Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 July	28 July >

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. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Kuehn[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BASIC, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:SINGER. Lots of name dropping but nothing substantive about the subject. Sources are promotional and hugely fail RS. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, not notable Gbawden (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are lots of musicians, but we only include the notable ones in Wikipedia. The references don't prove notability, and when I googled Phil Kuehn on DuckDuckGo.com (which is better for googling than other search engines, because it doesn't sort results in order of your own personal interests) I didn't find anything that suggested that this guy is doing anything notable. He's just a working musician, but that's not what we're looking for in Wikipedia. RomanSpa (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC. Can't find any Reliable third party sources. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hill (antiques expert)[edit]

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

Subject is an antiques expert who has made occasional TV appearances, maybe best known (if at all) for co-hosting a BBC2 anittiques series with the more famous Lucy Worsley. The remainder of the sources are not secondary, while his books are largely self-published and I'm unable to find multiple reviews about any one of them. As for independent coverage about Hill, the best (and only) thing I can find is a promotional piece on Surrey Life news site. Falls too far short of WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR in my opinion. Sionk (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (maybe) - the source itself isn't really reliable but he was indeed chosen as a "poster boy" for National Antiques Week (whatever that is). This article is both about him and by him but it shows they've printed his stuff in the Daily Mail. This is closer to what we're looking for I think. This has more about him and National Antiques Week. This is less about him and more about the program he founded. One more from The Mirror. I'm still not entirely convinced. He fails WP:AUTHOR but the reviews of his TV shows might get him over the line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't think that the article quite demonstrates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not absolute. It may be present or absent or "not enough" as in this case: Not notable "enough". --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 July 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 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - regular appearances on Antiques Roadshow probably count for notability, if we could find independent sources about the subject. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is included in Who is Who following his TV shows and books. Also, his books have been widely reviewed by specialist UK and US publications on glass and ceramics and generally viewed as important summaries on their topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preichers (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence to prove to these claims? Sionk (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's mentioned here today and given the other sources shown above, I believe passes the bar for notability. It would be good to see the refs asked for above, but I'd !vote to keep nonetheless. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 01:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can find selected articles and reviews of his books and work mentioned by me above on [1]. Who's Who [2] do not have direct links or allow access unless you are a subscriber but if you check a 2014 printed edition in your library you will find him listed under Hill, Mark Roger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preichers (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 03:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Killjoy Club (group)[edit]

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

Debut album will be released in September. I can't find reliable sources. —teb728 t c 23:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hasn't been around nearly long enough to have become notable for anything. Fails WP:BAND. faygoluvers.net is a recently created web site that seems to report on The Killjoy Club more than anything else; not a WP:RS. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Kudpung. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy into draft / AfC space per WP:CRYSTAL. I can only find evidence of the collaboration in unreliable sources, so although the band would theoretically meet WP:NMUSIC criteria 6 : "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians", that claim is not verifiable. Park it in userspace until the album is released. I'd expect at least one reliable source to cover this at that point, unless it's some sort of walled harden hoax. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy - Doesn't meet WP:NBAND. May meet notability someday. But I can't find any WP:RS now. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Memorycoin[edit]

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

This appears to be an un-notable piece of software, yet another Bitcoin spin off. Provided sources are a link to the projects site and a forum post. A quick look on google doesn't show anything I would consider serious coverage in reliable sources. Prior disputed PROD. Dolescum (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in Google books or Google newspapers. One hit on Google news, which simply names the coin. Article is mostly unreferenced. Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also nothing in HighBeam. Though not particularly useful in determining notability, it is interesting to note that Memorycoin is not mentioned at cryptocurrency (though other cryptocurrency projects of similarly questionable notability are). Dwpaul ^Talk 00:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing WP:RS to establish WP:NOTE. Did find a mention here but only that Memorycoin was accepted as a kind of payment; we need in-depth sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:10, 2 August 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. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pirateville[edit]

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

This page disambiguates two existing articles, both of which does not contain word "Pirateville". It is useless. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This search confirms the use of Pirateville in the context of the Pittsburgh Pirates, and this search in the context of Greenville. Perhaps information about the usage should be added to the target articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - beyond the obvious sporting references I have also found a couple of book references that refer to Galkayo in Somalia as "Pirateville" given its links to modern Somali pirates. Tossing up whether it should be included but the disambig should be kept either way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At present, none of the linked articles support the claimed usage and thus fail WP:DABMENTION. older ≠ wiser 16:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 19 July 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 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do see where the term is used in this news story and this one about the NC Pirates, although I'm not seeing much so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mainspace interwiki links, this disambig is fairly useless. And as mentioned, it's not mentioned on the pages it points to. ~Frosty (Talk page) 00:38, 27 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, with keep tendencies. On the one hand, page view stats show this page has essentially never been viewed in the past 90 days until this AfD started. So, it fails in its purpose as a navigation tool. On the other hand, just like redirects, dab pages are cheap. Sure, there's not much value here, but there's also no cost. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was not visited because it was created 2 days before the nomination. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm a dufus for not noticing that :-) Still, dab pages are cheap, so I'm going to dial my recommendation all the way up to weak keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But until the linked articles actually support the claimed usage, there is nothing to disambiguate. older ≠ wiser 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refine links and keep These need to link to the specific sports teams or events that actually give these places the nickname, and not just to the cities, which just confuses people. All the problems with this disambiguation page can be fix by linking to the proper articles. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do those team articles mention the word "Pirateville"? If not, it still contrary to MOS:DABMENTION? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Incense and Peppermints. Consensus that the article does not meet the notabiltiy guideline and Whpq's proposed redirect is sensible and has not been argued against. Davewild (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Time With The SAC[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NSONG. - Mr X 21:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to Incense and Peppermints. I see no indication that this song is notable, but a redirect to the album would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 15 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A great wee album track but no evidence that it ever attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:14, 19 July 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 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:52, 20 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional landship[edit]

