Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 December	11 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Hargrave[edit]

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

Poorly sourced promotional article with an extreme, extreme level of COI editing. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly promotional in tone, but that's not enough for deletion. There's nothing that shows he's a notable martial artist as defined at WP:MANOTE. He also doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG because the references are either not independent or are more like promotional press releases about awards he's getting, such as ranks and hall of fame inductions. These things have long been determined as not enough to show martial arts notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet wp:GNG.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 22:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP based on sources that are primary / PR not clearly demonstrating passing GNG. (also, the COI / paid editing against the TOU is an issue) Widefox; talk 14:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:32, 17 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. Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior theory[edit]

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

A very badly formed dab page with no acceptable entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Badly formatted? So fix it. No acceptable entries? And what kind of criteria is that? It's a helpful disambig page; this should be speedy closed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing wrong with this disambiguation page. It has a clear topic and three or more articles it links to, meeting the qualifications for such a page. Sure, each of the linked articles could use a single sentence addition giving a bit of explanation of what they are, but that doesn't mean the page should be deleted. Quite the opposite, actually. Silver seren^C 09:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You both need to read WP:PTM. At best, the entries have the words "behavior" and "theory" in their titles, at worst, they don't even do that. Perhaps it could be renamed List of behavior theories, but it is not a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When someone is referring to "behavior theory", which is quite common in psychology and sociology, they could be referring to any of the listed theories. This perfectly fits PTM because these theories ARE often just referred to as "behavior theory" when people are talking about them. Silver seren^C 22:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's too generic IMO. Each entry is a behavior theory. The Ford Mustang is a car, but you don't see it listed in Car (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you're trying to refer to a Ford Mustang specifically, calling it car isn't descriptive. However, if someone is talking about psychology and refers to behavior theory, another psychologist would know which theory is being spoken of, similarly if a sociologist spoke about behavior theory. Like PTM says, the Mississippi River is often called "the Mississippi", which is why it is included at the disambiguation page. Silver seren^C 00:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The couple of those items that I am acquainted with are referred to simply as behaviour theory, so the DAB seems to be a valid one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per WP:SOFIXIT, I attempted to make it look more like a disambiguation by copy and pasting definitions from each individual article. Maybe someone who knows more about the subject can verify my work and/or simplify it. My only question is whether "learning theory" would be referred to as "behavior theory," but I left it there anyway. Tavix | Talk 01:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing an actual deletion reason being listed. WP:BEFORE and WP:SOFIXIT. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:44, 16 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. Michig (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Osi²[edit]

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

This is a Wikipedia page for a nonexistent person. There are no sources to back up the information on this page which leads me to believe that this article is fake. BKman74 (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Official website" doesn't exist, Twitter account 'suspended', Facebook page points to a little girl's account, Soundcloud page looks to be an unrelated guy called "osi". I can't find anything verifiable that meets WP:N or WP:MUSICBIO, so delete ~~as a hoax~~. — sparklism ^hey! 04:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see the page creator has updated the social media/web links. So now there is a website (that contains no info about the supposed artist at all), a Twitter profile (with 5 followers), a Facebook page (with 24 likes) and a Soundcloud (with two followers, and one 30-second piece of music). So while I now think this guy exists, he still doesn't meet WP:N or WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 05:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very likely a hoax for the reasons mentioned above. If it's not a hoax then there are no mentions in reliable sources to show it meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC Avono (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOOOOOO i know there many trouble i had to fix it sorry !!! Abderrahim oussi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 10 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Note that this close does not preclude a merger from being performed. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qubee[edit]

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

May not meet Notability guidelines of Wikipedia. It May also be merged with Augere. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. – nafSadh did say 18:17, 1 December 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 17:49, 3 December 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 ⨹ 20:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly repurpose to an article on the international company Quebee Broadband for which this is one of the national branches. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 14 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. Despite a low turnout of contributors to this discussion, consensus is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dail-Riabhach[edit]

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

I would like this page to be deleted mainly on the grounds that it is not historically accurate and seems to contain fictional material. Firstly the entire article is sourced from one, 17th-century source written by Sir Robert Gordon, 1st Baronet, which is known for its inaccuracies but can still often be used if balanced with accounts from other historians. The problem here is firstly that, the article which is about a battle between members of the Scottish Clan Mackay is not mentioned in either of the two main authorotive histories of the Clan Mackay: The Book of Mackay by Angus Mackay (1906) which is considered the definitive history of the clan makes no mention of it and neither does the History of the House and Clan of the Name Mackay by Robert Mackay (1829) which is also considered an authority on the subject. Secondly is the inconsistency with other Wikipedia articles which as I will explain may show fictional information: The story of this battle talks of in 1576 John Mackay, son of the dying Y Roy Mackay, chief of Clan Mackay and Neil Mackay, brother of the chief Y Roy Mackay. If you check the article Chiefs of Clan Mackay which has the definitive list of Mackay chiefs there is no mention of a chief called Iye (Y) Roy Mackay at this time (1576), as well as these other people not being found in the two authorotive Mackay histories previously mentioned. Therefore it would seem not only to be historically inaccurate but most probably fictional information which is a criteria for speedy deletion. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator User:Psycotics1454 was banned in 2007 and is unlikely to be found for comment. I am unable to verify that Conflicts of the Clans exists. With the book being 300 years old and cited in multiple Wikipedia articles it would be nice to have a copy on Wikisource. There are some odd spammy websites that share parts of this book. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given what has been presented above, I'd be inclined to delete with no prejudice against recreation if someone can demonstrate that this happened and that the details presented are accurate. With only one source, it could be suggested that this fails WP:GNG as not being subject to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If the reliability of the only source is in question anyway, lets to away with this for now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. First, the 18th Century source tells the story. It's far less Braveheart and far more Hatfields and McCoys. This wasn't a battle with an infantry line and cavalry. It's a couple guys feuding and the article creates a narrative beyond the source material. The source calls it a skirmish, not a battle. The only other mention of this "battle" was published years after this article and probably copied content from it. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not know enough of Scottish history to comment whehter the source is reliable. However there certainly was private warfare between clans. Is this a sample nomination? If not should someone not be considering much of the content of the template at the foot of the page under discussion? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reply -- Most of the articles in the template are well sourced and I have worked on many of them. However I nominated this one for the reasons above and it seems to be an odd one out in terms of the article quality and reliability of the sources.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well researched and convincing argument by QuintusPetillius.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:02, 17 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 23:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry[edit]

