Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 30

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

)

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

There is already an article on the Collie and the Spaniel. To have a separate article on every single cross-breed of dog seems unnecessary. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 21:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is
  point of view. I'd suggest some sort of Kennel Club or similar recognition, or multiple references, as per Labradoodle, are the basic requirements for any dog breed articles. Libby norman (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – unsourced, doesn't meet
  SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  Goldador... Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:23, 5 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Islamic Library

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

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

No indication that this website is notable per

On the basis of this, and its strong relevance to needs of print-disabled readers, we strongly recommend removing this article from the list of to-be deleted pages. Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelsahab (talk • contribs) 00:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Remarks from Page Creator: I have referenced relevant information on some other wikipedia websites which clearly show the relevance and importance of this website as it presents information which is not available not accessible from other places and it is right of people searching that information to know about this source. Examples: Sahih Bukhari, Riyad us Saliheen, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sahih Muslim etc. (where previously there was no information available to readers regarding available commentaries etc.)
• There is more to be done on this to provide relevant information to readers. I plan to do this over the weekend.

On the basis of above and its strong relevance to numerous aspects on wikipedia as well as outside, I consider this to be a useful article on wikipedia. In coming few weeks, i plan to update the page with information about number of books available in different libraries in the form of a graph to show importance of this resource and importance of relevant wiki readers to know about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelsahab (talk • contribs) 03:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've worked with the creator to try to get this article into shape from the position it was in when I came across it on the NPP. @
  sourcing and discussion in third party sources. Please read these help articles before you add anything more to the article, because it already has a lot of self-references. You don't need to provide us with a catalogue of books here; that's for the website itself. If the criticism of the library is there in third-party sources with editorial control, it suggests the library is notable, and I'd say weak keep. However, you need to find those sources to be able to keep the article here on WP. LS1979 (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Sorry, I don't see it: almost all the sources listed are primary, and none of the others meet
  WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. Meeting the GNG doesn't come close to meaning that there "might" be sources that "suggest" notability. Either there are reliable, independent, third-party sources that discuss the subject in detail or there are not. We don't get to keep conditional articles. If this one doesn't have such sources, then userfy it to the creator until it does. Nha Trang 22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this website. I did try and find impartial secondary sources yesterday to justify it's significance but could find none. Many other Islamic websites of this ilk exist such as http://www.al-islam.org/, http://islamiclibrary.com/ and http://www.muhaddith.org/ so I don't see why this one should be considered special. RookTaker (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was able to easily find links to a number of digital libraries specializing in Islamic works. [7]. I also found the aggregator site Digital Islam that lists web sites but does not include this one. I would advise the creators of this article to see if they can add this library to that latter site, since it appears to be a logical place for one to look for Islamic materials in digital form. LaMona (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wiltrout

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

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

Non-notable individual. Wiltrout certainly had a busy and accomplished life, but notable? I don't believe so. The majority of references available on the Internet appear to be in regards to his death or fairly local to his base of operations (Alaska). His claim to fame is he was a high school sports coach who had considerable success within his own state...not national success, just success within his own state. And it's not even a 'powerhouse' state, it's Alaska. Fails WP:BASE/N and, by my observation WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 19:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Alex,

Thanks for your involvement in Wikipedia. I have a few small concerns with your reasoning, which I will list here. There are currently well over 1000 individuals listed at Category:High school football coaches in the United States, and a significant number of them are of comparable notability to Wiltrout. Is there some reason for his being singled out for deletion? On the baseball side of things, his accomplishments are entirely comparable to Tom Smith (baseball coach), with the sole exception that Smith had a few years as a coach at the NCAA level. Otherwise, Wiltrout's article has much greater detail, and just needs inline sourcing.

