Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 1 November 3 November >

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 Technical close. AfD has been redirected and closed, but this still shows up in "old AfDs needing closure". Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. REDIRECT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Underground Storyteller
  • From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.
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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Trotter

Jake Trotter (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 doesn't meet any of notability guidelines for biographical articles. Rotten regard 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 00:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 00:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

There's nothing wrong with the first batch, but here are some additional references.

  1. Rock Chalk Nation provides references as an expert
  2. Sports Radio 560 interviews Jake Trotter for his expertise
  3. Ty Hildenbrandt & Dan Rubenstein Big 12 Preview with Jake Trotter
  4. Dallas Morning News quotes Jake Trotter as an expert on the Big 12
  5. OklahomaSports.com talks with Jake Trotter on the subject of Big 12 football
  6. LandThieves reviews Jake Trotter's book Why I Love Oklahoma & Hate Texas with excerpt
  7. KFOR News Channel 4 Quotes Jake Trotter on Ben Grogan's successful field goal during an eqrthquake
  8. The Lost Ogle article on The Oklahoman's newspaper writers going to ESPN, including Jake Trotter
  9. Sooner Nation interviews Jake Trotter
  10. Tulsa World Provides links to Jake Trotter's ESPN story base
  11. West Virginia Mountaineers interview with Jake Trotter
  12. Eer Sports ESPN's Jake Trotter Picks West Virginia to Upset Baylor
  13. WIBW mentions Jake Trotter as a topic expert
  14. Cincinati.com Interviews Jake Trotter as an expert

Some of those are "just fan blogs" but many are news sources (like WIBW and KFOR and Tulsa World and Cincinati.com) and many in-between. There are thousands more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:49, 3 November 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. Nom withdrawn. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Granat (Boxer)

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 boxer, does not come close to meeting either

WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out he's a two-time gold-winner in the Swedish Championship, too. I added references to state radio, two national newspapers, and one major regional newspaper. Stamboliyski (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work with the digging AND updating the article. Clearly meets
WP:GNG. I would now say Keep.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:32, 6 November 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. It appears the article has undergone some improvements since this AFD was started, and two of the four sources cited do provide sufficient coverage, giving more weight to the 'keep' arguments here. Even if I closed this as "no consensus" the status quo (the article continuing to exist) would remain. ~

talk) 20:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Paynes Poppets

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 have been questioning whether this deserved a Wikipedia article for ages - not since reading the article, since buying the product in my local Farmfoods. What clinched checking for me was seeing it linked from Toffifee, which is now being advertised in the UK. At best this is of questionable factual accuracy (their pisspoor excuse of a website refutes the claims that this they are now known as Toffifee and that their offices are in Croydon), at worst this is of very questionable notability. If this ends in delete, I will also be AfDing Toffifee. Launchballer 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 00:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Passing mentions"? I've read this somewhere... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those refs now added to the article are substantial, reliable and third party - pretty much ending this afd as a meaningful discussion. Szzuk (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense; GNG is "has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources". The Daily Mail does not provide additional margin.--Launchballer 21:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think the Daily Mail is a reliable source, will you be taking Zinoviev letter to AfD as well? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose merging to Fox's. Notability for these would seem founded on their longevity: yet they've only been part of Fox's for the last decade. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs improvement but it has references, and has been around over 70 years (and I remember them from 30 years ago). I'm surprised the proposer picked on these first, rather than on Toffifee which is a much weaker article (less information, less history, younger product). KylieTastic (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much worse product, as well, but I don't like nuts and
Family Guy: The Movie) and apparently it is pronounced Toffifee, and decided that my judgment was too clouded at the time to make a level-headed decision. I did say I was only going to AfD Toffifee if this was deleted but if you are suggesting that Toffifee is more likely to end up in delete, are you suggesting that I AfD regardless of the outcome of this?--Launchballer 19:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I wouldn't say I was "suggesting that".. you .. "AfD regardless of the outcome of this", but I would say it is unrelated and a much stronger case. The only thing that give me pause is it has a surprising number of edits from such a non article! I certianly would not have voted keep on Toffifee, and probably would vote 'Weak delete' (not that I poke around AfD as much as I probably should) - Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. Even if it results in a keep, the AfD will almost certainly result in cleanup. The encyclopedia benefits either way.--Launchballer 19:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 01:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

François Frossard

François Frossard (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 about a Miami based architect and designer, written by a single-issue editor, with no independent/reliable sources. Despite an online search I can find no evidence to back up the claim of being leader of a movement. Frossard seems to be involved in the interior design and revamp of nightclubs and resorts which hasn't brought him a high profile. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 26 October 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, czar 
♔ 21:54, 2 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kuay Teow Kua Gai

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 recipe, not an encyclopedia article. I PROD'd this originally, but the author de-PROD'd it without explanation. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oilzayo22820. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 October 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, Dennis - 2¢ 17:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dennis Brown, and others: First off and on a point of order, I have not been able to find where policy disallows articles on food provided they are duly referenced according to guidelines and I have added a couple of cats. That said, the article should certainly be rewritten so as not to appear as a simple 'how to' recipe, and the author given to understand how to (pun?) write for Wikipedia.
This is a very common, simple Thai fried chicken noodle dish, and Thai cuisine is generally made up of hundreds, if not thousands, of minor variations of just a few dozen basic dishes. When I say common, I mean as in baked-beans-on-toast for the Brits, so there is nothing particularly outstanding about it meaning that the Thais would probably not bother to make an entry for it in the Thai Wikipedia. There are dozens of Thai language GHITS for it. Keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 27 October 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, czar 
♔ 21:43, 2 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Mosley Jr.