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

Orphaned article. Scientific journal without an impact factor. The only listed indexing services are minor. In Biosys Citation Index, there are 318 articles listed as having been published by this journal since 2002; only five articles have been cited more than ten times. At the time of writing, the link to the journal here is currently dead; the journal link here is equally unhelpful. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only indexed in BIOSIS Previews, which is only mildly selective. Does not meet WP:NJournals. There is some content in the article history, but it was deleted as being unsourced (so no sources found there either) and, even if everything is correct, that still does not show notability. Hence, does not meet WP:GNG either. --Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 5 December 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 ⨹ 19:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NJournals is a low standard and this article does not meet it or other inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWorldcat shows only 6 library holdings. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:31, 17 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. Overall consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek[edit]

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

This is an autobiography (created by User:Ryemaybee, but extensively edited by User:Totosy, two being probably the same person). It was submitted to the WP:AFC process by User:Totosy, but was declined (Draft:Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek). The user nevertheless posted the article into the main namespace using his alternate account. The articles lacks reliable sources with significant coverage to prove the notability of the subject. I was able to find many books and articles written by this subject, but did find only a few poor sources (ie. [1]) with no significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PROMOTION and failing WP:PROF, among other reasons. NickCT (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a distinguished academic who meets WP:PROF. His CV lists his publications, including a number of books with reviews in several journals. (The CV is not in itself an independent source, but I hope nobody is going to be silly enough to claim that he has invented non-existing reviews for his CV.) --Hegvald (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how he meets WP:PROF -- which has fairly high standards. Also fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Under "Specific criteria notes" at WP:PROF, it is clarified that "reviews of the person's work" are one way to show that an academic has "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". These reviews also constitute the kind of coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. --Hegvald (talk) 06:25, 5 December 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 ⨹ 19:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hegvald I see no reviews of this person's work in that article. Even without references, no claim is made which meets WP:ACADEMIC. This is an unreferenced biography and it requires multiple references to stay. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the reviews are listed there whether you see them or not. And it is not an article. It's his CV. --Hegvald (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh wait, Bluerasberry, I see. You never clicked on "Download" to open the PDF, did you? If you do, you'll see that it has a list of publications and for each of several books in that list, it also lists a number of reviews. --Hegvald (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had not. This person has a long CV. Still, even if a person meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, their Wikipedia article can be deleted if that is not meet Wikipedia's standards. There may be someone in that CV to establish notability but unless something is pulled from it and put the article I will still say delete. It is not obvious to me what establishes notability here. Thanks for following up. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a BLP with no independent sources. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a link to the journal of which he is editor. As for reviews of his works, I went through the entire 21 page CV looking for the word "Review" and none that I found were reviews of his work. Hegvald, could you list here the reviews that you have found? Thanks. LaMona (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look, for instance, at "4.1.6 1998. Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. Comparative Literature: Theory, Method, Application.", line 6 of that paragraph has a section beginning "Book reviews", listing (unless I miscounted) nineteen reviews of this book alone. Did you check the listed journals? When doing so, did you find that these were not actually reviews of his book? --Hegvald (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was able to find one (searches in some of the journals don't return anything under his name). The reviewer concludes "However, the book's dogmatic tone, frequent typographical and syntactic errors, and uneven development detract from its often stimulating argument." Hmmm. Not a good advertisement for the book or the press, which was Rodopi/Brill. This was a review in a specialist journal. None of the others I tried worked out for me. Some may precede the journals being online. Basically, I am unable to verify the reviews. Sorry. LaMona (talk) 16:59, 16 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Heroes Foundation[edit]

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

There are no references to reliable sources to prove the wp:notability of the subject. Google News search does not return any hits [2]. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough even a redirect to Richard Murunga makes little sense. It is a recent creation of no impact.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:34, 3 December 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 ⨹ 19:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:42, 10 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firewatch[edit]

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

This was initially marked with an A7 speedy deletion, but as the game is not going to be web only it technically fails that guideline. I did find some coverage, but not nearly enough to warrant an article at this point in time. I'm open to this getting userfied or moved to the draftspace, but right now it just seems like its just WP:TOOSOON for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 3 December 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 ⨹ 19:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unti l it gets released. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 14 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 23:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Banderas[edit]

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

Fails WP:Pornbio for lacking significant award, unique contributions to porn, and mainstream popularity. Male pornstars must be held at a higher standard, for obvious reasons. His page also fails WP:GNG Redban (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the logic of my original PROD: "Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content." No real article improvement since that time, just the addition of a few unimportant biographical details from a self-published blogger interview without a reputation for fact-checking. and the citation of some scene awards that don't count toward notability under PORNBIO. While the list of nominations might be seen as strikingly long, roughly 60% are for group sex scenes, and the nominee is quite correct that such "recognition" is much less significant with regard to male performers, who make up a disproportionately small share of the industry "talent pool". The claimed "reality tv show" appears to be little better than vaporware. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm going to disagree with the nominator and previous voter that male performers should be held to a higher standard than female performers. This distinction/discrimination is not in PORNBIO nor any other notability guidelines. When you default to the general notability guidelines, Marco is covered by various Spanish sources.[3][4][5][6][7] The "claimed" reality tv show is covered by them too.[8][9][10][11] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG; has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject both inside the adult industry (AVN & XBIZ) and outside (Spanish mainstream media). Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:NRVE, "editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." A few more sources in addition to the ones listed above by Morbidthoughts: [12], [13], [14], [15]. Banderas was also, among other things, the main subject of a Canal+ documentary, [16], and of a TV3 portrait, [17]. The subject certainly passes WP:GNG and possibly WP:PORNBIO#3 on the basis of his television appearences and works. Article needs to be restructured and expanded, not deleted. Cavarrone 09:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - win, so meets the requirements. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts - those sources show clear notability and push him past WP:GNG at the very least. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:30, 17 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. postdlf (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Fontana[edit]

