is that I don't see the article as pointless and that, at this stage, I don't see that it does any great harm to Wikipedia. The article was started in 2013 and doesn't seem set to expand at any great rate. At the moment they seem to have unexceptional chart success but, having listened to one track, they may have a potential, within the context of a competitive market, to reach higher rates of success. I'd think that there may be a case to leave the article for now in case they have some kind of breakthrough. If, within a chosen period of time, they haven't struck it big then there would certainly be no reason not to delete/redirect.
talk) 10:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: We already have an article on their recorded output:
content fork. — Gwalla | Talk 17:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I'm probably not going to say anything else about this, but I feel like the list of songs page gives me more information about Hollywood Undead, except in that it does not list which songs have the music videos. I'm not arguing against it being all unsourced, even if it is all accurate information that anyone who is familiar with the singers' voices can confirm just by listening to the songs. The thing is, I don't think there are any sources out there than can confirm this unless A-Z lyrics (I was going to give a link to "My Town" on A-Z lyrics but it says it's on the blacklist) and Rap Genius count. I don't see how the Hollywood Undead discography page is about the same subject as this page is. One is a list of every song, while the other is just a list of the albums, the singles, and the music videos released by Hollywood Undead.--BarrettM82 Contact 20:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:V, this page should be redirected. Deor (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
OR mostly posting to try and get someone to close this AFD...SPACKlick (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patti Broughton

Patti Broughton (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:RS. A Google failed to yield enough to ring the notability bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Did not find
WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom. Agree with
WP:GNG. A Google search is not turning up anything meaningful for me. I'm not seeing anything significant. I'm inclined to support a delete unless somebody turns up something more significant. Ireneshih (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 08:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above & nom - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Bullos

Cary Bullos (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. Not well referenced but claims countered by Sherdog Peter Rehse (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable MMA fighter and no significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.212.162.5 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 08:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Patrick J. Balthrop, Sr.

Patrick J. Balthrop, Sr. (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:GNG. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete =
utterly run of the mill business person. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 08:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luminex Corporation. I'm not seeing notability, but this is a completely plausible search term. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fullmetal Alchemist . No independent notability shown. I will evaluate the protection request by Farix separately on its merits. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transmutation circle

Transmutation circle (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 in-universe term from the series Fullmetal Alchemist. Should not have an article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify why you think it's not notable? Other universes have their own in terms. Look at Lord of the Rings.
talk) 12:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
There are several possibilities. The articles regarding in-universe Lord of the Rings materials may have received more out of universe coverage (critical analysis, scientific interest etc). It could also be possible that the other articles could have been overlooked and that they should be merged or deleted as well. I suggest that its better to provide evidence that the Transmutation circle is notable that rely on other articles that could very well be unnotable too.--67.68.160.163 (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fullmetal Alchemist. If desired, some of the content could be included in the main article.Bensci54 (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Fullmetal Alchemist. If this fictitious stuff really is worth mentioning, it belongs in the article about the work of fiction. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect This article has been redirected to Fullmetal Alchemist several times only for the redirect to be undone later. —Farix (t | c) 21:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under
WP:G11. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Anime World Network

Anime World Network (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 website. Article looks like it was created by the website's owners to advertise themselves. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not notable. A google search gives almost no results other than the site itself. Fails to meet
WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I haven't been able to find any sources that would satisfy
WP:GNG. PaintedCarpet (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under
WP:COI, the site was only just started and the article reads like the self serving promotional stunt it is. Spam. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete per
WP:G11. Looks to be promotional use, notability has not been established here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete/(talk) 23:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete per above. This entire article is blatant advertising. Bensci54 (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, close discussion early per
WP:SNOW. Subject is a website started less than a month ago, not mentioned at all in any reliable sources, barely mentioned even in non-reliable sources; this is nowhere close to being notable. Most references to the name (all non-RS) are to other Anime World Networks at animeworldnetwork.com and other domains. Agyle (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. The policy is that ambassadors are not inherantly notable and there is no detailed sourcing to meet the GNG, On that basis the only policy based argument is to delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Paul Brummell