Shane Mosley Jr. (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 boxer doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Rotten regard 21:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamzah Adnan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator, because they did not understand the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mohsin Ashour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Taketa: - the fact that the closing admin of a previous AFD seemingly ignored the fact that two articles were bundled into one AFD is an issue you should raise with that admin - it should not prevent further bundling. GiantSnowman 13:04, 3 November 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. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of the Tonga people (Africa)

AfDs for this article:
Bibliography of the Tonga people (Africa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · of the Tonga people (Africa) Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic, Not a single reference or citation, Stand alone list

What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, cannot and will not be improved, AS a large totally unsourced lengthy-unconsise list it Lacks notability of lists Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. Wikipeida does have many bibliographies and lists that are justified for inclusion, these lists are generally short, they have citations, they point back to ISBN and equivalents, and many times they have been used to support Wikipedia articles, this list has no meaning because it lacks organization, it is face-value-unattributed-information that cannot be organized, this list is also original research. A small list of important works on this could be included, there is no way to find out which are the notable books for inclusion without conducting extensive research on the subject. The list appears to be an entire library catalog that has been copied from some unknown source, or is original research. Sometimes having less information provides more information, quality vs. quantity. Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you have a list of hundreds of entries without any citation or differentiation, the list itself is meaningless. Please review the list and do a search above for "find sources," and you will see that the article is unsupportable.. Did you read the list, look at the entry, and do a find sources? --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough support to include only those entries that are independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
WP:NOTESAL-- Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
From
WP:LISTN
: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
Whereas lists of examples which are not intended to be complete, like a list of bands or a list of alumni, are almost always limited to notable entries, that's not an absolute for lists -- and bibliographies are a good example of when that's simply not the case.
As with all AfDs based on notability (and this addresses some of your comments elsewhere, too) -- sources do not have to be cited in the article, but only need to exist for something to be considered notable, and it's the
responsibility of the nominator
to have searched for them before nominating. The question here is whether a bibliography of the Tonga people is notable, which would require the existence of sources that consider collective works about the Tonga people (other bibliographies, for example).
Sources: Tonga: A New Bibliography; [taken from the biblio itself] Turner, Beryl. 1983. Bibliography of the Kafue Flats. University of Zambia: Kafue Basin Research Committee.; A Bibliography of Fiji, Tonga, and Rotuma, Tonga bibliography at everyculture.com, AnthroGlobe Bibliography: Bibliography of Tonga, Encyclopedia of the Nations - Tonga bibliography, Tonga Timeline, Tonga section of An International Bibliography of African Lexicons, Ida Emily Leeson bibliographical notes, Bibliography of Tonga focused on Mormonism, huge bibliography at anu.edu.au....
Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies has more information. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles, Just which of the hundreds of random entries are notable? This list is meaningless. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You of course have the option to improve the entry to counter the concern.Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undergraduate Student Dissertation, illustrative why the hundreds of items listed within are not notable.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this has dialogue has
run its course. See above. Individual items' notability has no bearing on AfD. Might be a good idea to prune some, sure, but that's irrelevant here. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:14, 3 November 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 deckertalk 16:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian stone-throwing

Palestinian stone-throwing (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 simply a neologisms, just a collection of random sources. We could just as well have an article on Israeli child killing, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 21:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Jinkinson just actually redirected your fictionally-illustratively-absurd-link which rightly points out the absurdity of this topic to the more neutral and inclusive Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, do you want a large picture or a detail? Not redirecting it would encourage its creation at some later date.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Palestinian Stone-throwing is not a neologism.ShulMaven (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also wanted to add to my previous commentary that there are many sources. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Palestinians, see Gaza Strip, definitely use asymmetric tactics to cast themselves falsely as the victim through the absorption of collateral damage (unnecessary loss of civilian life). This information exists elsewhere and is redundant. There are other concerns with this article that need to be addressed including the use of Wikipedia as a platform for special-interest. These may be news stories, and opinions, but they need not be included in an encyclopedia. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:NPOVN, but that shouldn't matter to AfD. Likewise an analysis or opinion on the tactic/phenomenon itself is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is whether it is sufficiently covered in reliable sources. If there are sufficient news stories, that and not the opinion of our editors, determines what's included in the encyclopedia. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Redundant to the many entries that relate to this contentious topic. This is a subset of information already covered in at least SEVEN! existing Wikipeida articles based on a Google Search.22:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk)
Which? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian stone-throwing" site:en.wikipedia.org --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, because here is the lede to Stoning: "Stoning, or lapidation, is a form of capital punishment whereby a group throws stones at a person until death ensues." An entirely different topic.ShulMaven (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because: Palestinian stone-throwing, a phenomenon closely associated with the
    First Palestinian Intifada], has been the subject of scholarly analysis in the among students of the Arab-Israeli conflict, of the development of Palestinian identity, and of asymmetric warfare. In addition, of course, to being part of the conflict itself. See not only the extensive list of articles that link to this article, but the number of articles by contemporary journalists dedicated to the topic, of which Amira Hass' Inner syntax of Palestinian stone-throwing [5] is perhaps the most iconic.ShulMaven (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
-as mentioned it is adequately an redundantly covered elsewhere per your find on the
First Palestinian Intifada] above.. perhaps we should throw stones at Wikipedia so the same things can be said many times in many venues.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
no because: Palestinian stone throwing is ongoing phenom, not confined to First IntifadaShulMaven (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
as mentioned it can be found 'at least SEVEN TIMES', the consensus seems to be keep so I am sure the article will be kept.. Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The argument by ShulMaven is completely correct, and this subject is not confined to the First Intifada and clearly deserves its own article. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess then Stone-throwing by undercover Israeli combatants should soon be an article, too? Interesting subject, no? Huldra (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there are 9,470 hits for "Palestinian stone throwing" (+wikipedia). Guess what: there are 211 000 google-hits for "kill the Arabs" (+wikipedia). Lots of international reports about crowds in Jlem and Tel Aviv shouting it. I guess Kill the Arabs! will be your next article, then? Huldra (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Ghits are indeed not a good measure of notability. What is a good measure is the amount of coverage the subject gets in reliable sources, and as demonstrated above that coverage exists. "Kill the Arabs" is a phrase rather than a concept, and Palestinian stone-throwing is not a
    run of the mill activity such that you could put any group of people before "stone-throwing" and find sources talking about it as a subject (not just using the phrase). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:29, 3 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael B. Stewart (soccer player)

Michael B. Stewart (soccer player) (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:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 20:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 20:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 3 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Mendiola

Alexis Mendiola (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 20:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 20:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 3 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend in a Coma (TV series)

AfDs for this article:
Girlfriend in a Coma (TV series) (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 are no notable sources stating that the show has been ordered to series and the twiiter account referenced for the series order is not an official one. Babar Suhail (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 21:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 21:12, 2 November 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. WilyD 10:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biggar Road

