Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 25 November 27 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 redirect to

List of minor planets: 26001-27000. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

26057 Ankaios

26057 Ankaios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One sentence article with an infobox of data about an minor planet that fails

WER 02:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 27 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. Secret account 00:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battalen

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

Flash game with no indication of notability. Prod removed with no reason given. Kolbasz (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails GNG and references are all to WP itself! DocumentError (talk) 08:50, 27 November 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) 14:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. This article's creator is an SPA, so it is possibly promotional in nature.Dialectric (talk) 16:54, 27 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. Deor (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FSF Free Software Awards

FSF Free Software Awards (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 award does not appear to be notable; the only references are from the FSF itself and blogs of people who claim to have won the award. Not finding any third-party references to indicate notability. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shorten and Merge into Free Software Foundation - current sourcing is not sufficient to establish notability independent of the foundation. Greenman's sources are at most a few sentences of coverage of the awards, more incidental mention than significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak keep. Eddymason (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On what policy or guideline(s) are you basing this vote? Dialectric (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None, really, so I've gone ahead and struck my vote. My gut says it should be either merged or moved to "list of FSF Award recipients", but this just seems like something Wikipedia would have an article on. Eddymason (talk) 22:40, 28 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:EVENT. This is how sources should be evaluated in every potentially controversial AFD. Secret account 23:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Death of Netanel Arami

AfDs for this article:
Death of Netanel Arami (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Netanel Arami: Nothing has changed, except that the Israeli authorities (after intense lobbying from the dead mans family and friends) have claimed it to be a "terrorist" death. No one arrested charged, much less found guilty of terrorism, or his death. Delete pr

WP:NOTNEWS --Huldra (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 22:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Speedy Delete. Not a shadow of a doubt the author is abusing wiki pages to make a point. I suggest outside editors look at the page as it was first created by Shulmaven, who has been engaged recently in a crusade to make one-off articles on every Israeli death in pursuit of his thesis that there is a
List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014‎ today at 13:10, and two hours later
Shulmaven (re)created this article. I say 'recreated' because I didn't know, not following people around, that a similar article had been deleted earlier this month. So it's not as if, in deleting this, I am trying to rid the encyclopedia of knowledge of the case: to the contrary, I wrote a sketch of the essential details of the case there, which this article doesn't essentially add to:-

'On 16 September construction worker Netaniel Arami (27) fell from the 11th storey of a building where he was working, closing vents using a rappeller's cables. His family, as well as Israeli politician Moshe Feiglin and some websites, suggested he had been murdered by Arab co-workers. The police initially insisted his death was accidental. In late November, it emerged that Shin Bet had arrested three suspects on suspicion it was a nationalistically-motivated crime. They were subsequently released for lack of evidence. The investigation is now treating it as a terror crime, and his family have been recognized as victims of terror.[55][56].'