Paul Brummell (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:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. an unremarkable career. I could only find routine coverage confirming he was an ambassador but nothing in depth. and there's trivial coverage reporting what food he ate based on his twitter like this. LibStar (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassadors are senior enough for inherent notability, in my opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only in your opinion:
WP:POLITICIAN explicitly excludes them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, in my opinion. This is an Afd; opinions count. Since they're not usually politicians and have never been elected to their post,
WP:POLITICIAN is not relevant in any case. The note in it is therefore a fairly pointless one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
No, opinions don't count for anything if they're not backed up by any actual policy. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to the admins who have closed many thousands of Afds as keep due to opinions that the articles should be kept! Whatever "rules" (which aren't, of course, since we have none) you may like to quote, practice is (and should be) most definitely that opinions do count at Afd. How do you think we establish consensus if not by discussion? And what is discussion if it isn't people expressing their opinions? This idea that opinion isn't valid or that consensus can only be formed via policy or guidelines and not on Afd is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about. If this was true then we wouldn't bother having Afd discussions at all - admins would simply be able to delete at will any article which did not conform to the "rules". -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Cola, WP:POLITICIAN's exclusion of ambassadors is irrelevant to the question of whether ambassadors are notable enough or not — it merely means that WP:POLITICIAN isn't the yardstick by which we measure their notability or lack thereof. There was formerly a separate guideline for determining the notability or lack thereof of ambassadors and diplomats, located in the same parent document that also contains POLITICIAN, but it was removed from that guideline pending resolution of a dispute about its wording — in the meantime, an ambassador does still have to get past
reliable sources, and is not entitled to keep an unsourced or poorly sourced article just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

please point to the actual notability guideline which says ambassadors are inherently notable. Did you look for any sources to establish notability? LibStar (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not go through all this again. Your opinion against my opinion. Just leave it and stop worrying at it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit there is no actual notability guideline that grants inherent notability. You can only have inherent notability if a guideline exists. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not get the concept of an opinion do you? "If it's not covered in detail by a guideline then it's not valid" seems to be the basis of your stance. As I've pointed out many times,
Wikipedia does not work this way. Never has done. Hopefully never will do. It works on discussion. And that's what we're having. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

And consistently recycling WP:ITSNOTABLE never works. Never has done. Hopefully never will do. You need to develop better arguments for keep than that. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the opinions below, which largely disagree with yours, I think you'll find that's not true! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Necrothesp: ambassadors should generally be assumed to be notable. Here's some significant coverage of the ambassador in a reliable source: [27]. Pburka (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that article is trivia and WP:ROUTINE coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and the source doesn't look an established news source as per WP:NEWSORG LibStar (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that he does have an entry in Who's Who. Not proof of definite notability, but a good start. He has held three ambassadorial posts (Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan & Kyrgyzstan, Barbados & Eastern Caribbean) and is about to take up a fourth (Romania). I reiterate, in my opinion that makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's also a travel author [28][29]. Here's another recent article about his experiences in Romania[30] and some older ones [31][32]. Also some older articles about his career in the Caribbean: [33][34]. Pburka (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call indepth and in this article Brummell is reporting the UK government position, and the article contains no information about Brummell except that he's the high commissioner. That kind of article is like when a police spokesperson informs the media of a crime, it doesn't make the spokesperson notable. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that there are sufficient third party sources to justify notability for this individual. However I also find it frustrating that wikipedia doesn't have more specific guidelines vis a vis members of the diplomatic service (including UN permanent representatives). Some people (like me) think that Ambassadors and UN permanent representatives should be considered inherently notable, others argue they are just mouthpieces for national governments and have no real power. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep -- A series of diplomatic poists where he was head of mission is quite enough to make him notable. The fact that this is a poor article, in need of expansion is no ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are not automatically notable just because they exist. They can be notable, absolutely, but only if they're actually the subject of enough real, substantive coverage in real,
primary sources. This article, as written, does not cite sufficient coverage in properly independent sources to confer notability — so delete unless the sourcing can be properly beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
GNG. I am not convinced that as a rule, ambassadors are the subject of enough real, substantive coverage. Certainly an ambassador might pass other notability guidelines, especially if they are "knighted." I continue to support keeping lists of ambassadors from one country to another country. --Enos733 (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Speedy close as sockfest, initiated by sockpuppet and mostly commented on by other socks of same user. No opinion on the merits of the article which I haven't looked at.
Fram (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Natalie White