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

There is no point on having a VERY short article about a not well known hamlet in North Lanarkshire. The article has an infobox with some details, but that's about it. No matter how much information could be found about Biggar Road, it is still a waste of time to have an article on it.

talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: We will need to decide whether Biggar Road should be deleted or kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 19:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. Or perhaps redirect to Cleland, North Lanarkshire, IF someone can document that Biggar Road is a sub-settlement of the village of Cleland. Note the Cleland article does not support that yet...the Cleland article mentions Biggar Road as a street like other streets that it mentions, not as any settlement. The Keep vote argument by User:Sammy1339 above seems to be invalid, because they cite from wp:NPLACE about places having a legally recognized government, which Biggar Road apparently does not have. --doncram 00:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yes, striking that comment about deleting List of United Kingdom locations: Bi. I wasn't serious about that. I am actually a big supporter / past developer of list-articles...they help a lot, including by serving as good places to redirect not-separately-notable items to, often. --doncram 01:59, 3 November 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kool-Aid Point

The Kool-Aid Point (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)

My own concern is that this is in violaton of

VeryCrocker (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demonization of United States

Demonization of United States (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)

Intrinsically POV title and unnecessary POV split from Anti-Americanism. Over the top highly POV piece of non-encyclopedic original research which relies on synthesis of sources. Also a WP:COATRACK created to make a political WP:POINT as part of some propaganda war. Demonization is not even a neutral term. Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. I nominated this article for deletion based on the opinion of multiple other editors. I am uncertain if they are right, but I hope that getting opinion from more editors will result with consensus grounded in wikipedia policies. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-The article is framed as a "propaganda tactic or strategy" and it is a visible dynamic in China and elsewhere. The first paragraph of Anti-Americanism contrasts sharply whereby anti-Americanism is not a consistent phenomenon whereas this dynamic is a consistent matter of state policy. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 3 November 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 'keep' proponents (primarily single-purpose accounts) failed to advance any argument grounded in Wikipedia policy. No objection to restoring the article in the event that the book garners significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. ~

talk) 20:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Compendium Traditional Catechism

Compendium Traditional Catechism (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 have not found any reference that could prove the notability of this book. The references provided in the article itself, except for a link to the Amazon page of the product, do not cite the book at all. I've opened this AfD discussion to ascertain whether the book is notable enough to deserve an article in Wikipedia. LowLevel73(talk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you obsessed with Deliting this Post?? You also Erased my prior comments!!! Why? Why are you so interested in deleting this post??--Aroniel2 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Book is new, less than one year old. Still several Cardinals and Bishops have it, including Cardinal Burke. This book is having great success in England where conservative Anglicans are moving back to the Catholic Church. PLEASE do not listen to LowLevel 173!! He or she is just Obsesed!! This book is the Cathechism with guidance and commentary from EXTREMELY important people including Popes, Cardinals, etc, etc. --Aroniel2 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HERE GOOGLE BOOK: http://books.google.com.af/books?id=CZoHAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA443&dq=Traditional+Catechism+Rifan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_t5gVLuNDrGv7AbduYGgCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Traditional%20Catechism%20Rifan&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.27.56.177 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Cjscafe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjscafe (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE. This Catechism is an oasis of sound traditional Catholic doctrine as it was always meant to be. With all the confusion going on the Church today, works like this help concerned Catholics maintain and nurture their faith, and provides the necessary apologetical tools to respond to the Kaspers and LowLevels173 bent on destroying our Faith.
— Edcruzwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edcruzwiki (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sign that it is notable - no reference to actual work outside Amazon link. If the importance actually met the claim on both the article and here you would expect outside references. Similarity of name would suggest the article author is the book author so clear
    conflict of interest on the importance of the work. Also these 1 post 'keep' votes look like puppets, as does the single Amazon review. KylieTastic (talk) 18:47, 11 November 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) Dwaipayan (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Shahid Syed Nazrul Islam Medical College

Shahid Syed Nazrul Islam Medical College (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)

per

talk) 16:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. The medical college is not recently established. It was established three years ago,back in 2011. The article should be kept. I am trying to add more relevant information and references to the article. Thanks.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Bootle

Heidi Bootle (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, looks like a resume, her highest posting is consul general, ambassadors are not inherently notable, let alone consuls. LibStar (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 November 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 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taiddan

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

Unsourced and orphan since creation in 2008. No evidence of any notability. Was PRODded, then de-PRODded by the original creator without comment or article improvement. PamD 09:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 10:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 10:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 10:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to BBC controversies. No consensus for outright deletion but not considered a notable topic in its own right.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Females in BBC Panel Shows

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

PROD removed by article creator. I'm pretty sure this could be merged somewhere, but this topic simply isn't independently notable. There are a few sources in the article, but I don't feel that this warrants an article (we don't even have an article on "BBC Panel show").

csdnew 09:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Rhododendrites, I striked those words, which I wrote because the title did not look like a very reasonable topic for a Wikipedia article. After having a look at your sources, I decided to strike them. I will try to read those references in detail, when I have some time, then I may improve my standing. Thank you for the sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will find extensive media coverage on just about every issue regarding the BBC, that does not mean there should be an article for every issue. I feel the subject would be better served inside an article about the BBC and not as a standalone. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Relisted so Sandstein's ideas and other ideas can be explored. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 14:09, 2 November 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. Procedural keep as a bad faith nomination by a sock puppet. Non admin closure. Szzuk (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Edwards (composer)

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Bristolbottom (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
This is one of a long list of AfD nominations of alumni of Bedford Modern School, mostly on the grounds of "just not notable". This recently knitted account has done nothing else. These nominations have no merit - many laughably so. It is not a positive contribution to the encyclopedia to simply trawl through a category and mindlessly tag each and every article for deletion in the hope that some of them stick. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete There's absolutely nothing that makes this person notable. Looks like just another exercise in self-promotion. Snowgoose07 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC) — Snowgoose07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In your brief history here at WP, you've taken rather an unusual interest in Bristolbottom's AfDs. You share a similarly unconvincing line in "But he's just not notable" rhetoric. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepNotability in his field is established by his inclusion in the ‘Dictionary of Composers for the Church in Great Britain and Ireland’ and the 'International Who's Who in Music and Musicians' Directory. I have added these references to the article and deleted the reference to ‘photographing busses and coaches’ which I suspect is an act of vandalism and, in any case, doesn’t contribute to it. Edwards has made a huge contribution to England’s fine tradition and excellence in choral music. This deletion seems like Wikipedia:I just don't like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altoforchurchmusic (talk • contribs) 08:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the buses - they're in the original creation of this article by Hikitsurisan. People do have hobbies outside music. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 4 November 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. → Call me