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

This appears to be mostly original research with a random assortment of details pulled from various fictional series not backed by any sources. TTN (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I'm the editor who created this article by WP:SPLITting from Landship). I would support removal of unsourced info (and the picture?) from the article, but deleting the article would mean that those editors who want info about Gundam etc in wp would (once again) be putting their info into the Landship article. DexDor (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Landship. The general concept seems notable enough, but seems to exist mainly in the world of fiction. Real landships tend to be things that have been proposed and/or tried but didn't work out. There is probably enough interest in the topic so that an article would be useful, and it would be better to give the readers the real world info in the same place as fictional info so that they can be better informed. The material about other large real vehicles is also good for background. An encyclopedia is about education after all. (BTW serious SF authors such as Wells and Heinlein were making real-world predictions and/or proposals, not just entertaining their audience.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would imagine that Fictional landship could be much expanded, and would overwhelm the parent article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:55, 19 July 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 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.--Rpclod (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simple description of elements of notable works of fiction is not original research. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is a tough one. Some of this content looks valid, but there is also a lot of dubious unsourced material. I agree that a full merge would overwhelm the parent article, so I think the best course is a selective merge - e.g. perhaps leave out the sections of unsourced prose and just take the better examples.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:56, 27 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) is right when he says that mentioning elements from fiction is not original research (after all, we have an article on the Starship Enterprise!). I also think that Rich is right when he says that adding this article to Landship would overwhelm that article. Finally, are the fictional landships covered in this article notable? Yes, The Land Ironclads, the Traction Cities and the land battleships of Gundam are all notable in their own rights, and the concept as a whole is sufficiently widely mentioned in speculative fiction to be worth including here. Sourcing for the unsourced items should of course be improved. RomanSpa (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cillit Bang#Advertising campaign. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Burgess (actor)[edit]

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

I doubt he is a notable actor per WP:NACTOR. Lack of sources. Only IMDB (which is not a RS) and a newspaper item on a fictional character he played. My searches in the internet shows a few more bits of his existance but do not yield to multiple independent reliable sources. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cillit Bang#Advertising campaign, this actor does not have independent notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:28, 17 July 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 ♔ 06:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient WP:NACTOR notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:51, 19 July 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 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:52, 20 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect: Not notable as stated above. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to whomever will close this 16-day discussion. It is clear: We should redirect the title. So please proceed. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jarid Manos[edit]

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

No evidence this meets WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO.--Rpclod (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficent coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete - No indication of either gng or any other notability.John from Idegon (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Umm, people, an AFD is about the wikipedia-notability of a topic, not about the current state of the article. I just added a bit. The subject is an interesting person, with numerous hits in a newspaper database of major papers. I've added a bit to the article. He is the subject of a number of interviews, such as one in respected though progressive journal Yes! (U.S. magazine). It is obvious that he is notable, in fact. And, AFD is not for cleanup, and I personally object to repeated nominations of articles where a nominator appears not to have performed wp:BEFORE, and, in all other similar cases, will not answer a direct question about whether wp:BEFORE was performed. Here is a direct question to the nominator: was wp:BEFORE performed? And to the delete-voters above, had you done any searching at all, or were you just commenting on the state of the article (which was deficient, i will grant)? --do ncr am 03:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The coverage mentioned by Doncram is verging on enough for an article. I also found this. A little more direct coverage of the subject rather than interviews would help, but I would err on the side of keeping. --Michig (talk) 14:50, 26 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on what's been found. It's not the worst stubby BLP I've ever seen. For some BLPs, interviews often are the only source about the subject's background, for example, the Time Out interview. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. -- GreenC 02:16, 1 August 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) 18:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Srivastava[edit]

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

There has been an implied request to delete this article due to notability concerns by an editor (who likely has a COI). I'm inclined to agree after looking through the sources. It reads more like a resume with no real, solid evidence of notability. -- John Reaves 14:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. The claims of recognition by foreign governments is unsourced therefor unverifiable. In addition, as the nom notes, the deletion was requested. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several of the claims made by the requester are false, as I have noted at the Miscellaneous reference desk. ("While the article is overly promotional, it was announced by reliable sources that his short was to be screened at the Brisbane International Film Festival in 2008.[3][4] Also, the Times of India reported on "alleged scams carried out during the tenure of Manoj Srivastava as chief executive officer (CEO) of the Entertainment Society of Goa (ESG)."[5]") Srivastava's notability appears to be marginal (not as an actor but rather as a somewhat controversial industry executive[6][7][8][9]), but not clear cut. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 20 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:42 and WP:CREATIVE. I could see, by scanning the references, that this was poorly sourced. In cleaning up the citations, I noted immediately (1) one cite was to another Wikipedia article, and (2) one had the barest of passing mentions. Two references are from his own organization's website, and two more are passing references from the Indian MPAA. I actually found some additional sources, but this one is another passing mention and this one is a syndicated article about his reaction to a flood. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - no content. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 UCI Mountain Bike & Trials World Championships – Women's cross-country[edit]

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

There is no content. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There is no content. Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The only things included in the article are a few charts containing no information and a picture of a jersey. This article is arguable A3 (no content), but definitely meets the requirements for speedy deletion per A1 (no context). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note The same can be said about 2012 UCI Mountain Bike & Trials World Championships – Men's cross-country

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to merge this article somewhere, I am willing to restore the article for that purpose. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 03:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eruthu Paar Kodi[edit]

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

I am going to withdraw my nomination and suggest that this be merged, as it has been suggested; the sources we find now do not support an article on its own but would in a merged article : Flag of Tamil Eelam. I will immeditely put that up for discussion in Articles for Merge. Staglit (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I cannot find any evidence of notability, also has little content. Staglit (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a translation of the German version of the page. Little content? There's hundreds of articles with much less content. What is the problem with this article? Why on Earth should it be deleted?!Mr A (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Wikipedias_in_other_languages Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F