So my suggestion to delete is not 'ideologically motivated' or an example of some 'activist' censorship.
Correcting Huldra. The only three Palestinians on the tower were arrested on suspicion, detained and interrogated and then released for lack of evidence. We just don't know anything at the moment, other than a fact and some suspicion. Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'likely to inflame tensions, already used in inflammatory ways, and all the more notable for that.' Oh, good-oh! It was designed for incitement, using wiki pages. I guess I'll just have to lull myself to sleep singing Amir Benayoun's recent song, which has gone viral in Israel for the same reasons. G'nite.Nishidani talk) 22:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed the previous AfD and just compared the two versions; I suppose they're different enough so deletion via
    WP:G4 is not warranted, but I'd like it if another admin would look at it. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Untrue The three suspects were arrested after "police investigators noticed that the cable he was tied to had been deliberately cut and decided to open a murder investigation."[1]. It is now confirmed as murder and as an act of terrorism.ShulMaven (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I've also compared the two versions just now, and while they are not identical, I feel like the differences are somewhat superficial. The sources are different, but come from the same time period. Some claims have simply been moved to different sections; for instance, claims about about comparisons to other incidents now appear in the Death and controversy and Political fallout sections instead of just in a single section. The section about this topic in the context of criticism of the government (Repercussions) is even less specific than before. I don't see a lot of new information that addresses the "lasting consequences" concern of the last AfD. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now substantially different because within the last 24 hours the victim's family have been officially declared victims of terrorism, i.e., a deliberately committed murder committed for ethno-political reasons.ShulMaven (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted version contains this article from September where the WP article noted that it was being investigated as an "apparent" act of terrorism. That the investigation has now concluded does not seem like strong evidence of persistence I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, after reviewing these newer sources, I believe that alone does push it over the G4 threshold, so I will also decline the G4 speedy. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jethrobot, I only had a cursory look at the sources. Thanks for checking it out. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I did ask you to un-delete article before I wrote a new article, but received notice that my request was deleted form your talk page.ShulMaven (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ShulMaven, you posted that on my user page, I see now. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Investigation is ongoing. Just noting that this is still an evolving story, there may be more arrests, more evidence. Certainly there will be more coverage.ShulMaven (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep facts of the case changed today. It was known to have been murder during the first AFD. There was a gag order put in place by security services at the time of the AFD, so that although some editors suggested that a decision be deferred until a gag order was lifted, others argued for deletion. Now the gag order has been lifted and this murder has been confirmed as an act of ethno-political terrorism. More to the point, the death gained notoriety because of the political support and public demonstrations demanding that the police investigate. Not an unfamiliar scenario in any country, but certainly the sort of thing that makes a murder
    GNG.ShulMaven (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There were only 3 Arabs on the site. They were taken into detention on suspicion of murder, for nationalistic motives (ergo terror). Following 'an extensive interrogation', and following a review of the case by the State Attorney's Office, it was determined that "there was no legal justification to keep them in custody.(Israel Hayom) What we have been seeing is a massive campaign by the family, and far right wing politicians like Moshe Feiglin running parallel with the investigation, that has now endorsed the view that this was an act of terror, with no evidence against the only suspects in the case. Shulmaven is, nolens volens, actively using Wikipedia to promote that view here. For all I know, it may be terror/murder. But the only fact in the public arena is that the ropes were 'cut'. If that obvious state of the ropes was known by the police since the 16th of September, why did they keep insisting for some weeks it was an accident? This is a very weird story. If the 3 suspects were thoroughly interviewed and nothing emerged that could pin a viable charge of murder on them, or even keep them in provisory detention for a longer time, how can their intentions be defined (since no other Arabs were on the site) as terroristic? The handling of this in the news has been intensely 'political' and makes no sense to any attentive reader. There would be a case for the article if, once the hysterical replication of the few facts is dropped, a case is actually made, with real evidence, leading to detailed coverage, analysis of the suspects/culprits and trial. We have at the moment, zero, posing as a certainty, and to use Wikipedia when the facts are so thin, while the gossip is immense, sets a parlous precedent (incitement). Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated above, there was a significant change. The assessment by the authorities changed from murder (more common) to terrorism (less common). Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The version of the article that was deleted also claimed it was terrorism. G4 isn't about whether factors external to Wikipedia changed, it's about whether the article that's recreated is substantially the same as the one that the community decided to delete. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances changes, as indicated -- the authorities' position changed. And that was in turn reflected by a change in the RSs -- new RS articles reflected that change. That's a significant change, along the lines that makes a call for speedy delete a hollow request. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, that the GNG appears to be met is not that relevant (it was a noteworthy death, noteworthy for the news); what is relevant is that such a death needs to have lasting consequents of some kind or another, and this is not yet proven, obviously. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There are already new consequents and RS say about new ones after the gag order will be lifted . --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems noteworthy and sensational, and the event is likely to continue to inflame tensions, and already has been used in inflammatory ways, and is all the more notable for that. I don't have any view about the legitimacy of the accusations. But it is appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about this significant, notable event. Keeping the coverage balanced is a matter for editing and for Talk page discussion, not for AFD. There are numerous reliable sources including this Times of Israel coverage (that is already included in the article). --doncram 20:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whatever the problems with its creation, the article seems to be about a notable death. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DonCram, Bearian, and it meeting GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(GNG reads:
'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
This is fascinating to me because (1)
WP:EVENT
says
  • Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
  • Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
  • Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
  • Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
The article is trumped up, as any experienced editor can see at a glance. Perhaps those who vote 'delete' assume what they see should be obvious to eyes inexperienced with I/P sourcing guidelines. This may not be obvious to the very experienced outside admins whose judgement is very important for a neutral, policy based perspective. Seeing that this will be approved, for the record I will note down why it, like many other articles of its kind, is a fudge.
The article seems to show extensive coverage over time. It has 27 citations. Examined these break down into
JNS.org (1); JerusalemOnline
(1) (13 articles from sites that are not considered reliable for facts. Arutz Sheva being an extreme right wing settler organ, the rest being mainly obscure and derivative. Mainstream RS mention this over 2 months on about 9 occasions, concentrated in 3 days. The event was not reported in any general Western newspaper I know of.
Analysis by dates
12 February 2014 I article (
WP:OR
by Shulmaven) nothing to do with this article)
Sept 19. Three days after the event. 1 source non mainstream RS (The Jewish Press).
Sept 21 (non-RS Jewish Pulse Radio =Arutz Sheva)
Sept 22 Arutz Sheva
Sept 23 I from The Jewish Press
Sept 30 Arutz Sheva (1), The Times of Israel, Haaretz
October 1 (Arutz Sheva) (1)The Jewish Press 1
October 2 Arutz Sheva (1)
November 3 (
WP:OR
) nothing to do with this article.
November 20 Arutz Sheva: a political tirade about no Arab labourers being employed in the Knesset in a settler organ citing it en passant as an apparent murder, before the gag was lifted)
  • November 25, 1 article (
    Jerusalem Post
    )
  • November 26, 9 articles, actually 8 articles. The mainstream picks up the story (6 articles mainstream, 2 are not RS:2 of them are one (Marissa Newman note 1, note 23).
In RS terms, the death was briefly noticed twice at the time on 19/23 September though not by mainstream Israeli newspapers was picked up 3 times Sept 30-Oct 1. On 25-26 November (
Jerusalem Post, Ynet, Haaretz, The Times of Israel The Forward JTA
) all picked up the announcement of 1 item of news: that the reported death was now classified as terror.
All the rest is reportage from the ultra right wing margins of a dubious source with a notorious contempt for Arabs, namely Arutz Sheva, which represents the settler constituency and is the only rag which kept the fringe chat on the boil. Thus we have the report of the death(mid September) and 2 days reportage it may be a crime (25-26 Nov) in the mainstream. The sourcing is thus a
WP:EVENT. Once the mainstream press made the gag order news, it has dropped interest, because there is nothing to report further. I appreciate admins are often overworked and cannot see the obvious in the details, but sometimes it goes to farcical lengths:) Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I've reviewed your very long post. Assuming I didn't miss something by getting lost in it, I don't see your post as convincing. I still stand by what was said by editors DonCram and Bearian, as though I had said it myself, and I stand by it meeting GNG, which is the key to wp notability. I'm not sure that your POV (amply reflected in your choice of language, above) is reason to delete an article that meets GNG, which this one does. Plus, why there are a host of articles that you didn't mention. For example, look at all the (many more recent) articles here and here and here and here and here.

--Epeefleche (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - article may or may not have problems. but the article subject is notable per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since
WP:EVENT means that this fails.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Israeli media were all over it. Haaretz is one of Israel's smaller newspapers, circulation less than that of Yedioth Ahronoth by an order of magnitude. It was covered internationally by JTA and the Jewish newspapers of France, Britain, Spain, Argentina, the US, Australia, and Canada....ShulMaven (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not accurate.
Times of Israel pretends that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency wire service, only ran a single article, ignores coverage in Hamodia, and who knows what else, not to mention slurring news sources he does not like..ShulMaven (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Fudging again. I do not list commenta, I list the type of articles that have been used to report the event by source, and date, including the papers you cite. Of 25 sources, a full half are unusable, and most of the details comes from Arutz Sheva, which hosts crackpot conspiracy theorists (Obama,'most contemptuous and hate-filled Apologist-in-Chief,' panders to Islamic terrorists and considers Israel a hostile power!!!!) and which has been the major vehicle for pushing this (so far) non-story and has yet to obtain a regular licence. And is being increasingly pushed into Wikipedia these last weeks, despite a general tacit agreement not to use that kind of disreputable sourcing. If this case is not media hype pushed by noted political extremists and this settler media outlet, but rests on evidence, as yet unknown, that leads to an indictment, I'll race you to write the appropriate article. So far we have sheer speculation and, unlike every terrorism story from Israel, it has been totally ignored by the international mainstream press.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion articles by MKs (members of Israeli Knesset) used to source MKs' opinion. Those by opinion columnists used to support sentence re: ongoing references to incident by opinion columnists.ShulMaven (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Ongoing'? The story as reported by the mainstream, emerged 25-26 November, and then died in its tracks. No one is mentioning it these last 4 days. It is a blip so far. This could change, but wiki doesn't (normatively do blips, especially those showcased byb marginal, and ferociously polemical inferior sources.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might note Shulmaven that you keep adding minor non RS (letters home from a PhD student in Melbourne mentioning his name en passant in a list, really! etc.) mainly sources for the same 3 unit time frame (Sept 19-22, 29-2 October, November 25-6, and not actually following them. One important source was added:
This where Ben Hartman talking to Larry Derfner on Tel Aviv radio on the 26 November, when the overwhelming bulk of reportage is located, blows up the whole reportage in the Israeli media as a misconstruction of what the court documents say: A rough paraphrase:

(He fell to his death. It was described as an accident. The only people at the scene was a co-worker and a couple of Palestinian workers in the building. Speculation arose he’d been killed by cutting cables possibly because he was Jewish. Today the court partially lifted a gag order allowing it to be said that earlier after the incident happened, the Shin Bet arrested 3 men and held them and questioned them on suspicion of killing this man but then later released them when it determined that as there was no way to really to connect them to the crime or prove it. That’s the only thing that 100% confirmed today but from that it has been extrapolated in a lot of the Israeli media it has been presented that it has been 100% considered to be a terrorist crime. It's more accurate to say that they have been investigating it as a terror attack and they arrested people in connection with that but haven’t been able to prove that.

What Hartman says is that the court records gave no evidence indicating it was a nationalist crime rather than a work accident, but simply said an investigation of it as a terror act had been conducted and the suspects released since there was no evidence. What Hartman noted was a media inference not justified by the facts revealed, whatever your fringhe sources (
WP:EVENT.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that explains why foreign reporters based in Israel have ignored the story: there's nothing to it (so far) except local political use of the event in terror discourse, and no facts to write about (so far), except that a thorough Shin Bet investigation of the 3 Palestinians at the site led to their release after a week, for lack of evidence. It may be a crime, but it may be what the police reported it as for some weeks, a work accident (spun out as a terror crime by the family and political friends). Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me, both when I wrote this article and now, the reasons for having it on Wikipedia seem the same as arguments for having Death of Tuğçe Albayrak, an article that I would certainly not wish to see deleted.ShulMaven (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe a good idea for now it to userfy it and move it back to article space when and if there are significant changes? --I am One of Many (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. There are unlikely to be developments until the security gag is lifted or an arrest made.ShulMaven (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my opinion to userfy. My view is that once it is clear that there are important implications of his death, it will clearly be notable. I suspect that it will happen. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As per
    WP:GEOSCOPE. The subject is not significant enough globally to keep. - Maduwanwela (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Everything attracts some degree of coverage these days, but the simple "I saw it in a source so I must create an article about it" mentality no longer carries water, if it ever did at all. Matters that are routine news stories, local in scope, or one-event wonders, we exercise editorial discretion and separate thru truly newsworthy from the run-of-the-mill. As of 11/23/14, 286 people have been murdered in New York City. It is reasonably certain that there is some coverage to be found in some the newspapers for each of those 286. It's a big city, shit happens, and I doubt any of those 286 have an article here. In this case, it's just another Israeli killed by just another Palestinian in a region fraught with violence for decades. Shit happens, and not many of those individual deaths are encyclopedic, despite your personal best efforts to make them so in this project over the years. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there is no room for "I saw it in a source" articles. Then again -- that's not the case here.
Don't even just focus on the dozens of refs in the article. Look at the couple of hundred recent gnews articles, in ongoing coverage continuing to this day.
That's the difference between "I saw it in a source" articles (and the maybe-one-article-covered-it murder in NYC ... which contrast sharply with the coverage here), and GNG articles. We go by what the RS refs cover. Not our personal views that "oh gosh -- there are loads of these all the time, and I personally don't want to see any more of them".
If there are loads of GNG-covered murders or suspected murders, we cover them. Just as if there are loads of major league baseball players that meet GNG, we cover them as well.
We don't say: "I don't want articles that meet GNG, but that are on a subject that I have seen covered quite enough for my taste." Forget the subject. Focus on the coverage. Though I realize that a number of editors in this discussion are doing quite the opposite. Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terrorism cases are notable, so long as they are widely covered by the press. This one was.64.94.31.206 (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That begs the question of who is doing the terrorism or, as the Wife of Bath says, who paints the lion. If it's not terrorism this isn't notable? Terrorism has inherent notability? Drmies (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 20)

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 sources for future season. Musdan77 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 27 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. czar ⨹ 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Bogdan