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

Non-notable male pornstar (males should be held to a higher standard than the females, in my opinion). He has no awards. He is not the Hall of Fame. He has one mainstream appearance in the NYTimes about his supposed retirement. However, that article became invalided by his return to porn and by his claim that the NYTimes misrepresented him. Therefore, Fontana fails WP:GNG Redban (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is member of the AVN Hall of Fame, despite what the nominator states.[18] The article has a dead link, but that's an issue for cleanup. Passes WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Pornbio says at the top, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Look at the list of AVN Hall of Famers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_AVN_Hall_of_Fame They began inducting members in 1995, yet they already have over 200 inductees (count 'em -- over 200). By comparison, the MLB Hall of Fame has been active since the 1940s, and only 240 players have been inducted. The AVN Hall of Fame is a sham, and we shouldn't base notability solely on a person's inclusion therein. I believe the NY Times article is suspect, thereby making this article fail WP:GNG. Redban (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gene93k. While some porn "hall of famers" have so little relikable coverage that their articles should be redirect to the relevant list page, a NYTimes profile, even a flawed one, is almost always a demonstration of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes PORNBIO and GNG. New York Times article is not flawed or invalid because he unretired. It's not an obituary. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO. This AfD along with all others started by Redban were started out of frustration for the recent deletion of Audrey Bitoni, one of Redban's favorite porn stars. During Bitoni's AfD, he stated "Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia". That is his only motivation for starting these AfDs. We aren't going to delete all porn star biography articles from Wikipedia, especially those that pass WP:PORNBIO, just because Redban is upset that we no longer have an article for his favorite porn star. I also think it's preposterous to suggest that "males should be held to a higher standard than the females". Perhaps from Redban's own point of view Audrey Bitoni is more notable than Rod Fontana, but WP:IKNOWIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, invalid and plainly inaccurate rationale for deletion, subject passes PORNBIO and very likely GNG, I have to agree with Rebecca1990 this looks like a disruptive nom, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Cavarrone 10:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Clearly passes WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - win, so meets the requirements. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I previously closed this as a speedy keep and it was reverted as a "inappropriate and premature NAC". I still stand by the original decision and hate to pile on, but this is a clear speedy. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:46, 16 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Troy–UAB football rivalry[edit]

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

No indication this "rivalry" meets WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY. Unsuccessful in finding national sources that indicate this was ever considered a major "rivalry", which makes this article original research. UAB since disbanded their football program so its very unlikely these two teams will face again. Delete Secret ^account 19:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is kept, the very painful color scheme in the chart needs to be changed. Dang, my eyes hurt! LadyofShalott 20:01, 4 December 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding significant, independent coverage of the type expected under WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY to establish that this brief (12 years), and now discontinued, series was a sufficiently notable rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable rivalry. It's not long standing or heated. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:39, 15 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. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Wood Academy[edit]

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

Small school in Ghana, article tagged as unfinished since 2010; Only source cited is to the academy page itself. I was unable to find any sources to establish notability. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 20:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 December 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an elementary/middle school, it is not inherently notable. I can find nothing about it online, and its own site is not responding, so I can't even ascertain that it is still functioning. Note that there is an entry in the disambiguation page for David_Wood which will also need to be removed if this article is deleted. (Is that automated?) LaMona (talk) 22:39, 15 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. The nomination has been countered with sources that demonstrate the subject's notability, as per WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Erakat[edit]

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

Consists of nothing more than an infobox and an introduction. Picture is copyrighted and will be deleted. No notability WP:ENT. Rayukk (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This YouTuber is known for his social experiments. Here's a few sources: 1, and 2. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:06, 8 December 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, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above, as well as the outcome of the previous AfD and the sources provided there, as well as WP:NTEMP. Deadbeef 21:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll admit the article needs a tidy up but as everyone knows WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, Anyway there's plenty of sources out there [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] so clearly passes WP:ENT as well as WP:GNG, I assume WP:BEFORE wasn't even followed seeing as I've found 12 sources which took what 5 minutes..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:19, 10 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. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie Glam[edit]