You should look at these two Wikipedia guidelines. I cannot find any sources that show that this song is notable, only a few audio files. The little Find Source Bar only helps by point; I find zero news articles, one book that shows one mention and nothing else. Staglit (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered me. I've said there are countless articles with less content, and it is more or less a direct translation of the German page. It is sourced.Mr A (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the news article. The song was used when the Tamil Eelam flag was raised. Mr A (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First: What on earth happened to the format of this discussion? Second, the sources that are listed in the article make absolutely no mention of the actual song, just that one must be created. This only supports my argument that this is not a notable subject.Staglit (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if the Germans didn't. (Did they?) Not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion was out of order and confusing; I moved some things around to try to make it easier to follow. If I put anything in the wrong place, my apologies. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:05, 9 July 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 22:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can someone please give the Tamil script for the name of this song (I can't get it from the article because it is a scan, not text). I think a search of Tamil sources should be carried out before deleting this article, otherwise we are just adding to the systemic bias of Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 02:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One reference link is dead. One reference link does not mention the subject at all. The other articles do not indicate that the subject is a "national" anthem. The article consists largely of language other than English.--Rpclod (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One additional source appears to be: Daily Mirror [10], --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Three of the four sources in the article make no mention of "Eruthu Paar Kodi" being Tamil Eelam national anthem. The fourth one is a dead link. We are losing time here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also connected the article to the German version. No additional sources worthy of mention there. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see much that was in the article, I actually do believe the Daily Mirror article, which you appear to have missed, is a viable enough source as it goes, but isn't enough to sustain the article. I've added it to the article. I'd also like to echo SpinningSpark's request for the Tamil text. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see the so-called "sources" at Flag of Tamil Eelam.--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I've just spammed everyone in Category:Tamil Wikipedians who has edited at all recently. There's not all that many of them (even less now that I've cleaned out the ones who got in there accidentally) but hopefully one will supply that information. Request that this is held open just a little longer to give them a chance to reply. SpinningSpark 19:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have given Spinningspark the Tamil name on my talk page. I have asked some active tawp editors to provide some input. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the find sources link at the top with the phrase in Tamil. Maybe somebody can find something substantial, but nothing is leaping out at me on first look. SpinningSpark 22:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the scanned lyrics image to Tamil unicode and ISO 15919. I find many audio references and Tamil news references, which say it is national anthem and is being used as flag hoisting song. I find new English references from http://tamilyouth.ca/tamil-youth-life-a-danish-tamils-story/ --Neechalkaran (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, I know, a third relist, but in deference to SpinningSpark's reasonable request for more time to obtain translations. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per sources at at the article. The IBNLive Reuters ref specifically states: "The Tigers currently have no anthem, usually falling back on the tune -Look the Flag is Rising which is played when their flag is raised". [11]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC) This [12] is the Tamil version of the Daily Mirror piece which is already referenced at the article. [13] Provided as an aid for anyone trying to track down additional Tamil sources. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC) I'm going to change my mind and suggest that we merge this to Flag of Tamil Eelam. While the information is verifiable and significant, I just don't think there is enough to support a standalone article. This seems to be how most of the other language wikipedias handle it and the song article can always be broken out as a separate article in the future if more sources are found. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 03:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Rockette[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, only nominations. Negligible independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Claimed mainstream roles are insignificant: for the TV role, she was essentially an extra in a comedy bit; the movie role was an unbilled role as an unnamed "escort". PROD removed on the specious claim that AVN scene awards established performer notability, despite the PORNBIO consensus otherwise. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:PORNBIO, one of the criteria is winning a major and well known industry award. AVN Awards qualify as major and well known, do they not? And per the article reference, she won AVN's "Best All-Girl Group Sex Scene" for Meow! 3. That specific AVN Award is listed with other major awards on this page, which was specifically created to list notable pornography awards for use in determining notability. Meow! 2 is listed there; Rockette won the AVN Award for her scene in Meow! 3. Ergo, does not in fact seem to fail WP:PORNBIO, or at least that is my reading of it. WP:GNG is another matter, however. As a newbie to AfD, can an article meet something like WP:PORNBIO but fail WP:GNG and thus be deleted on those grounds? Or does meeting criteria like WP:PORNBIO imply also meeting WP:GNG? BloodDoll (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Not all AVN awards meet the PORNBIO standard. PORNBIO #1 states plainly "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". The consensus on this point has been upheld repeatedly in AFD discussions, eg [14] [15] [16] [17]. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Aha, I missed that line entirely for some reason. Thanks for pointing that out. BloodDoll (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & discussion above. BloodDoll (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sadly not really notable. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - I agree with Wolf's assessment, but since this performer is so new to the industry and since she's gained enough attention to win anything I feel that this article should be archived to the creator's Userspace in consideration that the situation may change and out of courtesy for the cumulative Editor effort put forth thus far. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines for this type of actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As far as the two mainstream roles in the articles go, the Brand X appearance doesn't actually specify that she was an extra ("essentially an extra" sounds more like an opinion), and the Blood of Redemption role has her character unnamed, but not unbilled (those two terms don't necessarily mean the same thing). Besides, her appearances in both of those roles satisfy point #3 of PORNBIO. (I wouldn't object to the article being userfied though.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete blps that don't meet the Gng = epic fail.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 3 August 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) 18:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donkovica[edit]

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

This is some kind of local joke. Has no encyclopedic value. Google search returns no hits [18]. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly not notable per WP:GNG. BloodDoll (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable, barely makes sense Gbawden (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. No verification found in reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Settlement[edit]

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

This seems to be a neologism - the term "Republican settlement" is not used in either of the two sources linked, nor have I found it used in this sense anywhere else. Wikipedia is not for announcing new ideas - per WP:No original research: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, this seems to be a neologism - and one I can find no evidence of usage for. The 'sources' cited appear to be nothing but promotional material for an organisation that might possibly fit the description in the article. I can see no evidence that either the neologism nor the organisation even remotely meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism likely coined by the author of the article, with the same username as the website where he published it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & other comments. BloodDoll (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited sources don't support the existence of "Republican Settlement" as a concept, nor can I find any other sources that describe this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; as described this pretty much seems to describe a housing development or new-concept elderly care home in an unincorporated area, of which there are many already and not under this term. Nate • (chatter) 04:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are not reliable. Not notable WP:NEO. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of displays by pixel density[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion after a discussion made here: User talk:Dsimic § Re: List of M.2 SSDs as a section in the M.2 article. After having that discussion, I already nominated Comparison of stackable switches for deletion, and it was deleted after this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of stackable switches. This article has similar issues, so I'm nominating it on the same ground:

Article violates WP:SPAM as it is biased toward certain manufacturers, as it does not contain all displays that exist. Listing some manufacturers and products, but not others is not neutral, and lists like this can never be neutral, so it should be deleted.
It is almost impossible to make it up-to date, which makes it per se incorrect. Article that is per se incorrect should be deleted.
Article violates WP:IINFO as it contains "excessive listings of statistics" but it does not "contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader".