Jan Bogdan (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 only source for the existence of this "Jan Bogdan" is the purported "Memoirs of a Mercantilist" (Polish, Pamiętnik handlowca), which Barbour and Pula have shown to be most likely a hoax by Arthur L. Waldo.[1][2] From the discussion on the article's talk page, it appears that the OA is in agreement with this proposal. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. JSTOR 25779776
    .
  2. JSTOR 1923357
    .
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 19:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 21 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 20:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the history of the article, the !vote by
    WP:CSD G7. However, I would like one point answered before this is done - as I am not registered for JSTOR, I can't see the papers from which the nominator, and now the article creator, have concluded that all the sources on which the article is based seem to derive from a probable hoax (Pamiętnik handlowca) first known from 1947. GBooks does, however, produce one apparent source from 1944 - this one by Karol Wachtl [pl]. This is, of course, certainly not inconsistent with Pamiętnik handlowca being a hoax - it might already have been in existence, and known to Wachtl, in 1944; or the hoaxer might actually have used Wachtl's book for historical background (or, indeed, just as a source of names - all the GBooks snippet shows is that Jamestown and Jan Bogdan are mentioned on the same page of the book). But does anyone know what Wachtl said and what sources (if any) he gave? PWilkinson (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@PWilkinson: - Thank you *very much* for your comments - yes - new information(s) - and/or - new (and better?) ways of interpreting earlier materials are *always* welcome of course - if interested - seems the full text of "Jamestown pioneers from Poland", that seems to mention Jan Bogdan four times, and seems to refer to materials from the 1920s/1930s (and/or much earlier?), may be at the following url => http://archive.org/stream/jamestownpioneer00poli/jamestownpioneer00poli_djvu.txt - one instance in the text mentions Jan Bogdan as follows => "...[Dr. Karol] Wachtl, quoting Wiesci Polskie, published in London in 1831 [sic - "1631" instead?], lists the following Polish pioneers, who arrived in Jamestown in October, 1608: — Michal Lowicki, Zbigniew Stefanski, Jan Mata, Stanislaw Sadowski, Karol Zrenica and Jan Bogdan. The evidence, supporting this list, however, appears to be of a presumptive type and is not yet based on ascertained facts. More research in this field is needed." - there are three other instances in the same text mentioning Jan Bogdan - ALSO - the text mentions the following => "Dr. Karol Wachtl, well known journalist, poet and historian, who, in his "Polonia w Ameryce", gave the names and. places of origin of the first Polish pioneers in Jamestown." - ALSO - "Robertson's Book of Firsts: Who Did What for the First Time" mentions => "Karl Wachtl, in "Polonia w Ameryce" (1927), purports to give their full names, as Zbigniew Stafanski, Jan Mata, Stanislav Sadowski, Karol Zrenica, and Jan Bogdan citing as his source a broadside "Wiesci Polski" ("Polish News") he states was published in London in 1631, No trace of this fugitive document has been found." - RE: JSTOR => FREE ACCESS on a limited basis is available - after gaining such access, there are several relevant JSTOR refs as follows: 1) Barbour and 2) Pula - these refs are also noted in more detail in the References section of the Jan Bogdan article - hope this all helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION - would adding a new section/paragraph to the "Jan Bogdan" article describing the currently unclear historical basis for the existence of "Jan Bogdan", based on the claims made by Pula[1] and Barbour[2] as well as those made by Dr. Karol Wachtl,[3][4] be sufficient to rescue (so-to-speak) the Jan Bogdan article from deletion? - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. JSTOR 25779776
    .
  2. JSTOR 1923357
    .
  3. ISBN 978-1596915794
    . Retrieved November 30, 2014.
  4. ^ Staff (September 28, 1958). "Jamestown Pioneers From Poland". Polish American Congress. Retrieved November 30, 2014.
  • Delete, at least on current evidence, with thanks and (I suspect) apologies to User:Drbogdan. The quotation he gave from the Jamestown Pioneers from Poland reference certainly goes some way to answering my question about what Wachtl said, and would seem to be reliable on that point. However, all its other mentions of Jan Bogdan occur in articles reprinted from other sources, which are basically popular accounts whose level of fact-checking would almost certainly not have reached the point of questioning an authentic-looking (though apparently not actually authentic) source like Pamiętnik handlowca. And Robertson's Book of Firsts looks slightly less reliable still - the quote you give from it gives the publication date of Wachtl's Polonia w Ameryce as 1927 rather than (as both GScholar and the Polish Wikipedia article on Wachtl make clear) 1944, which Jamestown Pioneers from Poland gives as the date of a very similarly named publication by another author, two sentences away from a mention of Wachtl's book. Which leaves us with what we know of Wachtl and his source, Wiesci Polskie (for which 1831 to me looks like a more likely date than 1631 - let's just say that 1631 would a distinctly early date for a newsheet, and even more so for a Polish one published in London). Unfortunately, Google searches for Wiesci Polskie overwhelmingly produce results for a newspaper published between about 1940 and 1943, and even if I include one of the two earlier dates, the results show almost no evidence of an earlier publication of the same name (instead, one tends to end up with lists of publications which include both the 1940s newspaper and something from 1831 with quite a different title). And the only results which do clearly mention an 1831 or 1631 Wiesci Polskie are about Poles in early Virginia and, directly or indirectly, seem to refer back to Wachtl - and the only one of these that seems to add anything to this discussion is this one from a Polish museum. Unfortunately, what it does add is that the 1831 Wiesci Polskie "has eluded researchers", mention of a Polish scholar who produced a quite different (unsourced) list of names of Jamestown Poles, and a conclusion that "without having the original writings available, serious historians are unable to confirm that these were in fact the names of the Poles who came to Jamestown in 1608." With which I am regretfully forced to agree. (Having said all that, I would regard Pamiętnik handlowca as notable, even as a hoax, and would not disagree with having this title redirecting there.) PWilkinson (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PWilkinson: - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and for your time and effort re the Jan Bogdan article - no problem whatsoever - yes - unless better historical evidence re the presently purported 1608 Jan Bogdan becomes available, your suggestion of redirecting the current Jan Bogdan article to the "Pamiętnik handlowca" article seems *entirely* ok with me at the moment as well - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - they're *very much* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @PWilkinson: and others without JSTOR subscriptions may be interested to know that they can get free access to the Pula and Barbour articles, simply by creating a free account on JSTOR and jumping through some easy hoops. Just click on the links provided by DrBogdan and follow the directions for free access. Meanwhile, as PWilkinson has discovered by another route, Wachtl's alleged source is doubtful at best, and is not in any case a primary source. Pula writes,
Wachtl, a Polish-born journalist, playwright, and chronicler, identified Wiesci Polskie as a periodical published in London in 1831. He claims that this source lists by name six initial Polish settlers in Jamestown,along with their cities of origin.[fn. omitted] To unravel the mystery, then, we should begin by looking at Wachtl's source. The first observation that can be made is that the publication date of 1831 is some 223 years after the events in question; thus, it is not a primary source at all. Nevertheless, finding it might at least lead to evidence of some earlier source. A consultation of Stanislaw Zielinski's Bibliografia czasopism polskich zagranica 1830-1943 [Bibliography of Polish Periodicals Abroad, 1830-1943], the authoritative reference source for periodicals published outside Poland, fails to reveal any such publication. Furthermore, Sigmund Uminski, who undertook research in various libraries and archives in England and Poland in search of a copy of Wachtl's source, was unable to locate any trace of the publication, nor even a single reference in any of the available bibliographies of early nineteenth century publications.[fn. om.] Similarly interested in the source for a biography of Captain John Smith that he was writing, in 1963 Philip L. Barbour contacted Mrs. M. L. Danilewicz, librarian at the Polish Library in London, who informed him that she and two Polish scholars had all looked for the source and were unable to find any mention of it. After being informed that Barbour had been unable to locate any reference to Wiesci Polskie, Wachtl asserted that it was really not a periodical publication but a special broadside (jednodniowka), thus explaining its absence from the standard bibliographies.[fn. om.] Whatever the truth of the matter regarding the mysterious Wiesci Polskie, if it did exist it was clearly not a primary source.
Pula 2008, pp. 480-81. Clearly, Wachtl had the opportunity to produce his source, when he heard of Barbour's inquiries, but for some reason he only offered an excuse for its absence from the standard bibliographies. I suspect that was because his source did not exist; but even giving Wachtl the benefit of the doubt, his Wiesci Polskie is not a reliable source, and neither, consequently, is Wachtl.
Because the Pamiętnik handlowca is probably a fraud, I would oppose any effort to rescue Jan Bogdan by redirecting to that article. The Pamiętnik handlowca article needs to be rewritten from the POV of the most current scholarship—i.e., as the story of a probable forgery or fraud—or else to be deleted. No Wikipedia article should lend the Pamiętnik handlowca credibility, as a redirect from this article would do. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:Reliable Sources is uncovered, deletion of the Jan Bogdan article seems even more supported I would think - ALSO - I would not object to excluding a WP:Redirect to the "Pamiętnik handlowca" article as well - hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:55, 1 December 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. Rough consensus states that the event has continued to receive in-depth coverage. (