You also mentioned Wiltrout's Alaska connection: does Wikipedia discriminate articles on American individuals based on their state? I work mainly in Chinese-related articles, so I'm not familiar with your protocols.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep... The Alaska High School Hall of Fame honors and his recognition from the state legislature put this over the top for me.. A brief google search does turn up articles on him as well that should help this meet GNG.. User:White_whirlwind needs to do a better job with his inline citations on the article, but i'm gonna vote to keep for now. Alex, your "but its only Alaska" reasoning is pretty petty. Spanneraol (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:RS that demonstrate notability, but I have no doubt that Category:High school football coaches in the United States has lots of people that fail WP notability guidelines. Agricola44 (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete: Sorry, but I don't see what notability guideline being a member of the Alaska High School Sports HOF satisfies. And recognition from a state legislature? Please. We don't give a presumptive pass to recognition from Congress, and the reason why we don't do that is that there are a thousand bits of blather from some rep or another, while the others snooze or catch up with their reading, "honoring" the retiring owner of Billy Kidd's Pizza or the County Beekeeper of the Year in their district. Nothing wrong with that, but that ain't notable. Are there any sources that meet
  WP:GEOSCOPE? Nha Trang 22:15, 31 October 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.

Daak

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

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

Article has no sourcing at all. It is also hard to decipher what it is about. I would recommend deletion in its current state but if anyone can clean it up and make it understandable to the average reader then I will be happy to change this to keep MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom, just like MarnetteD I tried, but was not able to understand the article. Unsourced I performed a search for Daak clan and could not find anything.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hell Yeah Delete: What a freaking mess. Not quite a G1 speedy, but close. Unimproved and tagged for 3 years, unsourced since Day 1, explicit COI, and how this got gnome-edited all those years without being prodded I'll never know. Nha Trang 22:20, 31 October 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. SNOW.... j⚛e decker^talk 16:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Science and technology

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

)

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

• Delete or redirect - most of the "keep" comments in the 2006 AfD hinged on seeing how the article would develop - it has, in fact, been cut down since then. In the current state, it's still redundant and useless as anything but a
  Science, technology and society or History of science and technology. ansh666 20:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. There's nothing here but a bare one-sentence definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. st170e^talk 23:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Delete (or maybe even speedy delete under
  WP:A3), there just isn't any actual content here. --Obsidi (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The Chinese-conscious me thinks of zh:科技 (a dab), but that term is at least a portmanteau. "Science and technology" in English is just straight up two things. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 05:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This might make sense as a portal; certainly not as an article. -- 120.23.166.5 (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability, no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Onyx Tavern

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

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

Subject not remotely notable, article contains no sources whatsoever, and I did not manage to find any. Article exclusively edited by the subject himself, and bots.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Nathsir

Muhammad Nathsir (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)

Havent played any professional matches. MbahGondrong (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
  WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 18:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 18:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - He hasn't played in a
  WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 14:43, 31 October 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.

Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal

Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This doesn't exactly fit in any CSD category, but I'm asking for SNOW deletion as an unjustified BLP split. with an unavoidably prejudicial title. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe that this meets the criteria for inclusion per
  timeline of Rob Ford video scandal. As for the title, I've made it as accurate as possible (referring to the sexual abuse as "alleged"). If there is a more delicate way to title it, I'd be open to it. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Clear
  WP:NOTNEWS, given the amount of detail required to cover this topic, it can easily fit inside the subject's main article. Comparing this to Weiner or Ford is like comparing apples and architecture. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How does

WP:NOTNEWS apply here? Tchaliburton (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

How does it not? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at

WP:NOTNEWS. It's not (1) a first-hand news report, (2) routine news coverage, (3) a "who's who" or (4) a diary of minor events. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. - Does this have the enduring notability to be an encyclopedia article, who knows as this is only a few days old. My opinion is will not, as thus far the only outcome has been a radio personality has been dismissed from their job, and they are suing their employer. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" (

WP:RAPID which states "Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary." Tchaliburton (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Per
  WP:BLP. If the allegations prove to be true, then surely it can be added in the main article. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Firstly, this is a content fork — 90 per cent of it just a repetition (straight-up copy and paste, in fact) of stuff that's already in Jian Ghomeshi's main article anyway, and the very little bit that's actually new is "celebrity reaction" quotes that aren't even remotely essential to the encyclopedic context of the matter. Yes, it's news — but this article isn't adding anything substantive to our coverage of that news which the main article about Ghomeshi himself can't already accomodate on its own, without the need for a spinoff. The time for a separate article about this would be when the encyclopedic content about it actually dwarfs the rest of his article, not when one editor theorizes that it might eventually do so — if the best you can do, five full days after the scandal broke, is still almost entirely just copy-pasted from the main article, then that tipping point simply hasn't been passed yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Inflammatory article title – At best Redirect to Jian Ghomeshi as information is already covered there with new article just being redundant. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (no redirect) -
  WP:BLP, etc. as above. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - at this point, the allegations are unproven, and thus, posting an article like this violates BLP. Snow delete this as it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does it violate