Please, do not make arguments in the discussion like "There are other similar articles". The goal is to delete all such articles. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the above provided nomination proposal, as well as per the above linked discussions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Articles like these serve only as incomplete product guides. Wikipedia should not be a product catalog (nor a parts catalog...). It is fine if articles on displays include manufacturer and model number of particular display products, if they are historically significant, and if they are described in proper context (why they were significant, what they influenced, etc.). This article does none of that; the organization by manufacturer is even detrimental to those goals. It does not contribute to the goals of an encyclopedia, and since it can never be complete, it is not very useful as a product guide either. Jeh (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unmaintainable, loosely defined, this list is not useful for any purposes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom's ban on mentioning the rest of Wikipedia aside, OTHERSTUFF is a reasonable attempt to provide some specificity to vague rules, and a failed attempt to prove a reasonable standard, which is something that examples can only partially prove. I note this because banning any discussion of WP community standards is flatly unacceptable, and the wording given does not preclude such a ban. Anarchangel (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply said, that's why we're here to discuss it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:54, 4 August 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 Nishan#Religion. Deor (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Nishan[edit]

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

The subject of the article, a "Saint Nishan", does not exist - there has never been a person named Saint Nishan. Saint Nishan, Surp Nshan in Armenian - meaning "Holy Sign", is just a term used for an important holy relic (most often a relic of, or containing a fragment of, the True Cross), or as a name for churches that contain such an important holy relic. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if the Armenian Travel Bureau is a reliable source, but their english language entry for Haghpat Monastery states: "The monastery was founded by Saint Nishan (Sourb Nshan) in the 10th century during the reign of King Abas I." [19]. This gives me pause. Do you have a reference that states no Saint Nishan existed? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the church is named Surp Nshan. But the source is not usable because the text you quoted has just been copied from an old version of the Wikipedia article on Haghpat Monastery! There are no references that state a Saint Nishan existed, including no reference for the on-Wikipedia claims that one existed. The Saint Nishan content was placed into the Haghpat article by the same editor that created the Saint Nishan article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fooled once again by a quasi-official sounding name. I'd hoped for better from the Armenian Travel Bureau. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two mentions of "Saint Nishan" occur in (Re)constructing Armenia in Lebanon and Syria, by Nicola Migliorino, pages 62 & 70. One is a church in Beirut, the other an Armenian Apostolic monastery.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are churches named Surp Nshan, as I have already explained. What is the point of your comment? The article is about an alleged saint, not a church. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into a disambiguation page pointing to the churches with this name, as it may be a term that people may search for. Yes, it does indeed appear that the name just means "Holy Sign". It's the same as those who believe that the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is named after a real saint called St Sophia instead of the actual meaning of "Holy Wisdom". An easy mistake to make, but a mistake nonetheless. Whether there was a real saint who just used the religious name St Nishan, as the note in the article suggests, has not been proven, but does actually seem quite unlikely and possibly even sacrilegious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with a disambiguation page would be to which church would it be directed. There are lots with that name, but not many with specific articles on Wikipedia. This might be the only one Sourb_Nshan_of_Sebastia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be why I said turn it into a disambiguation page and not a redirect! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm newish here, didn't understand the difference. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to disambig page Nishan#Religion, a new section that I have just created on the main disambiguation page. Having spread the inaccuracy, Wikipedia should make it easy to find the necessary refutation. – Fayenatic London 15:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nishan#Religion per Fayenatic. I particularly like the idea of cleaning up after our own part in turning this into a likely search term. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing the Farm[edit]

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

The material presented is not evidence for notability. Present in only 114 WorldCat libraries DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NB. Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable outside of a niche audience, fails all general notability criteria per WP:NB. BloodDoll (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NB. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Looks like it'll be sailing off of Wikipedia too. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NB. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find where it has a following in the boating community, but not a large enough one where it would give the work notability. The most I can find is that the book is credited with coining the phrase "seasteading" but that's about all I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Tokyogirl79. I did a search and my sense is that it is an extremely small niche, and maybe the book has had slight impact in this niche, but not enough impact to pass the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. As noted below perhaps an Admin should keep an eye on the nominator. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zicam[edit]

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

This product is not WP:Notable enough to have a wikipedia article Khabboos (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Argument is unsupported by minimal WP:BEFORE D1. Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep product is obviously notable. This is a bad faith nomination by an editor with an agenda of POV pushing on alt med related articles. --McSly (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Yes, this is a bad faith nomination. It's either gross incompetence or a WP:POINT violation. The background is found here: Talk:Homeopathy#Zicam. SMH! Khabboos just can't help being disruptive. This is just one bit of sand on the mile long beach of his disruptive behaviors, and a mile long section of beach has lots of sand on it. I suggest that editors begin to monitor him very closely:

Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's currently topic banned from certain political (?) articles, but should also be topic banned from all Alternative medicine and Fringe articles, "broadly construed". -- Brangifer (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Irish RFC[edit]

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

Team playing in the fourth division of a suburban competition; no non-primary sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:54, 19 July 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 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability. AlanS (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 19:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and close. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS. Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Kierzek (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable local Rugby club Seasider91 (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tree-cover ratio of graphs:asymptotes and areas[edit]

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

Original research. This article has just been published and there are no references to it yet from any other journal. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 19:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator that Wikipedia is not for promotion of newly-published research, even though one could argue that as published research it is different than WP:OR. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Hopelessly unencyclopedic also. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