Natalie White (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 of the article is not notable for anything outside this tv series. Delete per BLP1:E King Nebuchadnezzar II (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
^Notify_Online 04:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Most other Survivor contestants with articles seem to have been covered in the news for things beyond their Survivor gameplay. Natalie was definitely memorable, but only because of Russell. And she hasn't done anything notable outside the show that I can think of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.82.12.119 (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:GNG. Q5W5 [discussion] 10:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. She is notable for being the winner of Survivor: Samoa, a hit reality TV show circa 2009; that, in and of itself, is sufficient to meet the
reliable sources establish this. That she has not done anything since Survivor is irrelevant. However, the article in its present stage (June 21 2014) could be trimmed substantially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - An utterly pointless biography with no substantial info that is not already covered in the Survivor samoa article. Although I would support bringing the article back in the future if more info became available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.155.12 (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winner of major TV show deserves own page. Though she should do more with her life.
WP:BIO. sig1068 — Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete Notable for only one thing, her role within it was not substantial, and her life beyond it is not well documented. Yes, she was a winner, but there's not enough other info for her to have her own page. Whatever is here can easily go on the Survivor: Samoa article. Palmsandshells (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above comments recommending deletion. She's only famous for Survivor and everything here is already in the Samoa article. Terminate. 177.137.235.58 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability outside this series and no significant coverage of her personal life. Clear case of
WP:BLP1E unless her fame extends into other areas in the future. Getonthedogsled! (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Croot Street

Don Croot Street (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 street does not meet
talk) 03:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
reliable sources found for this minor thoroughfare with "references" that are well ... words fail me. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking
Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I was unable to find any substantial evidence that this street is particularly notable, even locally in Auckland. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any evidence from
WP:NPOV and is not enough to warrant an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non notable suburban street. Claimed to be notorious, but if any notorious suburban Auckland street deserves an article, surely it should be Madeleine Avenue. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Oliver Elementary School (disambiguation). -- RoySmith (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Elementary School

Oliver Elementary 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)

NN elementary school that provides education for children in grades K-7. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets content policies. There should be enough sources out there to be able to write a good article about this school. JYolkowski // talk 03:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The longstanding consensus at AFD (I'm not sure how often you drop by the school AfD area, so you may not be aware of it) is that all but the most exceptionally noteworthy primary and elementary schools are not considered to be appropriate topics for a stand-alone article. Nothing I found in a wp:before search (let alone in the article) supported the notion that this school was one of the noteworthy ones. Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Redirect to
reliable sources found. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

FYI -- there are many schools that bear this name, though this and
EE Oliver Elementary School (which also appears to be non-notable) are the only ones currently reflected I believe with standalone articles at the Project (see also these mentions of other Oliver Elementary schools in wp articles). So a redirect would not be particularly helpful unless the wp title were narrowed. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Convert to a schooldis page. In addition to this one, there's another one in the
List of schools of the Dallas Independent School District), E. Benjamin Oliver Elementary School in the St. Thomas-St. John School District and George H. Oliver Elementary School in the Clarksdale Municipal School District

Delete or Redirect to
talk) 14:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and create a disambiguation page instead of redirect, the redirect doesn't make sense as there are two equally valid targets, as pointed out above. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Carbon film coating

Carbon film coating (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)

"Carbon film coating" and "carbide derived carbon" are generic names, and despite the source saying Ali Erdemir and others invented carbide derived carbon, we already have an article on this at
talk) 07:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above comment. - abhilashkrishn ^talk 14:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That article is about the coating, that is made of carbon film, not just about "carbide derived carbon". The article you refer to Carbide-derived carbon is just about the carbon itself, while the coating is a new development that can have important use in machines, motor engines etc.Akocsg (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou'll need to find sources to show it meets
talk) 16:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Some sources: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 I think these should be suited.Akocsg (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability per nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep. There's no doubt that the references cited by Akocsg are sufficient to establish notability. The only question is whether there is enough material to be worth a stand-alone article, or if Carbide-derived_carbon#Tribological_coatings covers the topic adequately. It's a close call, but I'm going to say breaking this out into its own article makes sense. Part of my reasoning is that Carbide-derived_carbon is a highly technical and difficult to read bit of writing. A simpler treatment here might be valuable. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep.
WP:NN fails. $AHLM13$ ✉ 11:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Carbide-derived carbon. Insufficient justification to fork out this particular material when a full article on all the carbon materials exists. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Cyngres yr Eglwys yng Nghymru 1953Welsh Church Handbook