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

Non-notable pornstar. She has an AVN Award for Best New Starlet, which satisfies the additional criteria for WP:Pornbio, but she fails WP:GNG, based on the sources on her page. The only reference "independent of the subject" is a CNBC publicity-motivated, top-pornstar list. Everything else is the usual iafd, AVN, and such. Redban (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, clearly meets WP:PORNBIO and very likely WP:GNG. AVN Award for Best New Starlet is undoubtly one of the major awards in this field and clearly meets the requirements of our guideline. CNBC is an unquestionably a reliable source as discussed multiple times on WP:RSN, and being included in a "top-pornstar list" CNBC article is possibly an additional claim of notability, surely not a reason for deletion. The article "The Fresh Effect" from AVN Magazine, Vol.26/No.6, Issue 331, is also a reliable source, not a press release but a genuine journalistic piece (part of the yearly "Fresh Effect" series which analyze year by year the most important names, products and trends of the year). No real basis for this nom outside WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cavarrone 20:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CNBC article is straight junk, a list by someone likely as qualified as you or I. Moreover, the WP: GNG emphasizes "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail ... [and] is more than a trivial mention." That list gives a mere 50-word paragraph on Gracie, which is trivial. And the AVN article that you mention is not "Independent of the subject." The date of publication (2010) makes me believe Gracie's mention was to hype her upcoming appearance in the 2011 AVN-awards, where she won Best New Starlet. The page fails WP:GNG. Redban (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redban, Glam clearly passes PORNBIO so the whole discussion is quite moot, anyway as explained in our guidelines, "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is a big difference between a biographical paragraph enterely devoted to a subject and a "trivial mention" (eg. being cited in a list of names, see also the example of trivial mention cited in the guideline). About the 15-pages-long AVN article, it includes a few other biographies and apparently none of the portrayed people except Glam won an award the following year. Such series of yearly articles regularly include portraits of names who will not win nor won any award, and several names who are not even nominated to such awards (eg Amy Brooke in the article in question). It is perfectly reasonable that, in an article focusing on the big names of the year, one or even two of them will win an award one year later. We can agree the cited sources are here on the thin side, but your derogatory comments ("straight junk", "publicity-motivated article") and your speculations about date of publications, hype and so on, are just that, nothing more than speculations and personal opinions, and we don't delete articles on the basis of a random guy's personal bias, but just if they fail our policies and our guidelines. Cavarrone 22:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reluctant keep~~. Delete and redirect to AVN Best New Starlet Award. The article contains no significant, reliably sourced biographical content and no claim to notability beyond the award. In this situation, broad community consensus (not limited to porn) has been that redirects to list articles can be appropriate, and I believe that should be the standard treatment for BLPs in sensitive subject areas. (revised) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC) The GNG failures pointed out by the nominator are real, but the intensely-worked-through consensus discussions at the last revisions of PORNBIO gave even specific support to the "New Starlet" awards as a strong indicator of notability that I'm unwilling to reject it at this point, even though I didn't agree with it in those discussions. I'd consider changing my !vote if others are ready to revisit the balance here. The nominator is quite correct, however, in dismissing the CNBC recognition as unimportant: the source cited is not CNBC editorial content, but hosted writing from a blogger/stringer who is not even employed by CNBC. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hullaballoo. If you look better the author of the article is Chris Morris ([31]), who is an established CNBC journalist. ([32]). Cavarrone 20:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cavarrone, I'm definitely right on this one. Morris isn't listed on either of the CNBC staff pages ("Anchors & Reporters" [33]; "Contributors" [34]). His own homepage describes as a freelance journalist identifies him as a "freelance writer and editor" with many clients including CNBC.[35] He sure looks like a reliable source for factual information, but his opinions are his own, and should not be credited to the editorial voice of his clients, or given the weight of them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, ok, a freelance journalist, good investigation. We ultimately and definitely agree, he's a valid source for factual information, not for his opinions. Cavarrone 22:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Source could be better but notability's there and plus consensus is different with different topics, I see no reason to delete a fully sourced article at all. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability's there" -- how? From her winning the Best New Starlet AVN award? WP:Pornbio says at the top, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The award, by itself, doesn't grant notability. I don't find the CNBC and AVN sources enough to satify WP:GNG. Redban (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The award is not just an odd criterium of notability for pornographic actors, it is a basic criterium applied for ANY biography (see WP:ANYBIO#1). "Meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" is not something relevant to PORNBIO, it is relevant to every specific biographical notability guideline, and you cannot cite the sentence out of context: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". _{furthermore "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."} When Davey writes that "notability's there" he is entirely correct, community discussed literally for years notability criteria regarding pornographic actors which are actually quite strict, and winning an individual AVN award certainly meets the criteria. You need to have strong, specific arguments to ask for the deletion of an article about a subject who unambiguously passes our notability guidelines, and here you have not. Drop the stick. Cavarrone 00:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Gracie Glam clearly passes WP:PORNBIO. She won the AVN Best New Starlet Award in 2011, which is one of the most prestigious awards in the adult entertainment industry. Redban has absolutely no real concerns over the WP:GNG. He is just frustrated that the Wikipedia article on one of his favorite porn stars, Audrey Bitoni, was deleted. He stated in Bitoni's discussion "Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia", which is his only motivation for starting these AfD's. This is very disruptive behavior which should result in Redban being blocked. It's not like he has even contributed anything useful to this encyclopedia. Have you all seen what he has done to Eva Angelina's article? It's a mess now and sourced mostly to her Twitter and porn studio websites like Brazzers and Naughty America. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, no need to suggest blockages. By starting an AFD, I do not disrupt the website because the community collectively makes the call to delete, not I. In other words, I simply start the discussion; the others collectively provide the verdict.Redban (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca1990 is apparently right, you tried to keep Bitoni's article on the thin basis that "her twitter page has 134,000 followers" while "Gracie Glam has 91,000 followers on twitter", then, once Bitoni's article was deleted you tried to take revenge on Glam and others. Redban, you are a brand new editor, so you certainly have not yet read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, plus a bunch of other guidelines and policies. We don't keep or delete articles on the basis of our personal tastes, this is not WIKIPEDIA:THE GAME nor the deletion discussions are a popularity test, we just judge articles because on their compliance with guidelines. Nominating articles on subjects you know they are notable plus being combative and polemic towards everyone disagrees with you just because you are frustated IS disruptive and at best it is a giant waste of time for the community who could spend their time doing something better than commenting in such odd discussions. Cavarrone 08:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca's comments amount to a bad faith attempt to intimidate a relatively new user editing in good faith from taking positions she opposes. While "Best New Starlet" is an award that by consensus is prima facie evidence of notability, that result was hardly undisputed. The position Redban takes here -- that winning the award is insufficient to sustain an article without other significant coverage in reliable sources -- may not be artfully stated in this discussion, but it lines up with the positions taken by other, more experienced editors in the extensive discussions we've had about PORNBIO, as, for example, here [36]. It's inappropriate for an editor on one side of an ongoing dispute is bound by limits that their side regularly ignores. This is ultimately a dispute over the interpretation of a notability guideline; Rebecca herself has regularly challenged such interpretations that they disagree with, and Redban's position has been supported in the past by experienced editors. They've done npthing wrong here -- but Rebecca has, and not for the first time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk)`

Rebecca1990's comment does not look like bad faith to me; she is merely stating a fact since Redban's comment on the other AfD was in the line of "since I can't have any candy, you can't either!". Highly discouraged and disruptive behavior at Wikipedia. Nymf (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The AVN Best New Starlet Award is literally one of the most "well-known and significant industry awards" that exists in the adult film industry. There is also nothing wrong with any of the sources that are currently in this article, as they only really need to be independent of the subject of the article in question (which is Gracie Glam) not of the industry that a particular subject happens to work in mostly or partially. As far as I can tell, there's never been any concensus that "Newcomer awards should be excluded" from the PORNBIO standard.