non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Sparks Middle School Shooting

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

Our criteria for keeping crime stories is that the event needs to have some long term impact and ongoing coverage. This event didn't. It is very tragic, and even more tragic, is that the event just isn't that rare anymore. The article was Prod'd with two seconds and I want to quote the original prod justification: "Tragic event, but does not meet

WP:CRIME due to lack of persistent coverage or long term impacts in the school industry, unlike Sandy Hook, Columbia, or Virginia Tech" (173.3.79.101) The article was originally an article on the school itself, and I probably should have just boldly merged its contents on the shooting to the school district's article when I moved it to its current title, but I would not oppose redirecting it to the appropriate school district article. John from Idegon (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:EVENT. See my comments below.ShulMaven (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    WP:NOTTEMPORARY  :"Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage". But beyond the black letter law test, which this article passes, there is this quesiton: What use is Wikipedia except in exactly situations like this, a terrible murder/event that occurred some time ago but which, if someone wants to know about it, is summarized in a reliably-sourced article on Wikipedia.ShulMaven (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also, national coverage did continue (just added a 2014USA Today article) I believe that editors should at least do a google search, and perhaps even attempt to improve articles before starting the AFD process.ShulMaven (talk) 01:25, 27 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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seethe Alla Savithri

Seethe Alla Savithri (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 article does not meet

WP:NOTFILM guidelines Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 20:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
alt name:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
writer/director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
alt director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to send to AFD ten hours after it being contributed. Being unsourced means
    WP:INDAFD
    tells us that pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to source online. Not being sourcable online is not automatically non-notable.
Hello
WP:MOVIE shows ways that notability can be established for older films, but in my opinion, it is clear that this film does not meet those guidelines. If reliable sources in any language are found to meet the guidelines for inclusion I will be very happy to change my vote.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I am sorry that you were unsuccessful in
AFD is not intended to force cleanup
, specially considering the difficulties inherent in sourcing pre-1990s Indian film articles within a seven-day period. I appreciate your concern with the author giving us only basic information, but such may lead to more with the right eyes.
The involvement of major Kannada film notables allows a consideration of notability under
WP:JNN is no reason to toss away possibly improvable stubs over difficulties in finding non-English sources for non-English pre-internet films. I loked at the author's talk page, and wonder if he has been chased away yet, or not. I hope he remains and adds the required souring. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I do agree with you, I don´t know about
WP:JNN
for other editors as the reasons apply for the 3 articles:
I have much less experience than you and I am learning every day, so I sincerely thank you for the information you sent me. Let me try to explain to you in more detail why I nominated the films and try to show you that it was not just a frivolous
WP:INDAFD
, I can understand the difficulty on finding reliable sources, and if there would have been an unsourced claim of notability in the articles, I would have tag them instead of nominating them, but in my opinion there is no such claim.
My assumption here is that a film is not automatically notable for having a notable actor like
Kannada film
.
Since I could not find substantial coverage to meet
WP:MOVIE
The articles do not make any of the included notability claims, I could see no indication that:
  1. it is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
  2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
    • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
    • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
    • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
    • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
  3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
  4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
  5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
If I made a mistake in the interpretation of this policies I do apologize, my intention is to help, not hinder the project, so I will thankfully accept any guidance you can give me.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for national archives and awards, the jury is still out. I am still looking to verify if "the film was selected for preservation in a national archive" or received "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"... but that OEN list contains more considerations. There is also "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career," which is a consideration when giving thought to the involvement of the many Indian notables. I find it hard to believe that such films "never" received attention in the Kannada language. So since it had not yet been done, I've asked for assistance in sourcing from WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, Cinema of Karnataka and WikiProject Karnataka. Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, if it is notable they should be able to show it, and if it so happens that any of those criteria you mention are met then I fully agree with you that it should be kept.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:19, 22 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 19:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Title is subtle, but if it was produced and played at theatres there is no reason to contest the existence of the movie. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have a couple of sources, and the film stars and was directed by notable people - it needs expanding rather than deleting. I'd say tag it to say it needs better sourcing and give it a bit more time - there's no rush. Squinge (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a suitable stub which has gone from this to THIS. The article is not a policy violation and it serves the project and its readers to have it remain and be improved over time and through regular editing as Kannada editors are able. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:23, 30 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. czar ⨹ 16:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Compiler Data Systems

Tech Compiler Data Systems (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)

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 21 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 19:50, 26 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. NorthAmerica1000 00:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scandent Solutions

Scandent Solutions (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)

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears from the history that this was AfD'd in 2006, with a decision of keep. I don't know how to find a record of the discussion... ? Meanwhile, this company mas merged and unmerged with other companies, some of which are listed on the Indian stock market. That's all the information I can find. LaMona (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the user tagged the page for AfD but didn't create a discussion page for it and then he removed the AfD tag too.
(talk) 22:47, 26 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 19:38, 26 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

non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 05:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Quintessentially Lifestyle

Quintessentially Lifestyle (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)