WP:BLP? Tchaliburton (talk) 18:24, 30 October 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. Wizardman 03:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Kellogg

Dustin Kellogg (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 minor league baseball player. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with all the reasoning from the nominator. Considering all the articles Alex has been nominating for deltion, I dont understand why he created this one. Spanneraol (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete was about to take it to AFD myself, fails
  WP:BLP1E Secret ^account 02:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTMEMORIAL....William 16:24, 1 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.

David schoonderbeek

David schoonderbeek (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)

High school student with wrong letter case. Some claims are made about films and TV but not substantiated. Article seems to be written as a hoax. In any case it is unclear why this person would be notable. gidonb (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - This article has been speedily deleted as a hoax. JMHamo (talk) 14:07, 30 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenscio

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

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

I have not found any reputable source that could support the notability of this company. A speedy delete template for G11 (promotion) was removed (two times) by an anonymous IP user and I think that a PROD could be opposed by someone. I'm nominating the article for deletion so that a more general consensus about the subject notability can be reached. LowLevel73^(talk) 12:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Self-serving advertisement. No independent coverage from newspapers or journals.ShoesssS ^Talk 12:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A
  encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• very weak keep as it is reported on one website (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-10-06/news/54691305_1_quikr-investec-foodpanda). If another source or two could be found, I'd change to a solid keep. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Promotional, non notable. The only source is [8] which does not pass
  WP:COMPANY.  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 21:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per lack of adequate sourcing and being promotional Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG and is Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farouk Jiwa

Farouk Jiwa (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)

Autobiography of non-notable person. Agree with first AfD by User:Boleyn. NPASR Widefox; talk 01:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete first AfD closed only because it didn't attact a single comment. Does not meet
  WP:NOTABILITY. It was created by an WP:SPA whose username is the Fjiwa, indicating possible self-promotion. It has been tagged for notability for almost seven years, so it is time it had a good discussion about its notability, and it is decidd one way or the other. I would ask any potential closers to give it a bit of extra time if it is not attracting comments. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Self-penned PR bio, making no substantive or
  notability that would pass any of our inclusion rules. This is so bad that if it were being created today, instead of eight years ago when our sourcing and inclusion standards were looser than Mama June Boo Boo's morals, I'd have speedied it on sight as a primary-sourced advertisement. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

)

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

He held a lot of positions, but as far as I can judge, none of them really push him over the notability bar. An obituary cites his long service on the Board of Regents of the University of North Texas first. If that's his best shot, it isn't enough for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Given the individual positions held by Mr. Willis I would agree with the nominator. However, taken in combination, especially the naming of the library
  House Veterans Affairs Committee moves me to the Keep opinion. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but the opening paragraph needs to be edited to clarify notability. Insurance exec., etc., is not notable, and should therefore be mentioned later, in the article body. Willis' notability is from his civic roles as (i) LBJ's man in West Texas, (ii) Chairman of the Board of Regents for the
  House Veterans Affairs Committee. I'll edit it within 14 days. — Eurodog (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -
  House Veterans Affairs Committee are sufficient to support an article. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Sources appear up to scratch and the claims are strong. I agree with Eurodog about the insurance mention. BritainD (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination. It's snowing, so there's not much point to continuing. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 31 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Culture Bound Mental Health Difficulties

Ethiopian Culture Bound Mental Health Difficulties (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)

Unencyclopaedic essay/chart that doesn't appear to meet

• Delete, no sources cited, appears to be original research, see
  WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: OR, unencyclopaedic. Basie (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as likely
  hoax. I can't even find these terms in an Amharic dictionary. @Lul2lul: I will retract this with apologies if you can provide a source for this information. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, completely unsourced and unencyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:TNT - this is a complete mess. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, I recognize a few of the terms (e.g.
  OR at best. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Update: At least some of these are legitimate terms, while the rest (and/or their descriptions) didn't sound familiar at all. Abisho, for one, also has a different (if somewhat related) meaning according to this source. In any case, the article still fails
  WP:TNT is probably the way to go. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:42, 5 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. J04n(talk page) 00:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Servidio