This AfD is an excellent example of why new Wikipedia editors really shouldn't be allowed at AfD. It's a waste of everyone's time and is therefore at least mildly (if not intentionally) disruptive. Guy1890 (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This should be closed. Even Hullaballoo Wolfowitz agrees that it should be kept.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - win, so meets the requirements. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:04, 14 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. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dontnod Entertainment[edit]

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

Article is a recreation of one previously deleted via PROD. Subject fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Coverage is of the purely routine and trivial sort, mostly short blurbs from an online gaming news site. Some of the cited sources deal more or less exclusively with the two games produced by the company that garnered any reviews (mixed). A Google did not yield anything that rings the Notability bell. The bottom line: It's a company, one of millions, with no credible claim to encyclopedic notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the following sources: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] and a little here [43]. Sam Walton (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added these sources/content to the article. Sam Walton (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sam Walton's sources, which are reliable, discuss the subject in detail, and yes, address the company itself, not just the games it makes. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing AfD nom based on added sources. HT: Sam Walton. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 15 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Starland[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. Most, if not all, third party coverage is in relation to her association with Lady Gaga (notability is not inherited). Vague claims currently in the article about top ten hits are not cited. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Serious lack of notability. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability. – Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:42, 11 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 withdrawn by nominator and as per majority of keep !votes. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Mahajan[edit]

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

The subjects is notable only for one event and seems to be the case inherited notability as well as the events does not have significant coverage in independent sources and reads more like resume. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Getting news coverage on three different points is a common measure that a biography can stay on Wikipedia. This person got media coverage for his marriage and then again four years later for his divorce. This person is an entertainer and media personality, and I expect that more sources can be found because this person's marriage was covered only because they were already famous. However, those sources are not in this article. If someone found 1-2 more sources then I would say keep this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Even Wikipedia is not a newspaper . — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received quite a lot of media coverage (mostly related to TV appearances). An entire TV series was developed based on his wedding process (Rahul Dulhaniya Le Jayega on NDTV Imagine in 2010), which is in itself a pretty rare feat. Meets notability criteria. Even right now, when I serached the google news, there are several mentions of his activity related to another TV show called Bigg Boss.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From his alleged drug use to his numerous TV reality show appearances particularly in Bigg Boss and Rahul Dulhaniya Le Jayega, the media has covered it all. [44] Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -~~Unfortunately~~ this guy is eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia for everything he has done following his father's death received huge media attention. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:06, 13 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Fischer[edit]

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

Is mentioned in sources, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:JOURNALIST, WP:BIO generally or WP:GNG. Has been tagge for notability for almost seven years, so hopefully we can resolve it one way or another now. Boleyn (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know how important he was a journalist. Longtime sports editor of one of the Chicago newspapers, in all of the sports writers' associations. But it was a long time ago. I'd defer to someone who knows more about the history of sports writing. But I think he could well qualify for his role as executive of one of the predecessors of the NBA at at important time in its history. See The National Basketball League: A History, 1935-1949. Also softball. He organized the first national tournament and the group that standardized the rules. He would seem to be an important person in the history of softball. See Sports and Games of the 18th and 19th Centuries. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The thing that give him notability is currently uncited (President of the NBL), but I WP:AGF.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This Chicago sportswriter is credited as the father of the World Series of Softball and founder of the American Softball Association by The Big Book of Jewish Baseball. This is also recognized on the St. Bonaventure University's History of Softball site. Clear pass of GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:53, 17 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 23:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marija Ritonja[edit]

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

Probable hoax, certainly completely unverifiable. No sources exist for this person, never mind the claim that she was an illegitimate child of Nicholas I of Montenegro. Article creator already has had three other articles on this royal house deleted.

Also nominated is Elizabeta Bratusha, the equally unverifiable child of Marija Ritonja, who married an equally elusive Anthon Bratusha von Friedau, and is the mother of e.g. the completely unverifiable "Princess Marta Kerschbach", wife of the untraceable "Prince Joseph Kerschbach". At best, this is a real family who make some extreme-fringe royalty claims. At worst and most probably, a complete hoax. Fram (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:GNG and a host of other stuff. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it is without references and I can't find any. LaMona (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable content with no reliable sources. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:24, 17 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 delete as vandalism. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red whiting[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for storing materials or information unrelated to improving Wikipedia. Attempted a PROD but it was removed by the creator; don't see an obvious CSD category it would fit. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 10 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 23:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sysmind[edit]

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

May not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Only a single reference provided which is a broken link. Please add references if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "...one of the fastest growing companies in North America." Really. I found one passing mention in a semi-reliable source. Everything else falls under routine directory listings and job postings. Complete failure of WP:CORPDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim might have been credible when the article was first created, but there is nothing in this article to establish notability, either in terms of claims or reliable and verifiable coverage, nor could I find anything in Google searches or a review of the company's website. Alansohn (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created and tended by a sequence of WP:SPA accounts. Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) fail to turn up evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. – Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability -fails GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:10, 13 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 keep. It appears that the nominator hasn't even read both the articles. It's clear that both the article is not same and the nominator has not raised any other issue as to why the article should be deleted. Closing as speedy keep #3. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nirankari[edit]