Quintessentially an advertisement. An article can probably be written, but it should be started over. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 04:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 04:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:07, 19 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 19:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dylanfromthenorth. DGG is right that there might be some useful info here, but it would be most useful within the parent company's article. Ivanvector (talk) 19:32, 26 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. czar ⨹ 04:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Game is Life

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

Non-notable book that fails

WP:NOTBOOK. Written by NN author. The article is written by COI. reddogsix (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:06, 19 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 19:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Several source searches are not providing any evidence of the series meeting
    WP:BKCRIT. NorthAmerica1000 00:57, 4 December 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. czar ⨹ 18:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Game, Terry Schott

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

Non-notable book that fails

WP:NOTBOOK. Written by NN author. The article is written by COI. reddogsix (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I just can't see where these books are ultimately notable as a whole. I've left a note on the author's page letting him know about Wikia, which would be a far more appropriate page for this sort of thing.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 20 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 19:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious delete, and thanks to
    (｡◕‿◕｡) for suggesting a positive option for the interested party. LaMona (talk) 16:10, 3 December 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. Secret account 00:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ichak Adizes

Ichak Adizes (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)

Where to begin? This article is a mess. Its been noted as such on the talk page, and that was months ago. I see no action being made on the page, and its a biography page, so that means that there are some special provisions for the article. Since its a mess, and according to the deletion log its been axed before on blatant advertising grounds, and because I have copyright concerns for the article, I'm listing it here for deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Willing to reconsider if the article is drastically trimmed and overhauled. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 20 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 19:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... Subject definitely meets the notability requirements for authors/academics (and probably also business people), but the article is promotional and a close paraphrase of http://www.ichakadizes.com/. I would suggest it should be deleted as a copyright violation with no prejudice against recreation as a proper article. (There is nothing salvageable, otherwise I'd say stubbify.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:42, 3 December 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 closed as an invalid deletion rationale. No prejudice against the initiation of a new discussion at another time if somebody can come up with a substantive reason why we should consider deletion, but that's not what this reason is. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Magazine

Marin Magazine (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)

Please remove this page as previously entered information is not sufficient. Also, a lot of the information from third-party resources has been deleted and I am not understanding why. I have tried multiple times to add the information I have and would just like this page to be deleted as the information I enter ends up being deleted shortly after I hit "save." There is ample information that was published in regards to the magazine on the page's inception that has since been deleted. Thank you. MarinFan14 (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy KEEP it's not a valid reason for deletion?Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid reason for deletion. And you need to learn the difference between a
    primary one if you think the information you've been trying to add has been deleted for no reason. And you don't get to claim ownership rights over the article just because you're its original creator, either — once you've ceased to be the only person who has ever edited the article, you don't get to claim any special veto over whether it continues to exist or not. It belongs to the Wikipedia community, not to you, and will be kept or deleted based on our content rules. Keep — in fact, speaking as an administrator I'm acting to immediately close this as an invalid nomination. Any content issues can be discussed on the article's talk page, and a new discussion can always be initiated at a later date if somebody else can come up with a substantive reason for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 26 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. Secret account 00:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Musgrove

Peter Musgrove (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 article's subject is presented as a real person, but appears to be a hoax. None of the cited sources indicate that the subject is a real person.
  • One reference, spoof news, does indicate that the subject is a pseudonym for a "Tim Bailey" (Set up as recently as March 2008 by comedy duo Dave Morris and Tim Bailey aka Peter Musgrove and Steve Pritchard, the site has...), but I can find no evidence that "Tim Bailey" is real, either.
  • And it's worth noting that author of this spoof news article is named "Kent Pete," the same name as the user who created this Peter Musgrove page.
  • Also, this article was previously deleted on [31 March 2008].
    Phlar (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete probable hoax and no evidence of notability--Mevagiss (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searched for an obit, since article claims that he died last month. Failed to locate one.ShulMaven (talk) 17:03, 2 December 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. Secret account 00:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Putnam

Chris Putnam (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 rather untraditional behaviour to send my own article to AfD... but I'm doing it. An IP PROD'd it stating the subject was not notable. I disagree, but he may not be notable beyond the single event of hacking Facebook to make all the profiles look like MySpace, which subsequently got him a job there. Through my own research I wasn't able to find much more about this person. Given this I think the subject may fail

subarticle thereof. Sometimes AfD discussions yield drastic improvement to the article, which in turn results in a keep. My hope was this would be the case with Putnam. — MusikAnimal talk 18:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the hack is notable it still falls under
    wp:BLP1E Neonchameleon (talk) 04:07, 30 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. Deor (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five Riots in Tampa

Five Riots in Tampa (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 an odd and unreferenced article that consists of very short descriptions of five minor / non-notable incidents of civil unrest in Tampa over the years.

I actually proposed merging the info into History of Tampa, Florida over two years ago... and then promptly forgot. I'm moving the info now, so the "Five Riots" article is ready for disposal. Zeng8r (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the useful information has been merged, then I don't see what purpose this small article now serves. It certainly isn't long enough to make merging impractical. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence any of these five riots meet
    WP:EVENT nor any "riots" (not really riots) has any claim of significance for it to be merged to the History of Tampa, Florida article. No sources/importance of significance = no merge. Secret account 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: You're right; the listed events are totally out of context and not notable by themselves. The concert incident is mentioned in at
History of Tampa. Not sure they'd all merit individual mention even there, honestly. So it wouldn't be a cut-and-paste merge in any case. --Zeng8r (talk) 11:46, 3 December 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newgen Software Technologies Limited

Newgen Software Technologies Limited (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)

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I stopped at Google page 15 of hits on this company. Most are minor mentions, but the mentions appear to be endless. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 21 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per VMS Mosaic. I ran the same google search, added 1 article to page. This sort of thing is a waste of time. Editors who list articles without doing a good-faith google should be sanctioned. I believe that the proper sanction would be for the editor to find 3 notable poorly written or poorly sourced articles and bring them up to snuff. Honestly, too many AFDs are a total wast of time. Current case in point: David D. Cole Well sourced article filled with obvious claims to notability, but someone posted it at AFD yesterday. End of rant.ShulMaven (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A news search reveals plenty of press releases, but also plenty of good sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 3 December 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. NorthAmerica1000 19:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Rice (Juniper)