21 20:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Julie Umerle

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

Notability template removed without any improvement so I'll raise this to the Wikipedia community to decide. There's currently no hard proof of notability here (the best source is an exhibition catalogue, which is barely independent, and a very brief article about two of her paintings in New York). True, she has received several grants from the Arts Council, which can be seen as evidence they treat her as a serious artist. There are several single purpose accounts that have worked on this article, suggesting there may be promotion going on. Artist has an unusual name so you would think reviews and news coverage would be easy to find. I'm not convinced Umerle meets

WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per

WP:CSD#G4. Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Mahika Sharma

Mahika Sharma (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)

Recently discussed and deleted article re-made and my speedy delete tag removed by the creator of the article. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk) i remove the tag and i dnt create the page... We are hardcore fans of [Mahika Sharma] google her and read about her.. please stop creating issues. Man beter you enjoy your life bothering others. The page have maximum links to survive...

and remember I am not the creator of the page...

  • please dont delete the page..
  • Could an administrator kindly sanction this personal attack by the SPA? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • dear [[User:why should I Have a user name? (talk) do i disturb or try to trouble in ur updates soo its irritating me than too sorry i dnt wish to hurt you.. but please let the page be alive. Hope you dont mind it. Take care and enjoy your changes and updates. Godbless you.
  • page Mahika Sharma should not deleted please look her links on google its notable.
  • WP:TOOSOON. Regarding your attitude of insulting this user and repeatedly removing AfD tags while it is clearly noted on them that they should not be removed, I hope will attract the attention of one or the other of our administrators and you will be warned -and I guess- blocked. While blocked learn at least how to sign your talk and a few other useful details. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:44, 2 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Cyprus

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

Not notable title on an unnecessary list with only three items, of which none is called a war and only one (1974) can be considered as such. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose:
  • Please oppose whatever you wish but be reasonable. Our Cyprus article is about a country independent since 1960 and even if you count that conflict, battle or whatever in 1964 as a "war" (it is not a war) then we have only 2 (two) items. Better save your energy to make other lists or developing other articles. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reply to my previous question, so change from "Comment" to "Keep". It seems a valid list-article topic. It is arguable whether many previous conflicts that involved states that included Cyprus should be included or not, or whether it should be kept limited to wars since Cyprus became separate, but that debate is for Talk page of article. I previously asked: Question: Can this be a section within
    Modern history of Cyprus? Maybe it does not need to be split out as a separate list-article. If it is a section there, or in Cyprus or another article, it can still be linked from the templates "List of wars involving European countries" and/or "List of wars involving Asian countries". --doncram 17:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • We don't even have an article on the Island, but one on the Republic formed there in 1960. Look at other Wikipedias and you will see that many of them -some with much less contributors- do have the separate island article. Better use your time to write that article, because in this Wikipedia the island and the republic are used as one. When you add there a war in say 1938, will it be about the Republic of Cyprus which is used interchangeably here with Cyprus? Do we have a list of wars for example in which Crete or Rhodes were involved? I am sure the island of Rhodes has seen as many wars but we write these lists based on states, not geographically. Do you have examples that go against my words, please show me. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the list is not deleted and you expand it -as I understand you intend to- please don't forget to add the Flag of Cyprus in every war where Cyprus was involved... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Because history is important, Turkish history is very important these days see South Syria and the Ottoman Empire, ISIS, Greece and others. This is one of the rare Wikipeida articles that is actually concerned with fact. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We all know history is important. Do you have any serious argument supporting your keep vote? Please don't remind me again that history is important, say new things. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 3 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Mentillo

Doc Mentillo (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:GNG and effectively an unsourced BLP. Most likely selfpromo. Copy Chris Mentillo of the same author is already redirected. The Banner talk 23:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 23:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 23:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, looks like a

WP:MUSBIO. Article claims that the subject has won a writing award in the lead section, but in the body it fails to acknowledge an award at all. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, we should let Carbon0902 fix it first, apparently it wasn't ready to go live. But if it doesn't get userfyed, turned into a Draft, or et cetera, the previous statement on deletion remains true. ----Mr. Guye (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Guye. I wish to thank you thus far for taking the time to help rectify this article in question. In addition, I'm pleased to see that you've taken the appropriate measurements to properly make informed decisions on the issues at hand, before executing any kind of deletion for this article. Seriously, you are the kind of professional we need more of here on wikipedia - literally. To many editors, etc in my opinion, are far too quick to pull the trigger regarding deleting articles which show obvious potential for improvement - given they are allowed ample amount of time to make such revisions; Thus is the case with this article. With my right hand on the bible, and God as my witness, I swear to you Mr. Guye there is no duplicate users, and this article was never meant to be submitted live for inclusion, simply because it was still being worked on. I assure you this was an honest mistake on my part, and so I now ask of you to please adopt me an help me reinstate the article to no longer be considered for deletion. I've already made some accepted revisions on the article for which I had planned on doing before accidentally making the article live. Additionally, I will be making more corrections for which you recommended, and indeed plan on doing whatever else is necessary in making the article acceptable for wikipedia inclusion. But I do need more time to properly finish my research on Mr. Mentillo to make the proper changes. I will be more than happy to make the suggested changes you mentioned to correct the problem. Thank you, and God Bless. --Carbon0902 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deleted "award-winning writer," until proof of claim is properly referenced. Need additional time to reinstate claim. Also think external links should be removed. --Carbon0902 (talk) 03:36, 30 October 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,  Sandstein  10:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn as he won the election before the discussion was closed. Sourcing and content updates are needed, however. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Obernolte