Jay Servidio (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. The Wall Street Journal website has no record of an article on the subject, and the NYPress link does not work (although it does appear that there was once an article there, it isn't cached). The only sources I can find online are either Servidio's social media channels or complaints about his Teletaria company's services. The article was previously deleted via PROD, but was restored (by me) at the subject's request; it is too old for the BLPPROD process so needs to be discussed here. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Here's the NYPress article. Will add taht link. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The NY Press article is a good reference, but there do not appear to be any more. This is where the Wall Street Journal claim leads: it's a letter he wrote to the author of a WSJ article. This CNN ireport was written by Servidio himself. Like the nominator, I can't find anything citeable. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 03:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom - IMDJ2 14:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Children’s Theatre of Winnetka

Children’s Theatre of Winnetka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod removed "because many famous actors have came from this theatre" This is a non notable community theatre. Don't believe that their is significant coverage outside of the community to meet GNG Gbawden (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – small non-profit community theater with only local coverage and even that is only two cites. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as NN. gidonb (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd be willing to keep, if it
  can be proven that this troupe produced multiple notable actors. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – Fails
  notability is not inherited --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was speedy delete under A7 by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Bruijl

Gerard Bruijl (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)

Director of a small company who fails

• Speedy Delete: Per nom, unsourced BLP.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unreferenced
  biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC) (Following from User:Crystallizedcarbon's suggestion above, I am also flagging this CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC))[reply
  ]
• Delete: since the article was not considered eligible for a CSD A7, I vote for the deletion, motivating it with a lack of evidence of the subject's notability. LowLevel73^(talk) 11:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 30 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Earth projection

Natural Earth projection (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 recently created map projection, may not meet General Notability Guideline, all sources are primary.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. There are several peer-reviewed publications by Patterson et al., although citations are a bit thin. -- 120.23.166.5 (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the creator of the projection is involved, does that not make those articles primary?

Talk 15:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep. It's a borderline case, but there have been several publications without Patterson's name on them, though all by people who have worked with Patterson. My feeling is that something that has been the subject of several peer-reviewed journal papers by different scientists probably should be given the benefit of doubt. It has adequate references and is not a case of self-promotion, so I don't see what would be accomplished by deleting the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Octopus Recruitment Ltd

Blue Octopus Recruitment Ltd (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)

self referencing CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A
  encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete They exist, WP isn't a business directory. There's no overlap of relevant notability between them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- There are no independent sources that cover the subject in any depth and too few sources overall. The article is almost entirely promotional, and the awards are of dubious. Fails
  WP:ORGDEPTH
  .
• Delete for lack of secondary sources. Could be A7. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fairly new recruiter for mid-level companies. We are not a
  a web host. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CPA Site Solutions

CPA Site 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)

self reference. no notability. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Self-serving advertisement. No independent coverage from newspapers or journals.ShoesssS ^Talk 12:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – An advertisement. And no notability at all. Famspear (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 30 October 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Coquelin

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

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

prod contested because editor felt that there being an article in French was enough to show wiki worthiness. I proded originally because it has been 2 1/2 years and all anyone has been able to say is that he is an economist. Literally everyone alive or dead would be wiki worthy if all you needed to do was say the person existed. Maybe this will provide the impetus for someone to expand the article. But as it is now, goodbye! Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 03:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I have made some extension to the article (though it remains a stub), including 3 book references. See also the multiple references to the subject by
  notability. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

<class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Clearly notable from the French-language article and the new refs added by AllyD. Bondegezou (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As far as I am concerned, what the French article says is irrelevant to a great extent. Not only am I not sure I can easily access it, even if I did access it, I don't understand French so what that article says is useless. It is what this article says. If this article shows notability then keep. But potential alone, especially after 2 1/2 years, is not wiki worthy and it should go. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear pass of
  WP:GNG. There is no requirement that sources be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I've found multiple sources – some in English – with a quick search. He passes
  general notability even if the article needs some expansion and possibly help from someone who is a subject specialist so that his theories can be explained. Libby norman (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• David, just to clarify. I did NOT mean sources when I mentioned that I do not understand French. I meant the article on this person on French wiki. I was able to find it and the only part I understood was his birthday and the day he died. So the only way I can have a credible opinion on the subject is based on what is written here, in the English version. Which, BTW, is improving. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just run it through an online translator. Simple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator seems to misunderstand the purpose of AfD, which is to determine notability not to improve articles, and also the fact that notability is not based solely on what's currently written in an article. It does seem that this individual is notable, and that's all that matters. The length of the article at present is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I totally understand. Perhaps I was not clear enough or perhaps I was and Necrothesp simply needs to reread what I said. To simply say he is a French economist is not wiki worthy and I had my doubts anyone would improve it after all that time idle. That said, if this inspired someone to do some research and found something notable, I would not be upset if the article was not deleted. I call that being flexible, not clueless. Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:41, 5 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.