Cyngres yr Eglwys yng Nghymru 1953Welsh Church Handbook (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. Prod removed with mention on taljk page that several of the (redlinked) authors are notable, but e.g. Idris Bell is apparently a papyrologist, but wrote here on Modern Welsh Cultural Life, so not really his area of expertise anyway. Even ignoring this, notability is not inherited, and not every book that has contributions by notable people becomes a notable book.
Evidence is needed that the 1953 Welsh Church Congress Handbook is
Fram (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - It exists, but it seems completely lacking in notability. Fails
WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs
)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks context. It is hard to understand what the article is about. If it is about a handbook, than it lack notability also. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this a
book of common prayer? Or is this a progamme for a synod? Bearian (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

It is certainly not the former and I do not believe it has served for the latter purpose:Clive Sweeting14 June 2014

~~Potential~~ keep, but rename -- This looks as if it was a significnat congress (conference), whose proceedings were widely circulated; though I do not know. I suspect that most of the redlinked particpants should be linkable. However, the article should be renamed to 1953 Welsh Church Congress Handbook, even if the Welsh version of the title comes first, particularly if it was published in English. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP At the time of writing 5 of 6 'notabilities' were not theoretically redlisted but appeared as such due to varying titles, initials, Christian names including one Welsh bardic origin name. These have now been made to conform with the exception of.A.H.Dodd who still appears in red despite suppression of his Professor title.

I am not quite how absolutely notability is to be rated.Is someone from Newfoundland or fom Germany, from Malta and the United States to meet more or less exactly the same criteria. Please enlighten me. It would be helpful to find or at some stage to establish comparative statistics for countries with ratios for each.Clive Sweeting 14 June 2014
Clive, PLease sign your contributions using ~~~~, which is converted to a signature. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since making my above comment, I have resolved all the redlinks.
E T Davies, who appears to have had an article written for the purpose, and also subject to AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Comment~~ Delete I am not certain I understand the title of the article, but even that is beside the point, as is the number of red links (or lack thereof) in the article (these have no bearing on the subject's notability). The article still contains no citations, no references, no evidence of having been the subject of discussion in multiple reliable secondary sources, and that is a problem. I am not even certain, based on the title, how I would go about finding such sources. KDS4444^Talk 18:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The highly croggled title isn't helping matters at all, but while I can find a very few web hits for it under its Welsh or English names, I can see one citation each for each language that isn't a catalogue entry. I can't find anything that says anything about it. Mangoe (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Heather K. Dahlstrom

Heather K. Dahlstrom (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)