Jay Obernolte (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. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat — but in the meantime this is effectively a campaign brochure, which is exactly the kind of article that Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians are designed to weed out. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 23:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 23:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Google Scholar gets a whopping five hits, of which three are archives of the university newspaper at the university he graduated from (not a source that can confer
notability) and the other two are just cursory, non-substantive passing mentions. Basic Google search brings up his own campaign literature and social networking links; Google News search brings up campaign coverage and nothing else. So if he's notable for anything other than being a smalltown mayor and an unelected assembly candidate, it would help immeasurably if you'd actually explain and properly source something he's notable for. Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bearcat: Go ahead and take a look at the recent reliable sources I added to the page, of which don't deal with his campaign. Perhaps this article or this article are notable and deserve mentioning in the BLP, giving Obernolte more notability.
Below are some of the reliable sources I added (none touching on his campaign):
Still not notable? How many RS are you wanting? Meatsgains (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
primary source
. And Pilot Journal is only covering him in the context of the private plane.
So none of those sources demonstrate that he warrants an article in an encyclopedia. All they've added is "does martial arts" and "owns a private plane", neither of which is a reason why a person gets an encyclopedia article — so you still haven't demonstrated that he's notable for anything besides being a small-town mayor and unelected candidate. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your explanation and insight. Would the CNN article/event I noted add to his notability or would that fall under
WP:ONEEVENT? Also, he is the Founder and President of FarSight Studios, a video game development studio, which seems notable. It would be my suggestion to postpone deletion until after the election is over. If we wins, we keep the article as a California Assemblyman is notable but if he loses, we can delete the article. What do you think? Meatsgains (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The CNN articles still wouldn't really help — he's not their subject, but is merely quoted briefly commenting on the thing that is. The video game studio might certainly get him over our inclusion standards for businesspeople, but leading a company doesn't automatically get a person into Wikipedia either — what would be necessary is significant reliable source coverage in which the video game company itself is the substance of what he's getting covered for. (Mentioning it as background in coverage of the candidacy doesn't satisfy that.)
One other thing it's important to understand about AFD is that a deletion result here is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have a Wikipedia article — it's merely a judgement on the specific version of the article that exists at the time of the discussion. If we delete an article about an unelected candidate, and then he goes on to win the election in the end, then his basic notability claim has changed and a new article about him is allowed to be recreated again. If we delete a promotional PR-kit article about a musician who has yet to actually release his first album, but then once he finally does release the album it turns into a big hit and makes him a major celebrity who gets lots of press coverage, then he does get to have an article again. People's basic notability claims can change, the availability of sourcing about them can change, and on and so forth — and if those things happen, then you can start a new article about them again regardless of what AFD has done in the past (the only thing you're not allowed to do is recreate the same version without improving the sourcing or the notability claim.)
And we even have the ability to restore previously deleted articles, so even the work that's already been done here isn't going to be permanently lost if the article does need to be recreated after the election. So we don't postpone consideration of articles about unelected candidates until after the election is over, because deleting it today doesn't preclude recreation or restoration in the future if circumstances change. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 29 October 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 25 October 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,  Sandstein  10:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait or Redirect to article about election per
    WP:POLITICIAN
    , therefore I suggest we wait 24 hours before making any decisions.
As for the links above No Regrets, it is produced by a
significant coverage. The one that is significant coverage is the interview from NintendoLife, but one interview does not make for notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Appears the subject will likely be meeting
WP:POLITICIAN (66.2% of the vote with 14.4% of precinct reporting as of this post), therefore this AfD will be moot soon, and thus the article should be keeped.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, it looks like he won after all and I'm accordingly withdrawing this nomination. That said, however, the article still needs to be rewritten to put the
weight and the referencing where it belongs — as of right now, two full days after the election results were announced, it still says he's a candidate rather than the member-elect. And also, just for the record, in the future please don't make speculative presumptions based on where the vote stands after just 16.6 per cent of the ballots have been counted; leads can flip as more of the results are tabulated — it has actually really happened, believe it or not, that the person who was trailing at 99.9 per cent of the vote count actually flipped into the lead in the final 0.1 per cent. So just because a person happens to be leading at any given point during the count doesn't necessarily always mean they're guaranteed to win. It doesn't kill anyone on here to wait until all 100 per cent of the votes have been counted. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Air Cargo Carriers Flight SNC-1290

Air Cargo Carriers Flight SNC-1290 (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 accident - wheel fires on aircraft are not that uncommon and rarely of note. (Note - Proposed Deletion removed by article creator) MilborneOne (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this article allowed so anyone on the Shorts 360 page can link to this one for more details and photos. Samf4u 22:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samf4u (talk • contribs) Samf4u 22:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 November 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. ~

talk) 20:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Matchday Live

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. Original deletion rationale remains valid - there is no evidence of notability. It's a "show" but the article is so poor you can't even tell if it's radio or TV...FYI it's radio but that's pretty much the only source I can find about it! GiantSnowman 09:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: People who are saying they don't know whether if it's radio or TV, they can search the internet and add according to it rather than blaming the creator(which was me). If you want to know the Premier League produces the show before and after the live televised premier league games. I just added one article to such a vast Encyclopedia having thousands articles about various television shows. So I don't see any harm in keeping it. --Sammanhumagain (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As per nominator, no evidence of notability, why should we have this article? I cant see any reason to keep it. You cant say that other articles exist as argument,

WP:OTHERSTUFF. QED237 (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough to have an article. I added a category, but still could not tell if it is a radio nor TV show. If readers have to "google" to find that answer, this article fails inclusion. — Wyliepedia 21:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no indication of notability. Fenix down (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neither the creator or anyone else has added any references to show notability just stating (above) "they can search the internet" - if people are expected to have to search out the information for themselves no point in having the article that adds no real value. Most of the 'information' appears to be covered on John Dykes - would suggest the creator (or any other interested parties) add more on that page. KylieTastic (talk) 18:22, 11 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen puabi dna

Queen puabi dna (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)

Almost incomprehensible, Written like an essay, NPOV violations

talk) 07:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Zehl

Ryan Zehl (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)