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

this article is same as this article so should be included in this or deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sant_Nirankari_Mission Demi lion (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite what the nominator says, these seem to be distinct offshoots of Sikhism, deserving of separate articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Sant Nirankari Mission article states "Despite the similarity of name, the group is not[1] (or is no longer[2]) affiliated with the Nirankari movement started by Baba Dayal." This statement is sourced with two reliable references, and after reading both articles they are clearly not the same. I can't see any other reason for this article to be deleted. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:11, 10 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. SpinningSpark 00:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crenshaw Communications[edit]

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

PR agency is not the subject of multiple, in-depth works as required by WP:CORP. Searches in Google News and PRWeek only reveal press releases, blurbs based on press releases, routine executive appointments and other trivial coverage. CorporateM (Talk) 04:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to agree - all I found was press release and incidental mentions in stories about other things (e.g. client activites). While that may indicate some importance, we need coverage about the firm to satisfy notability requirements. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to a more general article ("Press relations agencies of New York") but it is unlikely anyone would be interested in spending the time to create such an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys! I would like to volunteer to clean this article up and provide it with actual independent, third-party stories that support its creation. From what I see, this is a smaller firm, though it is notable based on the amount of references -- perhaps not the depth, though -- it has generated. Most of the content, as it stands, is not supported. Here are a few of the pieces I can leverage to provide deeper context, per the WP:CORP. The entry will likely still be light after my edits, though it will actually be well-referenced.

Potential references (there are a ton of these out there):

44. Crenshaw Communications Kristen Stewart Voted Least Trusted Celebrity; Poll: Top 10 Most Trusted People in America This J.C. Penney Worker Was Fired For Telling The Truth About Its 'Fake' Prices The Real Reason Facebook Cracked Down On Guns (Moms, Of Course) Social Media Shouldn't Be an Echo Chamber Target's Reputation May Never Be The Same Again Lowe's criticized after fleeing Muslim reality show When Brands Take Risks and Fail

If you are okay with giving me an opportunity to edit, that would be great. I might need more time, however, between now and Wednesday (I think last day before deletion).

Thanks! Techieguy2012 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a glance at the sources provided above, they look like the types of quotes, brief mentions and trivial rankings that were the rational for the nomination. If for some reason the article is kept though, certainly we would be better off with an improved version (I wouldn't recommend spending your time on it though until the AfD is closed) CorporateM (Talk) 23:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"44." A brief description of the company from a good source. This could go toward establishing notability, but only as a small piece.
"Kristen Stewart" - a quote by Crenshaw CEO; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
"J.C. Penny" - a quote by Crenshaw CEO; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
"Real Reason" - a quote by Crenshaw CEO; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
"Social Media" - a quote by Crenshaw director; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
"Target's" - quote + advice by Crenshaw CEO; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
"Lowe's" - quote + advice by Crenshaw CEO; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
"When Brands" - a quote by Crenshaw CEO; nothing about company - no notability imparted.

So, what we have is high quality sources relying on Crenshaw for opinion from time to time, but basically no coverage of the company. These quotes collectively show some importance, but if there are no articles about the company, there is nothing to base an article on. We need at least one high quality sources (preferably two) that has written in depth (multiple paragraphs) about the company itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are all valid points, ThaddeusB. I'm going to dig into this a bit more as I think there may be some of that coverage, though it might be a bit old. Will keep you posted. Beyond that, I wonder if perhaps the CEO should have a page, instead, if this thing is deleted, given her footprint. Techieguy2012 (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To what degree are trade industry coverage worthwhile to establish notability? I see things from Mediabistro and other public relations industry outlets that have mentioned them quite a bit. These outlets have their own Wiki profiles, so does that mean the coverage meets the desired standard? Techieguy2012 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trade magazine coverage of a PR firm by a PR trade magazine can be assumed to be PRu nless shown otherwise. Quotes and mentions are not signficant coverage. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree that trade press cannot be used to establish notability or that PR trade magazines are just PR themselves. However, support that we need more than brief mentions, quotes or anything that looks like a re-written press release. What is needed is in-depth coverage where the PR firm is the subject of a substantial piece that can support a meaningful entry and is written by an independent professional journalist (not a contributor, guest author, byline from the company or re-written press release). Regarding awards, I do not think they can be used to support qualifying for an article, especially in this field. I have written some additional advice in this area at WP:ORGAWARDS. Although I could be wrong, I glanced at your contributions and it gave me the impression that you may be affiliated with this firm, in which case Wikipedia's Terms of Use[45] (and the FTC's astroturfing laws cited in the TOU) requires a disclosure of your financial connection. If this doesn't apply to you, than please just ignore me. Just a heads up. CorporateM (Talk) 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What CorporateM said. Trade publications are OK, but the coverage has to be pretty substantial; more so for publications with smaller audiences. Awards with no additional coverage beyond "X won Y" do not establish any notability at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:52, 18 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 deleted by Jimfbleak as WP:G12, Unambiguous copyright infringement of the guy's CV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Ho Lee[edit]

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

This article may be an autobiography. William2001 (talk) 04:54, 10 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Celebrity Source[edit]

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

Hopelessly promotional article created out of brief mentions, quotes, directories and primary sources. Even if two in-depth profiles stories existed to pass WP:CORP, any volunteer that has an interest in the subject would be better off starting from scratch. It is possible the founder may qualify for a page, which is a discussion for another time. CorporateM (Talk) 04:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage is sufficient, and of sufficient quality, to meet WP:GNG. Problems with the article should not be dealt with through AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how it doesn't meet our notability threshold. What can be fixed should not be deleted. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:25, 13 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 22:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Alvarez de Cienfuegos Cobos[edit]