In sectio 2.2 of "what Wikipedia is not" it states "Wikipedia can report your work after it is published"?? The topic is published in a journal cited in the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterpaulaug (talk • contribs) 09:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Winterpaulaug (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Then the sentence says "... after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations ofreliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." i.e. you need third party citations to show that the content is notable in a wikipedia sense. A single research paper is not enough. If TV programs have been made about it, newspapers have articles on it, then it would be suitable. Martin451 11:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should explicitly be stated that a "single research paper is not enough"- the concept of tree-cover ratio involves four areas of well known and acceptable knowledge: spanning trees, vertex coverings, the secretary problem and differential equations- this should give it Wikipedia validity- but this is my own biased opinion of course. Insisting on such things as newspaper articles and TV programs for such an academic article is unrealistic and very unlikely. Thanks for your opinion and may the wonderful passion for acquiring and presenting new knowledge never be dampened.User talk:winterpaulaug

If a paper is cited by thousands of other papers, or becomes accepted knowledge, or even just highly debated, but no newspaper articles etc. have not been written, then it may be suitable. The reason a single research paper is not enough, is that over a million scientific papers are published every year, the majority of which are not notable in a wikipedia sense. Third party references are needed to show which research is notable outside of academia, which have the support of a lot of scientists. One problem is that people like to use wikipedia to publish their pet theories, push agendas, or just publish completely flawed ideas (I doubt that is the case here). Third party references are needed so that readers of wikipedia can see if a subject is sound, or the work of a crank. I emphasis that I am not calling you a crank. See WP:Fringe. It is also not a good idea that the author of the work, also writes an article about that work, as bias can creep in. I wish you well in your research. Martin451 17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Publicity write-up for a non-notable uncited recent paper. Fails WP:GNG. Also note that the paper in question did not appear in Advances in Mathematics, but in a rather dubious and non-indexed Macedonia-based journal with a similar name ([20]). -- 101.117.57.200 (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:No original research. @Winterpaulaug: the statement that a single paper is not a sufficient source is in that policy, in the section "Using sources": "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." There is more explanation at WP:Third-party sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:27, 3 August 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. Speedy deleted (G7) by MusikAnimal. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Schuster[edit]

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

The subject of this article is not notable, he is a journalist and his name appears in print, but that is sure absolutely normal for a journalist. It is claimed he is an actor, but his name does not appear in the House of Cards (U.S. TV series) page. The netflix reference is not visible in many countries due to copyright restrictions, so I can't verify that link. Wayne Jayes (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Wayne Jayes (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-promotion. This article was created by a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, most likely the subject of the article, excited about being a journalist who got to be in a political TV show. (Both the account that created the article and an IP in the D.C. area made the same edits[21][22] to the House of Cards (U.S. TV series) article. Prhartcom (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Al-Shibli[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Kierzek (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability per nom. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all All fail WP:NFOOTY as Oman's league system is not fully professional Seasider91 (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all fail relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should this AfD be closed as WP:SNOW Delete? --Jersey92 (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete the result was. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 03:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud fhazilat[edit]

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

Badly translated to the point this is nonsensical, sources provided have little to no value, and google provides zero results Jac16888 ^Talk 18:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I figured this was likely a translation because of letter sequences that look like what Google Translator produces when it can't handle the original: Jvlahh, Almstqsy, Khmryh. I tried back-transliterating a couple of these (and "fhazilat") into Persian script and searching for the result, knowing this was an iffy proposition, and it didn't get me anywhere. I agree that, as is, the article is fraught; the references are unhelpful; and I see no hope for the existing content to be fixed up or for notability to be established without a Persian source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Mr. Mahmoud fhazilat, Associate Professor of Tehran University and author of the book Chnryn is Mqah. After college, he is Famous.Iranmanesh53 (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but the problem is that we have no way to verify that because we find no evidence of it via Google, and the text and references in the article are largely incomprehensible to English speakers in their current form. Google doesn't even find the phrase "Chnryn is Mqah". On Wikipedia, verifiability is essential. And articles have to be readable. In this article, it isn't only that the English isn't correct (in which case I could correct it), it's that I can't tell what much of it means.

If we could at least ascertain his notability, we could remove the content that isn't understandable and replace it with a stub simply stating who he is and providing a couple of clear references. How do you write "Mahmoud fhazilat" in Persian? Also, I'm curious: why do you spell "fhazilat" with a lower-case "f"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peace be upon you! Via Website Tehran University and has written books and articles, he'll get a reputation.Iranmanesh53 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the Tehran University website and searched for fhazilat. No results were returned. Even if I found a page about him, it would verify his position, but it wouldn't establish his notability. Simply writing books and articles doesn't necessarily mean someone is notable either. Please see the specific guidelines for notability of academics. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TNT. This is so badly translated as to be nonsense. Even if we could verify even one alleged fact about the subject, University of Tehran has been an intellectual backwater since 1979; therefore even named professors from that school would not automatically pass the prof test. Associate professors rarely are kept at AfD -- I can only think of one or two who have succeeded, and they have been at Ivy League or Oxbridge universities -- or from other highly ranked universities. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep.He is a prominent academic.109.225.150.4 (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)— 109.225.150.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment I checked the references that are now given more fully in the article and found the Persian spelling of his name to be محمود فضيلت. Seeing no reason for his name in English to start with "fh", I Googled both محمود فضيلت and Mahmoud Fazilat and found hits for both. I haven't examined them for notability and probably won't because it won't alter the fact that the article as written is unusable and I agree with Bearian's WP:TNT assessment. The references given in the article are mostly to things he's written rather than anything written about him. But I thought it was worth pointing out what I'd found. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peace be upon you! You're right. Fazilat is spelled incorrectly typed. Is hope administrators the esteemed, article title to reform. Thank you.Iranmanesh53 (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established or proven whatsoever. I really dislike the notion of having articles on people when almost no one in En.Wiki can verify the sources anyways. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth of Ireland[edit]