Lack of significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, per

WP:BIO. A whole bunch of junk sources or trivial coverage. The article was recently CSDed (I was the nominator) and recently resurrected by an SPA. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is what every other lawyer would have on their page. Not notable above and beyond typical lawyer non-notability. VVikingTalkEdits 02:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - litigating some of the US's most successful law suits makes you notable, and atypical of the normal lawyer. No, not every single lawyer wins multi-million dollar cases against some of the most recognizable American brands. Fundraising maniac wonder (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC) — Fundraising maniac wonder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dear Fundraising maniac wonder: you have made exactly one WP edit, and it is the the !vote above. With more experience on WP, your view might be better received. It's actually more fun doing edits than arguing over deletions, so I encourage you to do that. Also, remember to sign your posts! The instructions are right the on the screen under the edit box, and you just have to click. LaMona (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entire article came in whole-cloth from a single SPA author Special:Contributions/Ebarr_94. The remaining few edits were routine bots and cleanup. It is defended by a no-edit account. It is, however, only 7 days old at this point. This is an unusual article history - born complete, no additional edits, SPA account. Unless someone with cred comes along to defend it, I'm going to go with delete. LaMona (talk) 19:09, 8 November 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. For a while, I was wondering if no consensus to delete made more sense here, since there are some reasonable arguments to merge this into

arab spring. But, then I looked at Talk:Arab_Winter#Merge_to_Arab_spring. That ongoing discussion clearly rules out any idea of a merge. Taking that sentiment into account here, a clear keep consensus becomes obvious. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Arab Winter

Arab Winter (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 term “Arab Winter” has been used in a few sources, as a counter-play on the widely used term “Arab Spring”, but I don’t think the term has risen to the level of notability to warrants its own article. The majority of the current article is just

WP:OR, in which some editors have complied a list of countries in a table, to illustrate what they believe is part of an “Arab Winter”, while the sources used do not mention this term at all. Some of the relevant material in the article has already been merged into the Arab Spring article, where I believe it belongs. If this term "sticks" and becomes notably used, the article can easily be recreated at that time. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Sandel

Warren Sandel (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 former minor league baseball player. Claim to fame is "giving up the first base hit to Jackie Robinson who broke professional baseball's color barrier in 1946" while playing in the minor leagues, which is trivial. Despite article's assertions, he never played at the major league level in a regular season or postseason game. Alex (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the article's author, I'm a bit biased, but also confused by the claim that he is a "non-notable minor league player", actually he is notable that's why he has been discussed in the NY Times, Chicago Tribune and mainstream books. Fascinating human interest story.EdJF (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of pitchers gave up lots of Hall of Famers' first professional hits. Alex (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect they all have a Wikipedia article. If not I'd be willing to start.EdJF (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you really comparing the first hit in breaking the color barrier in baseball with just any old first professional hit by a Hall-of-Famer to be? In any case, this hit got lots more attention than a typical future Hall-of-Famer-to-be's first hit, both at the time and later. Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Be honest...how many of us had heard of Sandel before this AfD? Outside of it being a matter of trivia, there is really nothing of note about Sandel's "feat". Especially considering Robinson wasn't even the first black major league player. Alex (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Spanneraol and the fact that Sandel got plenty of attention for giving up that historic hit. Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Sandel has received attention and coverage for other events, even though those on their own without the big one may not be enough to meet
WP:GNG. For example, [7] [8] Rlendog (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
What is he notable for? It seems like for only one event. The other coverage does not seem to establish notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ONEEVENT doesn't require "notability" for multiple events. He has received coverage in reliable sources for more than just this event and was not a "low profile" individual so
WP:BLP1E is not applicable. Rlendog (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:03, 2 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Past Comes Back to Haunt You

Your Past Comes Back to Haunt You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable album. No charting. No reviews. No sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 9 October 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 16:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I agree with the nominator: not notable. Recent references and reviews are not from reliable sources--a few mentions/reviews in some ezines/websites aren't sufficient. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 24 October 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 25 October 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, MBisanz talk 04:56, 2 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Petrick

Charlotte Petrick (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)

Player in question does not meet notability requirements as outlined here. Does not meet any of the six possible criteria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkwb92 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 25 October 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 04:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Shark City Scandal

The Shark City Scandal (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)

extremely small set of incidents, nowhere near a notable scandal, infecting an election cycle. the incident is NOT referred to by this name. some concern about BLP violations in a marginally notable/nonnotable article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:29, 25 October 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 04:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to not yet come close to
    WP:EVENT, lacking coverage with geographic scope, lasting effects, or evidence of persistent coverage. I'm a resident of the city, and there may be something I need to get up at arms as a voter in the city about it, but I don't see that this yet meets our notability criterion. Moreover, if we were to ever have an article about this, it needs a new name, "2014 blah blah blah controversy" or the like, there is no reliable sourcing for this name at all, and as a result, the article comes off as trying to sell a viewpoint. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus.

Jim Carter 12:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Riley "Special" Wallace

Riley "Special" Wallace (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 is a local musician in Toronto and does not seem notable. References provided consist primarily of bloggers who mention the subject incidentally. The "Get Ready To Strike" song (the article subject's primary claim to notability) on youtube has less than 13000 views. Niado (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 17 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 05:59, 25 October 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 04:36, 2 November 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, based both on this discussion and on the deletion review. My reading of consensus is that we are missing

reliable sources to confirm notability, but in principle these sources can exist. Therefore, if anybody is interested in working on the article, it can be userfied on request.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Samantha Brennan

Samantha Brennan (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. I'm willing to withdraw this if the substance and sourcing can actually be beefed up to properly demonstrate her notability as an academic, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:27, 25 October 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 04:33, 2 November 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 but consider it a

talk) 20:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Dawn Swiderski

Dawn Swiderski (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 art director. She isn't mentioned on any of the films she has worked on and she was only nominated for an excellence award - she didn't win it. Gbawden (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not much information about her in regular sweeps of US news, international media, entertainment-related media, but there is a mention of her in this book, plus a long list of her credits here, suggesting she's a respected professional in her field, plus several sentences here, so stepping back a bit, somewhat unfair that the movie stars and directors get the lion's share of attention from journalists, while the real people who make these incredible images, including Dawn Swiderski, don't get enough coverage, so she should be in Wikipedia, but such is life.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:52, 19 October 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, Euryalus (talk) 12:59, 25 October 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 04:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nodalotaluk