Lindy West

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

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

I can't tell why Lindy West is notable. There are many journalists that have written articles for many sites that don't have or deserve Wikipedia pages, why is she special? CombatWombat42 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and speedy close per
  WP:SURMOUNTABLE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources cited as references suggest notability, and most are unusable for that purpose anyway since they are not secondary sources but written by the subject of the article. Of the three sources that are not by West herself, two are just trivial blogs, not usable for anything really, and the third is an article about her father that mentions her merely as his daughter. Just being a writer of articles that have been published in X, Y or Z is not notable in itself. No sources suggest that the book she co-authored is notable, and I can find no proper book reviews of it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Notes section lists 19 articles that cover West in some way. Even if all of them lacked sufficent depth of coverage,
  WP:NEWSBLOG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've had a quick look at the strange "Articles West is mentioned in" section, and many are just blogs listing various articles (one of which will be by West) that are in other sources, often in other blogs, like [9]. And nor does having described "Sex and the City" as "a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls" [10] define notability! And there is non-notable internet drama [11]. There is a lot of drama actually. Drama-manufacturing to get controversy is no substitute for notability. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling media coverage "drama" has no relevance to

WP:BIO. It needs to be said that when you reject coverage of a social critic by calling it "manufactured drama", you are admitting that your motivation is that you oppose the subject's politics. We don't filter out Wikipedia articles on the basis of which people we disagree with. You're saying we should delete this article because you think West is wrong for raising questions over rape jokes, fat shaming, etc, and you think major media were wrong to write about her on those issues. Deletion !votes on that basis are not normally counted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Dennis Bratland, please start to assume good faith. It is completely unjustified for you to claim that I want this article deleted because of views the subject expresses. Your offensiveness in the above post goes well beyond the bounds of acceptability on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is how you get treated before you let the cat out of the bag. Nobody is required to assume good faith after you yourself have given evidence to the contrary. AGF doesn't require us to be thick. Here you disputed the fact that West has written on the subjects of racism, fat shaming and sexism. AGF means we all assume you at least skimmed the sources before you !voted, but then you proceed to let the cat out of the bag yourself: you haven't bothered to read before !voting. The opinions of those who !vote first and read later are of lesser value. Sorry but that's a fact. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You had better start to get wise, quick. If you go around stating editors are racists, are sexist, and think rape is a joke, you are not going to be on Wikipedia for much longer. If you continue in this way, I will raise a complaint against you. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie. I stand by my assessment . I don't think your !vote carries much weight here, based on your own words and actions. This is not a vote; not everybody's opinion is equal. Opinions based on poor reasoning carry less weight. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for clarity. Since the above discussion took place, Dennis Bratland has renamed what was the "References" section to "Notes", and renamed the "Articles West is mentioned in" section to "References". The "Articles West is mentioned in" section was originally named "Notes" until I changed it because it contained no actual citations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article seems kind of promotion-y and there's not much for notability other than the Social Media award. It could probably also be merged into Women's Media Center since most of the article seems to be about the award. If the article ends up staying, the section currently labelled "references" (formerly Articles West is mentioned in, I think?) should probably be removed as it isn't very useful and just appears to be a collection of mostly tangentially related links. And the section currently labelled "notes" appears to be the actual reference list. Hustlecat (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again,
    WP:NRV says, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation". Hence the value of listing sources at the end of a stub: to make editors aware that sufficient sources exist, even if the article has any number of surmountable flaws in neutrality, tone, writing, layout or citations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Hustlecat, I have been trying on the article talk page to explain to Dennis Bratland that the "references" section, formerly the "Articles West is mentioned in" section, are NOT actually references - but he is not listening. The "Notes" section was called the "References" section until he changed its name. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject of the article meets
  talk) 14:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above editor, a notoriously problematic editor (see the numerous complaints about his behavior here [12]) has probably arrived only to attack me, and is voting keep for no other reason than I voted delete. In the past he has AfD's articles I have created for no other reason than I created them [13]. Wikicology, have you forgotten that you have been warned on many occasions about imparting your unwanted and faulty "advice", as well as being warned against repeatedly posting links to Wikipedia advice pages when your own actions have shown you do not understand them. You quote the "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" but misunderstand it. It is not the sole establishing criteria to guarantee an article's existence - it is just the bare minimum standard. The presumption part is that anything without that minimum standard (reliable secondary sources independent of the subject) can be deleted. However, anything that passes that minimum standard is still subject to all the normal arguments for deletion, such as lack of notability, not suitable for an encyclopedia, etc. I have already pointed out that many of the supposed sources are not independent of the subject because they were written by the subject or are just blogs that link to sources written by the subject. In my opinion, sources do not indicate the degree of notability that is needed to justify a blp article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, please read