Steven Rice (Juniper) (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 sufficiently substantial sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 21 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, czar ⨹ 15:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Name pops up a lot in
    ?) Please ping me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar ⨹ 02:54, 3 December 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. NorthAmerica1000 19:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Terry (actor)

Paul Terry (actor) (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. No sources seem to exist to add to the existing. Restored after PROD was contested. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC) due to improvements, I'm changing to keep. As other people have voted delete, I'm unable to speedy close this. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep To be fair, he starred in two series of a notable series aired on both BBC and the Disney Channel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoap. He also was the main character in a pretty famous live action Disney film James and the Giant Peach. That to me suggests "multiple appearances" as per the notability criteria. [comment was unsigned by 92.30.148.47]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a child actor who has since stopped acting. I don't see that as reason to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my original PROD rationale, namely that one film, a few episodes of a TV show, and one episode of game show do not meet the notability guideline for actors at
    talk) 11:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think it comes down to the film role. If he'd played more roles at that level, we wouldn't be questioning this. I can't speak for Microsoap, but Weakest Link is obviously not going to swing notability.
So what do we do about child actors? There's clearly a group who play one significant role, then stop. Any number of these actors - and many of them covered here, many of them not. So what does
one hit wonder is very clearly seen as conveying notability, if that one hit is adequate. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's a source http://www.discoveryschool.org.uk/Pages/about-us/Our-Staff.aspx for his current career - if someone can confirm it is the same Paul Terry.
OTOH, if he doesn't mention on his school bio that he was in this film, then maybe he's not trying to publicise it and we should leave him be? Not everyone wants a biog in this place. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was it really just a voiceover? I thought the first part of it (with Lumley and Margolies) was live action? (Years since I've seen it) Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point -- wiki article says it's live-action for the first 20 minutes, then stop-motion animation within the peach, then live-action again. Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only being in one (or a couple) of film(s) still brings notability. There is also a possibility of article expansion as happened with Danny Lloyd when he was interviewed for various documentaries about the making of The Shining. MarnetteD|Talk 00:54, 29 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. Secret account 00:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago Casasola

Tiago Casasola (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)

Restored at

WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 27 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 Redirect to List of birds of Yuma County, Arizona. czar ⨹ 16:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds of Yuma, Arizona

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

Non-notable, - No other city or town has a bird list created for it. All information for the article can be found at List of birds of Yuma County, Arizona. There is a precedent for county lists, although I would say this too is not notable.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right now the city article says "Yuma area", and I'm not sure how that compares to "Yuma County". Are there sources specifically listing birds in Yuma (city) or the "Yuma area"? I'm mainly concerned about original research in the city article, particularly given the notes on the talk page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:41, 20 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, Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 26 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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gale (Loudspeaker)

AfDs for this article:
Gale (Loudspeaker) (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:CORP. Not a single independent ref. Highly promotional and might even qualify for a speedy del. No evidence of any special notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for same reasons as first AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:14, 20 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, czar ⨹ 07:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are good refs please put them in the article. Saying there are good sources but not quoting them gets us nowhere  Velella  Velella Talk   20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oshwah, who correctly points out that the
    WP:CORP. Velella, that suffices...reliable sources are available, and they don't have to be in the article already. --doncram 14:25, 1 December 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. czar ⨹ 16:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Potter Rain

Terry Potter Rain (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 credible claim of notability. Asdklf; (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 02:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing I could find suggests the subject would meet our inclusion criteria. Happy to consider anything anyone else can find but there's no justification for keeping this non-article at the moment. St★lwart111 04:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's a url which was included in the article but not visible (spotted it while stub-sorting) so I tweaked it ... but on following the link, can't find any mention of this person. PamD 08:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:29, 19 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, czar ⨹ 07:59, 26 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. (

Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 16:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Garware Marine Industries

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

No evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 01:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 01:24, 12 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:25, 19 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, czar ⨹ 07:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this article fails
    WP:GNG; the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - tucoxn\talk 01:56, 27 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. czar ⨹ 16:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC Solutions

PC Solutions (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)

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I'm not convinced that the sources about the company's 25th anniversary are anything other than republished PR pieces (and even if they aren't, they're all covering just one event); beyond that, I'm not seeing many reliable source discussing this, due to the majorly generic name. However, if ChannelWorld.in is both independent and a reliable source, then [2] goes someway to establishing notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:01, 19 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, czar ⨹ 07:57, 26 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.

SOFTDELETE per minor participation herein. NorthAmerica1000 18:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Hasegawa Akishige

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

One-line stub article that has remained unsourced since its creation 6 years ago. A Google search turns up only Wikipedia mirrors or other unreliable user-edited sites, so there is no reliable evidence that this person even existed, let alone is actually notable. --DAJF (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 02:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 02:51, 12 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 19 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, czar ⨹ 07:57, 26 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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Community College

Randolph Community 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)

I have my suspicion that this article may have copyright issues, and in point of fact the deletion log for the page says that the article was axed on copyright grounds a while back. As its written now I have my concerns, in its current state with the maintenance tag I feel that an afd is warranted to determine the best course of action for the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 04:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:06, 19 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, czar ⨹ 07:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Established community college, part of a template for coverage of all the institutions in a United States' state system, just rewrite the thing if you have suspicions.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a few minutes whacking out the baloney from the article and added two sources. It needs more work, but no reason it shouldn't survive now.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as well as the sources added. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Thanks Milowent for making revisions. Thanks, i guess, User:TomStar81 for calling attention to the article and its possible plagiarism/copyviow, though I am not quite sure that opening an AFD is the most efficient way to do that. Anyhow, seems like it should be kept now, per Davey2010 and others. Tomstar81, if you are willing now to withdraw the nomination (and you or someone else could close it, as there are no other Delete votes i think), that would reduce the amount of community attention that must be applied. No problem if this continues and is to be closed at end of 7 days as usual for AFDs, instead. --doncram 22:48, 29 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. czar ⨹ 16:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Henric Buettner

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 16:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 16:39, 12 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 19 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, czar ⨹ 07:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources and a quick search show he is notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yngvadottir and Milowent. --doncram 02:23, 27 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. Deor (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Yoo

Jason Yoo (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 golfer, fails

WP:NGOLF Tewapack (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Tewapack (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom, clearly fails WP:NGOLF. Likely COI`/self-promotion as creator of article has made no other wiki contriburion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets
    talk) 00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment - It fails
      WP:GNG: refs 1 and 4 are from his school so aren't "Independent of the subject", refs 3 and 5 are routine sports coverage and not "Significant coverage", that leaves ref 2. That is hardly the basis for an article. (BTW, he is not even ranked in the top 3000 in the amateur rankings [3]). Tewapack (talk) 16:24, 26 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 19 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, czar ⨹ 07:54, 26 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.