Nodalotaluk (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

Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 17:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 October 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 04:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Critical Mach number. "merge usable content".... j⚛e deckertalk 17:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPPER CRITICAL MACH NO

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

We should either delete this as a non-notable science with no independent sources, or merge with existing article Critical Mach number. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammy1339: I like this new proposal, but why not merge to Critical Mach number? --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Guye: Yes, that's what I meant to write. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 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 04:28, 2 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Arem

Valerie Arem (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)

lack of notability Muscat Hoe (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. My sweeps of US newspapers and magazines, entertainment-related publications, and even an unfiltered search based on her name in quotes, plus with her middle initial, turned up nothing, although my guess is she's a competent voice actor, with many projects. General problem is that voice actors don't get much press. Unfortunately, doesn't meet the
    WP:GNG as best as I can determine.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:36, 18 October 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, Dennis - 2¢ 20:17, 25 October 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 04:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG, though as previous editor stated - unfortunately, this may be more about voice actor coverage than the subject's work. EBY (talk) 05:09, 3 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Bonoh Sisay

John Bonoh Sisay (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 individual fails

non-independent or passing mentions.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Biography-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 17 October 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, Dennis - 2¢ 20:36, 25 October 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 04:18, 2 November 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. Noting that the single

WP:MUSIC Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Ebola (Thai band)

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

unsourced fails

WP:BAND. A quick book search retrieved only passing mentions. Widefox; talk 10:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 12:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 12:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I have added some references. The band was an opening act for Linkin Park's 2011 concert in Bangkok as can be seen here (the article is in Thai but you can see the text "Ebola" in there). [11] Non-notable band won't get chance like this. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a couple of the refs added in, one didn't mention the band, one didn't support the text. Can you double check them, and then I'm happy to withdraw nom when you've done that. Widefox; talk 07:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are all in Thai. The only English ref is box office number for the movie that features Ebola's song (it uses pronounced Thai movie name instead of the proper English title). I have to 2 references that are about the movie popularity, not directly related to Ebola's band or song itself. But the band's most well-known song is this movie soundtrack. Music chart performance for the soundtrack, unfortunately is in discussion forum form so I cannot yet include it into article. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) [12] Yes I did that. 1. is a press release so doesn't count for notability [13] , and I don't think 3. does [14]. Can you point out 2
WP:PRIMARY requiring interpretation to make that claim) Widefox; talk 07:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Ban Mueang (paper newspaper), Manager Online (paper+online newspaper), Music Express (music-topic magazine), bangkokbiznews (paper+online business newspaper) are independent sources. Music Express reported the press release event from Warner Music, not the press release itself which can be taken from archive of Warner Music Thailand website. Note that some references like those about movie are there for future article improvement. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Their website, http://www.ebolasound.com/ seems to be either defunct or has become a blog-only site, and
  2. A search for "Ebola band" on the Warner Music, Thailand website yields zero results (hence the dead external link).
So this one is almost a toss-up, but does lean slightly toward a keep, especially with a contributor above who seems to be scrambling to look for more and better reliable sources. Lerdsuwa, I hope you are able to secure them! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS. There may be some useful info at Ebola (band) on the Thai Wikipedia. Curious that "Ebola" on the th wiki redirects to the band, not to the disease as it does here on the en wiki. PS added by – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth, that's not their website, it's in Japanese, not Thai. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Supersaiyen312! As evidenced by research shown below, that website was the Thai band's at one time. I have removed it from the Thai wiki's infobox. And according to the comment below, this band does not appear to fail notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:37, 3 November 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, Dennis - 2¢ 20:37, 25 October 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 04:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The band www.ebolasound.com domain name registration expired some time ago. I have replaced the above link in the article back in 22 October to http://warnermusic.co.th/?page_id=1083 which contains the band social network contact. You haven't looked at the current version of the article. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the archive of www.ebolasound.com from December 2008 https://web.archive.org/web/20051230043409/http://www.ebolasound.com/ which is in Thai. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:42, 3 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zainab Al Habeeb

Zainab Al Habeeb (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 results whatsoever on Google. None at all. When searching, be aware of an unrelated woman named Zainab Al Habib. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the subject started a major conflict, so I think that is a claim to significance. Mr. Guye (talk)
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing
    WP:GNG, unless new sources are found. The one reference is nothing but a memorial by her academic department. She was a physics student (not physician) and it doesn't even list a cause of death, much less anything about a tribal conflict. I can't find any news sources on the incident. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Postal

Jay Postal (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)

Poorly sourced promotional article fails

WP:ANYBIO. Source 1 (MTV Artists) is self-authored "This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form" (sic). Source 2 is a somewhat in-depth post on a specialist website--not enough to establish notability. Source 3 is a self-created video. Source 4 does not mention subject of article. Source 5 only briefly mentions subject of article. Sources 6-8 are just listings, lack independence, and do not establish notability. Note that creator of article User:知的な is a blocked sock from a massive commercial sockfarm. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 26 October 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus.

Jim Carter 12:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Certain Starlights and Fleeting Daybreaks

Certain Starlights and Fleeting Daybreaks (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)

Independent release from a subsequently notable band that failed to achieve notability and is essentially a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 October 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, Dennis - 2¢ 20:42, 25 October 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:53, 2 November 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 Closed to allow nominator to renominate each article separately. The nominator has withdrawn this joint proposal. Bduke (Discussion) 06:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Schools Foundation

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

Non-notable organization which operates a number of for-profit schools. I'm unable to find any significant coverage of the organization or its schools in reliable sources, except for brief announcements and reprinted press releases. The articles rely almost entirely on the organization's website for references. I also note that a major contributor, Ordovas, may have a conflict of interest, as John Ordovas is the organization's director. Pburka (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following member schools:

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
British School of Nanjing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
International School of Moscow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Pburka (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 3 November 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 consensus is to do something with this material other than keeping it as a stand-alone article. If someone wants to merge it somewhere, drop a note on my talk page, and I'll userfy it for him or her. It's already mentioned in List of rogue security software, however, and an extended treatment in Rogue security software would indeed seem to be undue weight, so someone might want just to create a redirect from this title to the list article. Deor (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Police Pro