Film producer with no strong claim of
conflict of interest editing here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A reluctant delete, since I like to rescue biography articles on the chopping block. My sense is this person has a solid record as a Canadian film producer, with several wins and nominations of awards here but not much media attention, no write-ups that I could find (about 10 SERP pages). Numerous mentions of her as the producer. Maybe in future she'll be back in Wikipedia?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has won (or co-won) two awards and been nominated for 4 more, per IMDB. The two wins are in 2013 and 2014. Keep until she stops winning an award every year, how about? Rather than delete only to recreate, as another suggests would be necessary, above. Also, how many "Heather K. Dahlstrom" and/or "Heather Dahlstrom"s can there be; is she the same one getting married this coming July 4, and the same one who was Green Party candidate for office in Nickel Belt, around Sudbury, Ontario? I think she is. Per Kapuskasing newspaper, she lost, but did better for Green Party in the riding than previously. The politics/news coverage plus the film stuff adds up to notable, IMHO. There's a New York Times page on her filmography giving credits for her having even more film roles, e.g. where she was a still photographer or a production assistant. I am not familiar with this New York Times interface/database, is it a new competitor to IMDB? --do ncr am 23:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If reliable sources can be found suggesting Dahlstrom meets the GNG requirements, I'll switch, but as far as I know, the IMDb is not a reliable source, don't see other sources on the page which pass muster.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is perfectly reliable for some info, like what films an actor or producer is listed in credits for. And I think about awards, which are factual, either you got it or not. IMDB's open content like about bio details of a person, which can be contributed by the person, is regarded by wikipedia editors as not so reliable, as both user-provided and not likely to be verified by others. So an actor could lie about her age, I believe. But credits and awards are reliable, AFAIK. And can lead you to find your way to other verification, if you question something. I rather expect that a source about the 2014(?) Canadian Film Festival would verify her award there, for example. --do ncr am 11:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, this IMDB page just about the 2014 Canadian Film Festival awards is not likely to have anything wrong in what films won what, and who is associated with those films. And the IMDB page links to the CFF's webpage, where there is this award report which certainly verifies that "Golden Ticket" (2013 film) won best short film there. There's plenty of documentation available that Dahlstrom was producer on that film. So, accept the IMDB info on credits unless you have some reason to question it, please. --do ncr am 12:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is the IMDb stuff is probably right, although as long as I've been on Wikipedia, I keep hearing reading others dismissing it as a source. But suppose we even accept its veracity in this regard. Consider the article
general notability guideline. If such material can be found, please present it, and I may change my opinion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for engaging. Well, one problem with your view, in terms of this being an AFD, is that the AFD is about notability of the topic, especially whether sources are likely to exist. Not about the current state of the article, about which one can address by putting tags on the article, or, by editing the article. This AFD discussion includes several sources not in the article, which I think add to establishing Dahlstrom's notability. You keep addressing the current article alone. I don't have to pitch the current article as being publication-worthy to an editor; i am just saying there appears to be sources establishing this person has some importance. There are more hits in lit searches than I have specifically listed here, too. Again, thank you for your continuing consideration. Cheers, --do ncr am 04:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources establishing notability?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being an unelected candidate for political office is not a claim of notability that gets a person past
WP:POLITICIAN
, so the fact that she ran (and lost) as a Green Party candidate is irrelevant to her notability.

The thing about IMDb is that it's acceptable for
user-edited content site, it is possible (and indeed fairly common) for the information in an IMDb profile to be incorrect in some way or other — which is why IMDb is accepted as an external link on articles about people in film, but not as a reference for the content of our article. And similarly, no other simple directory of film credits — not even if it's on The New York Times
website — constitutes inherent evidence of notability either, because it's still just a directory and doesn't provide substantive coverage.

And as for the awards listed at IMDb, it warrants mention that a person only gets an automatic presumption of notability if she wins a major film award (i.e. Oscars, BAFTAs, Genies, Cannes) — if she's merely nominated for one, then genuinely substantive media coverage still has to be there, and the mere presence of her name in a list of the nominees is not sufficient sourcing. And if she wins a minor film award such as a "best short at a relatively minor film festival", then that doesn't constitute a valid claim of notability either. So the only thing on that IMDb profile that might get her over the bar is the Genie nomination for WP:CREATIVE if the only source you can add for it is the IMDb profile itself, and not real coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per past outcomes; producers rarely pass through AfD without being deleted. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

List of number-one Hot 100 Airplay hits

List of number-one Hot 100 Airplay hits (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)

Also nominating the following lists:

List of number-one Billboard Mainstream Top 40 hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Billboard number-one Rhythmic hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just serves as a navigation tool when
Mainstream Top 40, and Template:Rhythmic Top 40 and Rhythmic (chart). Other navigation is provided by Template:Billboard. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete "List of number-one Hot 100 Airplay hits" seems to do the same as "Hot 100 Airplay number-one singles".
talk) 09:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per above. ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 18:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. <–Davey2010 • (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:CLT. That a list is redundant to a navbox isn't a good reason for deletion. These lists essentially serve the same purpose as disambiguation pages and complement other ways of organising the articles. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Disambiguation pages don't have similar navboxes at the bottom of each of the related articles, therefore there is no additional aid in navigation not already being served by the navboxes in these cases. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 21:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_June_20&oldid=1142628497"