SOFTDELETE per minor participation herein. NorthAmerica1000 18:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Navin Nooli

Navin Nooli (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

WP:INDAFD returns a few mentions of the name; all such mentions are as a crew in the films. No independent coverage of the person or his works. Sources in other languages may be available. Bringing this to AfD for community consensus. Dwaipayan (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:25, 12 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, j⚛e deckertalk 01:01, 19 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, czar ⨹ 07:53, 26 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. NorthAmerica1000 17:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Axone (curry)

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

I believe this fails WP:GNG. No references Gbawden (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of any notability. PamD 07:15, 26 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. NorthAmerica1000 17:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon Dabaw

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

Just another news show. Unverified, with nothing in here suggesting notability of any kind. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Lack of reliable sources and notability. Pb26388 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:42, 19 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 06:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of reliable sources and notability.
    talk) 12:58, 1 December 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. Arguments are hardly overwhelming - consensus is to follow precedent and common outcomes. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transfers of Torneo Clausura 2008 (Mexico)

List of Transfers of Torneo Clausura 2008 (Mexico) (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:NOTSTATSBOOK and does not give a reason why it's notable. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - list of transfers are normally considered notable, this is just a particualrly poor example - no sources, mis-use of flags etc. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 14:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per GS, article is poor but subject matter is generally considered notable. Fenix down (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per GiantSnowman. IJA (talk) 18:10, 28 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. Secret account 00:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice against african-brazilian religions

Prejudice against african-brazilian religions (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 significance; perhaps the article would be better as "Prejudice against Afro-American religions" with proper sources. However, it seems this article was copy-pasted from the Portuguese Wikipedia (October 2014) by a user who only has one contribution to the English Wikipedia. Also, the article is not written in a formal tone one would expect reading a Wikipedia article. Omo Obatalá (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to Prejudice against African-Brazilian religions to correct capitalization. SchreiberBike talk 20:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 27 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 redirect to 24 Oras. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24 Oras North Central Luzon

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

Totally unverified, just another news show--with no remarkable content. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:41, 19 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, j⚛e deckertalk 03:39, 26 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mercurio

Peter Mercurio (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 pass instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability--Mevagiss (talk) 12:46, 28 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cengiz Dervis

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

One of the poorer articles (and that's saying something) created by a paid editor, supported largely by a blog and some Kung Fu websites. The fleeting mentions in two newspapers aren't enough to meet WP:GNG, in my view. With a name like this, any substantial coverage should be easy to find - and I can't find any! Delete Sionk (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Sionk (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is so much wrong with this article that if I had been paid for it I would hurry to refund. Only source to 3x world champion kickboxer is a gym advert which does not mention the organization. The major Kickboxing titles are all extensively covered on Wikipedia but I can't find anything there either. So subject fails
    WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete There's no supporting evidence to show he meets the notability criteria at
    WP:GNG. He's not even mentioned at some of the sourced links and the rest are either passing mentions or not from reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:16, 28 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 deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Markum

Bailey Markum (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 actor. Fails

actor notability. No significant roles in notable productions. No coverage in reliable sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:14, 26 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. NorthAmerica1000 17:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Balma

AfDs for this article:
Donna Balma (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)

Relisting for further consideration after a no consensus/NPASR close on my first nomination. The problem wasn't that there was any actual disagreement, because nobody voted to keep the first time — rather, there wasn't enough participation after two relists. The problem remains that this is effectively a

primary sources which cannot legitimately demonstrate her encyclopedic notability. I still believe it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 02:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - [repeating !vote from previous nomination] Not quite finding enough sources to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete She actually sounds like an interesting artist but the article is in desperate need of some independent sources. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:12, 1 December 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. Secret account 00:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinoceros Tap

Rhinoceros Tap (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 an album which just asserts its existence, and makes no substantive or

reliable source coverage that's actually about the album itself, and on and so forth — they do not get a free notability pass just because they exist. Delete unless proper sourcing, supporting a substantive claim of notability, can be added. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are a good number of G-hits (most including the word "delightful") but nothing I would consider an independent, reliable source. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 06:38, 14 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, j⚛e deckertalk 01:58, 15 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks sources to establish notability. Existence ≠ notabiity. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:52, 3 December 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. Huon (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Basketball Association

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

No evidence this meets

WP:GNG, all sources are either unreliable, like OurSportsCentral, passing mentions, or press releases. No significant news coverage from mainstream media sources Delete. Secret account 21:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - VERY low level minor league. When I do a search I find no evidence of continuing significant coverage from RS's. The vast majority are self-published (including Word Press and Facebook). Rikster2 (talk) 14:07, 24 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The USBA article should be renominated ASAP. OTHERSTUFF, indeed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply speedied it, league never came to play, won't survive AFD. Obvious A7. Thanks for linking the "other stuff exists". Secret account 17:47, 4 December 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 due to sourcing and content salvage by User:Ritchie333. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kick the cat effect

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 written and poorly sourced essay about a pop psychology

reliable sourcing for anything. Finally, there's the quality of writing tone: for one thing, the introduction actually, literally does describe the phenomenon by means of an anecdote about John and Lisa and Mike and a cat (arrayed, no less, under the section heading "Captivating opening") rather than in encyclopedic terms; for another sample of the quality on display here, ponder "On of my personal opinion is we needs more improvement to develop a more reliable experiment for emotional contagion, a experiment not base social network, social network is a place were people can hid their real identity and real emotion, what we say online can be all fake." What we have here, in other words, is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was possible, but you've actually salvaged this as a keepable article. Thanks for that, consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Anecdotally, I always heard it as "kicking the dog" as a psychological act of misplaced anger. We don't even have an article on that; except as a mention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blame#Blame_shifting. Here on Wikipedia we are currently attempting to address gender differences in humans. Please no kicking cats, if we are not kicking dogs. Improved or not: delete! Fylbecatulous talk 16:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that argument is that the article now has a source from
WP:GNG. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 26 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_26&oldid=1142627697"