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

An article of original research, Usage from around 1600 and the book search shows usage from around then aswell. Comhlathas+na+h%C3%89ireann++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&rlz=1I7ACAW_enIE346IE346&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=9EDVU_mXKaWS7AbwpYDIAg#q=Comhaltas+na+h%C3%89ireann&tbm=bks The Irish name used, which I never heard before at all, brings no relevant inforamtion. Even a web search turns up no related information. News report showing the name of state from a British paper in December 1937. Plus I cant find any such legistation showing a Commonwealth of Ireland. Murry1975 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Murry1975 (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally pov, totally OR and totally WRONG! The name of the state now known as Ireland (and also as Republic of Ireland) was in 1937; Éire or Ireland. The 1937 constitution does not mention the word commonwealth, This commonwealth nonsense is total original research. Snappy (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Snappy's analysis. This article is pure rubbish. Finnegas (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. The most common mention appears to be based only on Fynes Moryson's writing on the topic without any other supporting RS. ww2censor (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely as per summary provided by snappy above. WP:OR. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Commonwealth of you-what-now??. WP:OR. Bogger (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-existant therefore non-notable. Scolaire (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to LeBron James. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LRMR[edit]

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

Delete - Not notable enough for it's own article...should be included as part of the LeBron James article, but not a stand alone article. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 12 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Vjmlhds. This should Merge into LeBron James article.--Rpclod (talk) 22:29, 19 July 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 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:50, 20 July 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of in depth coverage, notability is not inherited. Fails WP:ORG. --Bejnar (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy as G7 (blanked by creator). ... discospinster _talk 17:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Times[edit]

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

Unsourced and unsourceable. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can find nothing to establish any kind of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of mosques in the United States[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a address book or list of external and red links. The Banner talk 10:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Otherwise the lists of churches and temples, such as List_of_Catholic_churches_in_the_United_States and List of Buddhist temples will need deletion too. More broadly, when the goal is encyclopedic, lists that relate to a covered subject like this list relates to Islam are wholly apropos. ô¿ô 13:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Both mentioned list seem to cover only notable temples/churches. They are not an indiscriminate list of addresses and websites of mosques without own article. The Banner talk 13:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And cleanup. Article meets inclusion criteria for a list and is part of a bigger scheme of list of mosques by country (see the navigation templates at the foot of the article). I don't think there's any need to have all the external links included in the tables, or linking to each state name 100+ times, but these issues can be addressed on the talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing special about a mosque. Any Muslim can open one. There is no authority (like the Roman Catholic Church for instance) that says one is more important than any other one. Sad to say, the reason an American mosque would become notable (that is of course covered by secondary sources) is if it was involved in some kind of controversy, either involvement of some members in extremism or it being a target of local bigotry. A list of all mosques would be against "WP is not a directory." A list of "notable mosques" would give a false picture of Muslim Americans. The list is not needed anyway since a category can take care of readers' needs. BayShrimp (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note A list of big, landmark mosques would also give a false picture since most Muslims worship in "non-notable" places.BayShrimp (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant here (nor is "false picture" an accurate characterization regardless, unless the list incorrectly states "these are all the mosques in the U.S."). It is standard for Wikipedia to have a "list of X" limited to notable entries (only those that merit articles) where not every X that exists is notable. Doesn't matter whether it's a list of shopping malls, shoe manufacturers, firefighters, or mosques. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of view the purpose of an encyclopedia as making people more knowledgeable and informed. A list of notable mosques would inform people who were looking for that information (although it might still be a directory.) But a person wanting to know more about Muslim life in America would end up disinformed if he makes the natural assumption that these notable mosques are somehow representative of Muslim places of worship, especially since in most cases the notability will be accidental depending on what the press happens to report. BayShrimp (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it suffices to say, as a measure of how far that is from policy, guidelines, or consensus, that I've never seen anyone even make that argument here before, that we shouldn't have a list of notable X because someone might draw incorrect inferences from it about the Xs that aren't notable. We list articles we have on various subjects, and so have plenty of lists limited to notable things. Period. See WP:LISTPURP, see the first two sentences of WP:NOTDIR, see WP:CSC. I suppose we should also delete Category:Mosques in the United States for the same reason? Hell, our poor confused reader need not even see a list or category grouping; simply googling "mosque" + "united states" + "wikipedia" could call up listings of just these notable mosques, so perhaps we shouldn't have any such articles at all. Lest this hypothetical person make the "natural" assumption that the mosques we choose to write articles about "are somehow representative" of all American mosques. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Notable: "When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." From the article Encyclopedia: "Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come." Quoting Diderot. I agree that it is possible to put together a list based on the 3 qualifications: Mosque, in the United States, and mentioned in some secondary source. However I don't think it helps the purpose of an encyclopedia, according to M. Diderot, and it is not required that we do so, by WP policy stated. Thank you. BayShrimp (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about an article Mosques in the United States? It could be based on serious sources (like books on the subject) and give accurate information on Muslim places of worship in general, and at the end have a list of the very few historically and/or architecturally important mosques in the US. Not every "notable" one. BayShrimp (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable sources substantial enough to write such an article, go for it. But that has nothing to do with whether we should also keep a separate list of all articles we have on mosques in the U.S. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list topic is certainly appropriate, but I wonder if this might be a WP:TNT candidate, given how little of it would belong in a proper list. It might be easier to start afresh by building a list directly from the category with AWB or some other automated tool, than to sift through this for the relatively few notable entries. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 19 July 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 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When there is a List of Catholic churches in the United States and this one is put up for deletion, then quote all the rules you want there is just, something wrong with the AfD process. WP:IAR. Anarchangel (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The main difference between the two is that only few churches have no article. Regarding the mosques, only a few have an article. The Banner talk 04:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also vote to delete the list of all notable Catholic churches. There is the same issue. Once you get below a certain level of importance, notability is more or less accidental. It depends on finding a published source, newspaper story, local history book, or whatever that tells about the church. What you end up with has very little connection with the state of Catholic churches in the USA. I can imagine that more written about cities like New York and San Francisco would have more notable churches, as well as notable mosques. In both cases a category works just as well to help readers find articles. Remember "If an article lies, it must die." BayShrimp (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know WP is not a directory but we have similar lists. Banner, many links are blue, some are red. You can help turn to blue some of the notable ones, or ask the editor (or directly do yourself) to trim what is unnecessary, but better not ask deletion. I prefer to have not-very-well-made-lists to our readers' searching for them -in vain- and thinking that WP has a preference of churches or synagogues or whatever against mosques. I think neutrality policy is more important than the Not-a-directory argument. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-but limit to mosques that have an article. A list of notable religious structures is a valid list topic. I'm not seeing a reason to delete as the problem provided by the nominator can be fixed by editing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. There are several misguided ideas in comments above, IMHO.