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

This is a machine translation (Google translate) of the Spanish Wikipedia article on the same subject [46]. This might be regarded as an WP:A2 case, since this is actually a Spanish language article, not an English language one. According to WP:TIE, "an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing". Vanjagenije (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this article were sourced (and the one in Spanish is not, either), I would be willing to fix the translation errors. However, not only is it not sourced but I can't even clearly establish the existence of this author. There is just one author with a similar name, Alberto Álvarez Cienfuegos who appears in VIAF as an entry from the National Library of Spain. However, his dates are listed there as 1856-1957 (101!) while the WP article says he was born in 1885. Other searches, e.g. G Scholar, don't turn up anything helpful. LaMona (talk) 23:17, 9 December 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 ⨹ 04:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per "machine translation is worse than nothing" rationale. Vrac (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but that's an absurd rationale. the quote from TIE is hyperbola meant to discourage doing these without editing them--and will never be applicable as a deletion argument, since it refers to an unedited machine translation, & such translations can always be improved by editing. We delete articles that cannot be improved; we improve those that can. Therefore, the question is, rather, whether it is in this case worth the effort. I would usually defer to the judgment of other language WPs for cultural figures in their language area--and least for those no longer BLPs. Unfortunately, Worldcat shows no holdings except National Library of Spain, and that's not enough confirmation of importance. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to edit it. Let us know when you are done, perhaps it will be worth saving. Vrac (talk) 23:28, 14 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 22:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in the Republic of Macedonia[edit]

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

very little content and the only YYYY in the Republic of Macedonia article. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not part of an established series. Happy for it be re-created if someone is going to spend the time to create and expand all the other year articles too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 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 22:34, 2 December 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 ⨹ 04:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vrac (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It's been a while. Article is very incomplete. Nobody has come forth to add other series or add more info to the article so serves very little point now. Thanks Marksterdam (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:28, 12 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 00:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calysto Communications[edit]

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

15-person PR agency with no particular claim to notability. Sources include press releases and broken links. Some searching around does not reveal two in-depth profile stories as required by WP:CORP CorporateM (Talk) 04:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable public relations firm. No significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, nor in-depth profiles mentioned above per WP:ORG. The working links in the footnotes appear to be press releases. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No reliable sources evidencing notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:31, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Scott (football coach)[edit]

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

Fails notability for collegiate sports, no major coverage or record. RAN1 (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the subject is an assistant coach for the Clemson NCAA D-I team, but hasn't received major news coverage and is only mentioned as part of routine coverage of the team. --RAN1 (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Evidently I didn't check as well as I thought I did, thanks to Cbl62 for finding the relevant info. --RAN1 (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been rated as one of the top 10 college recruiters in the country by ESPN, he's a co-offensive coordinator for one of the elite programs, and there is significant coverage in mainstream media outlets which is focused on Scott and not simply routine game coverage of the Clemson football team. This is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Coverage includes (1) "Scott Has Unique Perspective", Spartanburg Herald-Journal, 2002; (2) "Jeff Scott might be logical choice to become next Clemson offensive coordinator", Greenville Online, Dec. 2014; (3) "Clemson’s Jeff Scott knew at a young age that he wanted to coach", The State, Dec. 2014; (4) "Scott, Elliott Named Co-Offensive Coordinators At Clemson", WSPA-TV, Dec. 2014; (5) "Clemson’s Jeff Scott ranked among top recruiters", Greenville Online; and (6) Ranking the Recruiters", ESPN.com, 2014 (ranking Scott as the No. 10 recruiter in the country); (7) "Tigers' Jeff Scott ranked as nation's No. 7 recruiter by ESPN", OrangeandWhite.com, June 2014 (not independent in and of itself but confirming an earlier, higher ESPN rating). Cbl62 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CBl62's sources. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep normally assistant coaches are not considered notable, but this one appears to be an exception and passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is the offensive coordinator (head defensive coach) of a high-profile Division I FBS college football program. While the significant coverage in reliable sources is not overwhelming, it is there, including feature articles in the major regional newspapers of South Carolina. There are also recent articles on ESPN.com and elsewhere rating the subject as one of the top recruiters in the nation; while this is interesting and noteworthy in the context of the larger article, this recruiting coverage is not in-depth and would not, in my opinion, qualify as "significant" in the meaning of the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG or enough to carry the day in the absence of the two or three feature articles mentioned above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 12 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. Merging can be considered through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naperville Park District[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for non-notability since 2010. I couldn't find any RSes to establish notability outside of the region the park district is located in. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 01:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:08, 3 December 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 ⨹ 04:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I saw the article was on a district with 140 parks, I thought I would find more reliable sourcing than I did. Everything I came across was a brief, incidental, mention, not primarily focused on the district itself, and everything was from a local publication. I'm open to changing my opinion, if substantial in-depth reliable sourcing is found. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because something is of local notability, doesn't mean it's not notable. In any case, you can find a lot by looking at an organization's history page, which shows that this park district is recognized by several national organizations. It is one of 138 parks in the country with accreditation from the Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies], which only confers this to 1% of park districts. According to its history page, "The Naperville Park District won the National Gold Medal, awarded by the National Recreation and Park Association" in 1972. —CodeHydro 16:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject to possible merge and redirect to Naperville, Illinois#Parks. A HighBeam search yields about 9,000 results. [47] A Google search shows plenty of coverage; here's a page from the Chicago Tribune with assorted results: [48] As a verified independent government jurisdiction, this is arguably notable as a "populated, legally-recognized place" under WP:NGEO (similar to our customary treatment of school districts) but given that it more or less coextensive with the city, it might be reasonable to merge this into the appropriate section of the city article, with the title being kept as a redirect since the agency name is a reasonable search term. On the other hand, if there is more significant content like the awards mentioned by Codehydro, a separate article might be justified; this can be discussed through the usual editorial processes outside of AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 10 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIMKrypto[edit]