WP:BASIC include [14][15][16] and [17]. The case could be made without those, citing [18] or aggregating the coverage of West in the two dozen other articles.

The argument that it's unencyclopedic to cover West because the controversies she has been at the center of over the years are "drama" and "tabloid trash" is a value judgement about the seriousness of fat shaming, rape culture, and sexism in film and comedy. For example, the conservative National Review here dismisses Wests assertions as "griping". Wikipedia should be neutral on the question of whether the subjects under debate are serious or are mere gripes. Ignoring substantive coverage because we are taking the side of those who disagree with West is not neutral. Neutrality requires accepting substantive coverage on its face. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 07:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Delete, while the subject has received multiple mentions in multiple
  WP:AUTHOR, while the subject has been cited at least once, I would not consider that as "widely cited by peers or successors". Thus, appearing IMHO to fail GNG and author, unless more significant coverage of the subject, as the primary topic of the reliable source, I cannot at this time support keeping this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Can you help me understand why interviews don't count? I would think that if a source deems a person worth interviewing, and they publish a significant quantity of content from that interview, it's because they think the subject is notable. If anything lengthy interviews should be near the gold standard for establishing notability in the news media. You could argue Vice lacks gravitas, but not because it's an interview.

  And why are the following not significant? [19][20][21] ?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep. No guideline-based reason to delete has been presented. The subject meets
  WP:NEWSBLOG as the author is a professional with the Telegraph). VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bere

Justin Bere (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 architect, there's very little sourced biographical info (in fact none). The Financial Times article is about a 'passive' house in New York with only a mention of Bere's London house in the penultimate paragraph. He hasn't been the subject of multiple significant news coverage and neither has any one of his projects. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose: clearly the article has only started, with plenty to be added in time, and the four references are good, despite the opinion noted above. Passive House is a notable design strategy, and clearly this architect is a leading figure of that in the UK. Warren (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 18:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is stubby, but there's enough references to establish baseline notability. --Jayron32 02:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Independent article proves his notability. Agree with Jayron32 that it just needs more love.CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bucky Baxter

Bucky Baxter (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)

Obscure sessions musician and Dylan sideman; like many sessions musicians, undoubtedly a consummate pro, but not notable. Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 19:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems a solid, working musician, but I can't find much in the way of sources about his life beyond liner notes that prove he plays music. Having a job is not enough for meeting minimum notability standards. No good sources means no need for an article. --Jayron32 02:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's likely more than enough coverage of him out there in the reviews of the albums and concerts he's performed on. This book, for example, covers his work with the Beastie Boys(!) in some detail [26]; Newsbank shows nearly 300 newspaper articles (many of which are likely to be passing mentions, but even if only 10% are nontrivial there should be a solid basis for an article. Sometimes articles on non-celebrities need to be constructed from many pieces and many sources -- not every notable person is Kardashian-class. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cambell Kenneford

Cambell Kenneford (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)

Private person of very marginal notability, article is sourced solely to a couple of interviews given several years ago. No lasting notability, no reason to have an article, really. Also self-requested deletion by selfsame person, per [27]. Jayron32 02:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per nomination. Marginal significance. - Taketa (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I'm skeptical about a one-edit account, not even via OTRS, claiming to be any particular person. Especially with pages like this around http://www.facebook.com/pages/Like-if-you-want-Cambell-Kenneford-removed-from-the-internet/370377908375

What is our policy on this? WP doesn't remove BLPs on request when its fickle whim decides to go after a person and will instead choose to doxx them (poor bloody Jim Hawkins for one, who never appeared in the Waily Fail or the Sun).