TNT is offensive: First, the call(s) for [wp:TNT]] are offensive I think, as if they are meant to be deliberately insulting, as if to say the work by editors is so terrible it must be exploded. That is mean and unnecessary, and to simply delete the article and start over would violate the spirit and explicit policies of Wikipedia. People's contributions are meant to be credited in the article history. If, outside of wikipedia, someone publishes a list of notable mosques copied from here, they would be obliged to give credit to the article authors. Calling for violating the social contract within Wikipedia, to allow/give editors credit, is inappropriate.

No need to limit to bluelinks wp:Redlinks help Wikipedia grow. Everyone should agree that a list of notable mosques is obviously welcome/needed/valuable. But it is good for lists to include items that don't have separate articles, including both items worthy and not worthy of future articles, per policy and guidelines and practice on lists. One good purpose served by a list like this, by the way, is that it allows for diplomatic redirecting of articles on non-notable items to the list, rather than confrontationally deleting them in the AFD process.

--do ncr am 17:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original list was one big list of external links (just like List of mosques in the United States#Florida with hardly and wikilinks to notable mosques. The Banner talk 21:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I'm not doing what you think I should be doing. However I do agree that a list of important mosques is obviously welcome/needed/valuable. The problem is that notable does not equal important. Some important mosques will be left off the list and many with very little importance will be included. We WP insiders understand this, but an outsider seeing something titled "List of mosques in the United States" will not. BayShrimp (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to actual examples of anyone being confused by just what such a list represents? Because, as I said above, you're the first person I've ever seen make this claim. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is now a directory of virtually every store front mosque around. A list would be appropriate. I'll try a crack at trimming it down. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do so, but the formatting of the list is too complicated for me! Can some person who is advocating for its being kept trim it down a bit, in good faith? Otherwise, I'll have to go along with the nay-sayers. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 14:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howard G. Malley[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since Nov 2011, the only claim to fame of Malley is as producer of We are the World. Written like a promotional piece. Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Also, poorly written and with insufficient reference.--Rpclod (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if only because a merge to the We Are the World#Marketing and promotion section of the gigantic We are the World article is counterindicated. This content should not be lost, and there is no other good place to put it. WP:IAR is called for here, for purely expedient reasons. Sourcing and notability concerns have been met already, in the previous AfD, and no new deletion arguments have been brought forward. Anarchangel (talk) 23:10, 20 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough and not enough sources to pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salted for 1 year. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 03:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Multiverse[edit]

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

This has been deleted previously, and recreated and deleted. . It's back. As there are sources , I'm taking it here for a decision. If deleted again, it should be salted. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Gidonb (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as they appear to be the most active contributor to this article. —Mz7 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this notification, Mz7! gidonb (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know - weak (but not non-existent) notability, but much less of a puff piece than the previously deleted version. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. There are sufficient sources for just this one article at this time, i.e. not for per country and per year articles. I confess that I happened to run into this article, did some web research, threw out the PR, and hopefully changed it into a reasonable entry for WP. gidonb (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR

- SERIOUSLY look at this comment (Delete and salt the earth) i can only picture on my mind some kid having fun, how can this be professional overstating with salt the earth as if this is some kind of board for a football game or betting on a horse. Jose Cuello (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IT WOULD BE 100% UNFAIR DELETION.

After a long debate that concluded with this article approved by an administrator, i find it confusing that some one else can emerge with a request to remove it. This leaves me with the questions, what happens if it´s once again not deleted? how long will it take for some one else to pop up with a third, fourth or fifth nomination to delete? is there an end to this time consuming cycle at a certain point?

1) Is the professional judgement and work of the previous administrator whom approved the article taken in consideration?

2) Are the references provided by the community of collaborators taken in to account? referencing that this pageant is on TV, there is a history of international contestants, it´s on official news papers, it is posted on the website of the ministry of tourism, the winner has a track record and history in wikipedia? does this not put it at least as noticeable?

3) Honestly, don´t you think this is a bit blown out of proportion? removal, a sentence worthy for spammers or as if offensive material was found?

4) Is it taking in to account by any chance that one of the deletions was because it was a duplicated article?

I created this article, It took me a long time and effort to learn how to use wikipedia, I kindly request the minimum consideration of receiving a fairly and honest reason of why this modest pageant article should be removed and the 100 other pageants that convey more of a promotional profile in wikipedia should stay. Jose Cuello (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Nonnotable beauty pageant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Greetings Tomwsulcer
  Can you tell me what is the criteria for notable or nonnotable, did you look at the page where all the pageants are listed? i can see that there are bigger pageants and smaller ones, so what is the criteria here, what are you basing this on? Jose Cuello (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this article meets policies of wikipedia I have read the policies for deleting, and much more, it states that an article that has an open discussion or was approved by and administrator cannot be put up for deleting again besides it also mentions there are other alternatives page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. why are you doing this then? Jose Cuello (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Question Is there a wikipedia group, that follows pageants or has experience with pageants that can comment here? as far as i see people commenting here have experience in physics, biology, history or other topics irrelevant to pageants. Jose Cuello (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants is "believed to be inactive" but you could try a message on its talk page. PamD 07:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR

I AM FED UP too unprofessional I don`t understand how this supposedly collaboration platform. People in here put LOTS of time debating on the back end or talk page of the article but don´t put time to find reference or improve it to make it better. i don´t understand how people can resist the difficulties long enough to become experienced contributors... this has been such a waste of time, i am fed up, i am done, i want the article deleted. Jose Cuello (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE THIS PAGE NOW because it is nonnotable and promotional Putting this in wikipedia has been a BIG mistake. Please help me delete this article, salt it (what ever that means) and blank the history so the talk and comments don´t appear on google search engines Jose Cuello (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Frankly, I'd **much** rather be able to get it saved than to get delete it deleted, and I hope someone can come around and do that. We can;t just remove it on your request because others have contributed to it; Salting means protecting the page title so it can't be recreated without going to Deletion Review--it's an option when the AfD is closed. We can courtesy hide this discussion (again, an option for the closing admin) but I need to alert you that some copies of it will remain on the internet beyond our control.