AfDs for this article:
Windows Police Pro (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)

Most of the article is a

how-to guide (not allowed), does not assert why this malware is notable. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not reflect this alleged notability. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software (rogue antivirus/malware) article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. This article was last afd'ed in 2009, when standards for reliable sources were more lax. The one independent ref is the Bleeping Computer article, a how-to on removal. How-to articles are not generally useful for establishing notability. In any case, one article is not sufficient to establish notability. A search turned up removal how-to's and forum posts but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:50, 23 October 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:31, 25 October 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[[reply]
  • Delete - it is just one of many fake antivirus programs, I don't see a particular notability for this one, it doesn't go about its malicious business any different from the rest. If it were the first, or the first to be spread widely, or the first to target a particular os, or did something unusual (like the one that pretends it's the FBI, claims you have been viewing illegal material, and issues you with a "fine" that must be paid to unlock your computer), then maybe some of that would be enough notability, if there were sources suggesting that. But it seems that there are not such sources, and the bleepingcomputer source says that it is just "from the same family as Windows Antivirus Pro" and came after it. However, maybe its name, and Windows Antivirus Pro, and the names of similar fake antivirus programs should be added to the Rogue security software article.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Rogue security software. It's just one of them run-of-the-mill trojans posing as antivirus software. As what Tiptoe said, unless if it had anything note-worthy or was covered in major news outlets like with WinFixer, I don't think this would be worthy of inclusion, at least for now. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
    reliable sources
    :
    1. Oiaga, Marius (2009-10-15). "Windows Antivirus Pro Tackled by the Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool".
      Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
      .

    2. "Getting rid of malware". Coeur d'Alene Press. 2009-10-11. Archived from the original on 2014-11-11. Retrieved 2014-11-11.

      3. The syndicated "Propeller Heads" column notes:

      You do have malicious software on your computer, and it's called Windows Police PRO. This putrid little program secretly installs itself on your computer and then tries to trick you into purchasing their virus removal tool by reporting bogus viruses.

      Programs like this are classified as malware: a broad category that includes viruses, bots and spyware. Whatever you do, don't fall for the ruse and provide them with your credit card number. If you already have, contact your bank and tell them that you have been scammed. Perhaps they can prevent the charge from going through.

      ...

      Then they will try to trick you into clicking an infected link that will download something like Windows Police PRO on your computer.

    reliable sources to allow Windows Police Pro to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent
    of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Background information about Windows Police Pro could not be merged to Rogue security software without being undue weight. The readers would be best served by having 1) an article about Windows Police Pro and 2) a brief mention of Windows Police Pro in Rogue security software with a link to the Windows Police Pro article if readers want more information about it (for example, its background/history). Cunard (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to quote a portion of the
it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete article because its another brick in the wall of thousands of similar not notable viruses... obviously it got coverage on websides about malware removings same as thousands of other similar not notable viruses... if you want example of notable viruss looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILOVEYOU okay? sorry, its not suiting encyuclopedia topic for standalone article... extraoirdinerily not encyclopedic subject needs extraordinery sourcing this one hasn't it 41.190.36.250 (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  I'm not seeing any policy-based arguments for deletion, and the forum for discussion of merge is the talk page of the article.  Articles don't have to show wp:notability, topics don't have to be "particularly notable", topics don't have to "gain" notability, there are sufficient sources to show that this is not a hoax or something made up by Wikipedia editors, WP:GNG does not exclude "how-to" sources, a previous AfD stipulated the presence of "decent reliable sources" and that article clean-up is not relevant for AfD, articles don't have to be cleaned up because they were previously at AfD, and I only see three "how-to" sentences which is fine if that is the consensus of the article content contributors.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:25, 15 November 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. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of unproduced Disney animated shorts and feature films

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

Trivia. Disney movies that were planned but cancelled are of no importance today. Disney movies that changed the storyline, which some of the movie titles in this list are (e.g. Kingdom of the Sun, which became The Emperor's New Groove) should be featured in the production section of the article about the movie they became (e.g. information about Kingdom of the Sun should be in the production section of The Emperor's New Groove. Georgia guy (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 26 October 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This nomination for deletion of this article seems little strange to me, since Walt Disney was known for halting productions of various project that were in production. If he didn't like script or the plot. Even if the animators worked hard on proposing or comming up with these idea. Walt was hard to please. There have been few books published about these various cancelled projects like "Disney that Never Was" (1995), and most of these unmade storyboards actually exist. Majority of these projects are shorts that would have starred Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy or Pluto which account for about 2/3 of total entries in the article. These four characters are the most notable cartoon characters the Walt Disney Studios created. These shorts would have been created during the golden age of American Animation, which is probably the most noble period in history of american animation. IF Disney hadn't cancelled all of these project his studio's total out closer to ca 700 cartoons form 1928 to 1959 instead of ca 450. The bases for this nomination thus is rather thin. But what the user Luthien22 seems to fail to understands the fact that Walt Disney Studio was built up on a Mouse named Mickey not Snow WHite so if Walt didn't experiment with producing animated shorts prior to 1937 then Walt would never have made Snow White in first place and then there would be no feature animation. He/She probably thinks that Walt Disney Studio has only produced feature animation, or very least what made the Disney name while quite a contrary it were the short most importantly those staring Mickey, then Pluto, Goofy and Donald. Suggesting the deletion of all shorts form the article actually makes this article quite pointless since only pre-1995 features for are properly sited. While most of those "unproduced" shorts in listed in past 20 years, are properly sited with no evidence of actual production begin with out being completed. Thus removing the unproduced shorts form the article is unwise, it makes more sense to do what user Christianster94 suggested. That major feature film story overhul should be deleted, though and I must ad along with uncited unconfiremd rumors DoctorHver (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find this article to be worthy of inclusion. I think a subject like this has some historical importance in the field of film, as Disney is such a well-known animated movie studio. As an example of a similar article, there also exists an article called List of unreleased Warner Bros. animated shorts. --Stan2525 (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe not important today, but one never knows. It seems to possess at least some historical importance as noted above. It is interesting enough and the topic is notable. I see no reason to delete it. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:11, 3 November 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_November_2&oldid=1142627755"