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

Contested prod, so AfD it is. Unremarkable cryptocurrency. Not much coverage outside of primary sources. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to CSD this when I saw the blip while NPP. Google has zip, there's nothing widely covered here. Just looks like it's something that's trying to beat BitCoin but isn't notable yet. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There do not seem to be any WP:RS that this passes WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be pure advertising with no established notability. JIP | Talk 05:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as seems to be more advertising than anything, No evidence of notability so fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:09, 13 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. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oregon Ducks Department of Athletics Awards[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:LISTN. This is merely listing department awards for the athletics department at the University of Oregon without any citations (let alone independent, verifiable, third party citations), other than the 2014 Oregon Football Almanac. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 84 and 86 of the 2014 Oregon Football Almanac contain the titles, descriptions and history of the awards on this list. This list is obviously in its infancy and I am working on compiling other sources, as well as making tables that contain the history of players who have received these awards. I would definitely classify the almanac, published by the University of Oregon as verifiable. Below is an additional citation from that verifies the 2014 recipients of these awards. Athies22 (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoDucks.com article

These aren't independent of the subject and cannot be used as primary sources. Anyone who does a WP:BEFORE search will easily find these awards to be non-notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable university athletic department awards. Subject does not satisfy the notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:LISTN, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer, with an emphasis on the lack of independent sources. A university will give lots of attention to its own internal awards. The vast majority of the time (with limited exceptions), no one else pays much attention to these awards. That means that they are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading the policies cited above, as well as the arguments put forward, I am convinced that this subject does not merit an article. I do however believe this subject worthy of note and will incorporate it somehow as a section of the Oregon Ducks article the Oregon Ducks football article. Athies22 (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lack of independent sourcing to verify that this grouping of awards satisfies WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. Cbl62 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-notable list of awards. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is Listcruft. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:37, 14 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Earth[edit]

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

This will never be more than a dictionary definition, and I prodded it to that effect. It does not belong on Wiktionary, however, which already has wiktionary:terra firma. —Swpb^talk 01:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with above seems like a dictionary definition. It seems like this definition could be part of this article [49] or this one [50] to give greater understanding to the term. It doesn't seem to merit a whole article. The article also adds in "Solid earth science" which is surely a separate topic and I'd be in favour of this part not being included. Solid earth science may be worthy of an article by itself or a disambiguation page. But that is not the topic here. Thanks. Marksterdam (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like more than a WP:DICDEF to me. Plus there are WP:RS. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone wrote an entire book on the subject [51], and its studied in multiple journal entries [52]. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Source examples: [53], [54], [55]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 17 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brady roberts[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER; apparent autobiography. —Swpb^talk 01:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "refs" are zero quality youtube/imdb type Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person, all refs are self-published; obvious autobiography. --Drm310 (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. War wizard90 (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantive claim of notability, and no reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No evideince of notability –Davey2010 • (talk)
Delete -Yes, Autobio by SPA doesn't qualify for inclusion on encyclopedia for they fail WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. SNOW this one. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:49, 14 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Midzemuthleiy, Delaware[edit]

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

The author has created several articles or redlinks for placenames ostensibly in a small area of northern Delaware. Around the same time, the same places were added to OpenStreetMap; many of them contain(ed) the element "leiy", e.g., "Midzemuthleiy", "Wilzemuthleiy", "La Leies Woods". A few seem to have been submitted to Google Maps as well; none are present in Bing Maps that I can see. Confusing matters, the author has created a few articles on obscure and subsumed villages that seem to be legitimate. I have proposed a number that seem to be hoaxes for deletion; this one had already been PRODded. Needless to say, none of them can be found in US GNIS, historic maps (e.g., from historicmapworks.com), local histories, and other places where they would be expected to appear. In the case of the Delaware ones like this, I have also checked the county GIS maps, which include subdivision names, and they are also absent. Choess (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence that this place exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not in Geonames, not in Bing Maps, not found by the search facility of Google Maps. To my surprise, you can actually see this word on Google Earth - this and a few other names appear in italic all-caps, unlike other location names such as Barkley. Searching around, I don't see this style of place-name anywhere except for this one small cluster, so I still think it's a hoax, though I didn't know things could be added to Google Maps like that

Anyway, whether hoax or not, that one appearance of the word is not enough to satisfy WP:V or WP:N. The practice at previous AfDs, documented at WP:OUTCOMES#Populated places has been that neighborhoods are kept only if "their names are found to have verifiable widespread usage" or they are "legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments)". That is clearly not the case here. JohnCD (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if Google Maps is pulling that data from us, since the article's geotagged. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Maps entry shows boundaries. It also shows coordinates that are slightly different from the Wikipedia article. That data probably didn't come from us. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of searching tells me that Midzemuthleiy was a place in OpenStreetMap until a few days ago, when Choess deleted it there (though it still shows up in some Google archives). That seems like a more likely source, and other wikis don't pass WP:V. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the OSM data was all point data; I'm pretty sure the Google Maps polygon must have been uploaded directly to there. Choess (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:V. No evidence found for this place passing WP:NGEO. Local name or outright hoax, it's not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this place exists, not counting the word in Google Maps (which, as I said above, might be coming from us) - and a glaring lack of mentions of this place in resources where you'd expect to see it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Its fairly clear every article this editor created was a hoax. Unless someone finds old USGS maps showing the existence of these locations, they should all be deleted. It is not hard to find legitimate sources for remote locations int he United States.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:11, 11 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 My Chemical Romance. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 22:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Pelissier[edit]

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

Pelissier has not been the subject of in-depth attention by third-party publications. He's just mentioned in passing in discussions of the band My Chemical Romance. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Chemical Romance per WP:MUSICBIO, which says, "...members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." This has not happened with Pelissier, as Binksternet has noted. Everymorning talk 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Revenir matts current band and solo project — Preceding unsigned comment added by PacoDaKing14Sportz (talk • contribs) 01:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to My Chemical Romance, the main thing he's associated to. Revenir is also nominated for deletion, and seems like a likely delete in my opinion, so it doesn't seems like the best target. Sergecross73 msg me 18:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My Chemical Romance per Sergecross73's explanations. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: By the weak standards we seem to keep around here, I believe he meet General Notability Guidelines. He has. two legitimate references; He has a notable Indie Rock band and they've actually produced something that's been covered in the press. He was also the founding member of a Very notable band, My Chemical Romance. I see he's not very notable but notable enough. BcBryar (talk) 17:12, 17 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.