This is someone who appeared in national print media, the Huff Post and national TV. I have some sympathy for an attention-seeking teenager who then decides maybe they don't want it, after their Warhol is up; yet they're still running their twitter and instagram feeds so it's hardly as if they've relinquished fame. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The policy is "If the article is about a person who isn't notable, we can delete it." --Jayron32 20:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you wish to take such a simplistic view of notability, then their repeated mainstream media appearances make them
  WP:NOTTEMPORARY. So we might (for once) decide to delete a BLP on request (if you're gullible enough to believe such a simple request is from who it's claimed), but it's not for WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Non-notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing since April 2012. I agree that the subject's own (purported) views are not relevant. She's still not notable. Maproom (talk) 21:28, 30 October 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Language on Vacation: An Olio of Orthographical Oddities

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

)

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

Prodded and deleted for lack of any reliable sources to establish notability years ago. Recreated when an editor promised to add reliable sources. No reliable sources have been added. Comments made by that editor on a talk page suggest he is basing that claim largely on coverage in a publication called Word Ways, which the article on Dmitri Borgmann notes was founded by this exact same author. Covering himself in his own publication does not establish notability. In fact, there's no evidence that the author himself meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, so that article probably deserves to be deleted as well DreamGuy (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Even discounting the Word Ways articles, there's plenty of coverage in reliable, independent sources, including contemporary book reviews in
  TIME [28] [29] [30]. Material in several popular and academic books, themselves written by notable authors such as Rod L. Evans and Yakov Malkiel, attests to this book's popularity and historical significance. Even the Word Ways sources are independent enough, having been written long after Borgmann's death, and anywhere from 17 to 37 years after he'd left the magazine. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have just completely rewritten the article on the basis of all the reliable sources mentioned above. Will do the same for Dmitri Borgmann shortly. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a major work in this field. Wahrmund (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, The updates seem to bring it into line with expectations Jeepday (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Psychonaut's sources and improvements. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable after Psychonaut's work on the article. 97198 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep. Well done, Psychonaut. DS (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite keep. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker^talk 16:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Borgmann

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

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

Only source cited to try to establish notability for this person is a scan from Word Ways, a publication this person created himself DreamGuy (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 00:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 00:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No shortage of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, including full-length biographical articles in
  WP:GNG. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

LaMona (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the problem with the Newsweek article; I'll get that fixed. Regarding Kirkus, I believe you are mistaken. You've linked to the rates for the modern Kirkus Indie, an online service for self-published books, not the print journal Kirkus Reviews which was published from 1933 to 2009. The print edition, so far as I know, never charged for reviews. Regarding the Stanford statement, I'm afraid I don't understand your objection; the article claims that 19 folders of Borgmann's correspondence are archived at the library, and the reference is an official guide to these collections which lists these 19 folders (among several others).

Simple counting is not original research. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You're right, that's the indie Kirkus. But even without payment, Kirkus reviews everything (even complete crap), so being reviewed in Kirkus does nothing for notability. As for the "19 folders", if you are referring to the Martin Gardner archive finding aid, which is what is listed there, nowhere does it say that there were 19 folders of Dmitri Borgmann material. It isn't 19 folders of Borgmann material, it's folders created by Gardner of which some (19?) include correspondence or notes from Borgmann. We don't know how many Borgmann items are in each folder, because the archive hasn't itemized them. (Note that the collection is measured at "60 Linear feet"!). Perhaps it's just a question of prepositions: there are 19 folders in the Gardner archive with or that contain Borgmann material, not of Borgmann material. Of implies that the folder includes Borgmann material exclusively. LaMona (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus Reviews is

TIME and Scientific American

.

Regarding the archive material, I see that the statement is ambiguous and have changed the preposition as per your suggestion. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]