But btw--any article can be deleted at AfD -- it just can't be deleted by speedy deletion if there's been a discussion ending with a consensus to keep, pr with no-consensus. & no subsequent AfD. If it is kept after an AfD, a second afd after a reasonable time is permissible--what is unfair is to keep nominating the article repeatedly until eventualy it gets deleted, perhaps by chance. Our procedures are complicated because we try to arrange them that anyone wanting an article kept has every possible opportunity to find sources that justify it; even after it is deleted here, deletion review remains open if anyone finds new sources. No WP decision is irreversible.

You do have a very reasonable complaint that many people here would rather argue than do actual article improvement or writing. I can't personally help you here, as it's too far out of my field. However:

We do have a WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants, but it is marked inactive. I posted a notice there asking for help here, if anyone is still looking. I've also notified two active users who might be interested in working on it, and asked them to have a look. DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt for being a repeatedly recreated article about a beauty pageant that might become notable in the future if they get enough exposure, but isn't sufficiently notable today to have an article, because WP isn't for creating notability. I first had no intention to !vote here, but the disruption on both the article and my talk page is becoming too much, so let's get it over with. Thomas.W ^talk 09:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point notice how User talk:Thomas.W now wants it deleted based on a personal reaction and not founded on professional opinion or wikipedia guidelines for an article, he wats a whole article removed just because i am posting on his talk page. this is wat this is all about Jose Cuello (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. I gave a reason for my !vote, a reason based on policy. All your disruption has done is make me !vote, it hasn't influenced what my !vote would be, as can be clearly seen on my talk page, where I told you what my !vote would be if I chose to !vote, in a post that was made before your disruption started. Thomas.W ^talk 09:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point again LOTS of time used warning me etc.. instead of using that time to help the article, I DARE YOU to make a google search and really tell me that Multiverse is less notable than many pageants i see listed in Wikipedia, i see articles there of i really don´t see the spirit of collaboration that made wikipedia what it is today, this notability issue i have read the wikipedia guidelines from top to bottom and it clearly stated that this is if reliable sources are not found.

Look at this and tell me if they are more notable than Multiverse

Bride of the World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_the_World

Fresh faces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Faces

Miss Black: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Black_Universe

Miss Color international: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Colors_International

ECOWAS Peace Pageant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOWAS_Peace_Pageant

Jose Cuello (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt the earth. Just not notable. I can't put it any clearer than the others have here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ufff how do i get dragged back in to this nonsense Jose Cuello (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BIG BULLIES picking on the newcomers unwelcoming, unfriendly and no collaboration whats so ever. Where are the positive people? this is what happens when an organization becomes big, the administrators become cocky, abusive and think they own the world. DGG, i had no idea this would be so unpleasant and unprofessional, i did this with good intentions, but this is turning upsetting, abusive and not based on professional opinions, the sooner this is done the better so i can just log out and get out of i here Jose Cuello (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's unbelievable that an international beauty contest that's run for dive years and been televised could have garnered insufficient media coverage to be considered notable. And "I don't like what's been said on my talk page" is not a reason for deletion. But @Jose Cuello: Please tone down your objections; you're doing yourself no favours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Where do you find someone saying that "I don't like what's been said on my talkpage", or similar, is a reason for deleting the article? Thomas.W ^talk 11:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Salting is reasonable given the history of this article, with numerous deletions and recreations. I added a reference; still the references overall do not seem to meet the GNG but I am willing to switch if more references are found. Applicable rules are WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR

@Tomwsulcer It was deleted once not numerous, please find where there is a record of being deleted more than once, it was a quick delete a year ago and with no consensus Jose Cuello (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer Here is a reference from the leading board of pageantry in the world http://www.missosology.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=199072 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose Cuello (talk • contribs) 13:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen at the top of this page, with links and all, it was deleted here at AfD, so it was not a "quick delete with no consensus". Separate articles for "Miss Multiverse Belgium" and "Miss Multiverse Netherlands" have also been deleted, here at AfD. The link you provided is not a reliable source, BTW, it's just a post on a webforum. Thomas.W ^talk 14:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer:Ok so i have read the link for the General notability guideline you have provided

And it clearly states that the source has to be: "Significant coverage” “Reliable" "Independent of the subject" Presumed”

So here are links all the way from the most reputable news paper of the Dominican Republic, to news from Croatia, Servia, Netherlans, Philipines, Germany and much more.. You have to at-least agree that it is plenty more coverage than what many pageants on wikipedia have unless you want it to have a special coverage from CNN because if this is not coverage then i dont know what is.

I am not talking about other branches such as Belgium etc.. i am talking about Miss Multiverse, it was deleted only once a year ago and i am 1000% sure of thisJose Cuello (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way its not just any forum and its not just a post its a coverage and i don´t see any of those pageants listed above covered in missosology Jose Cuello (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What really bothers me is that if i would see Miss Universe only listed in wikipedia as the parameter to compare, i would understand, but there are so many pageants in wikipedia that have ZEERO notability and i have posted here justa a few examples but i don´t see anyone deleting those pages or responding to my simple question ¿why should this one not be here and those should?. Jose Cuello (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a learning curve. It takes time. If the article gets deleted, wait a year for (hopefully) new sources to appear, then kindly write something on my talk page (summer 2015) and I will see how the article can be refloated with better chances of success (I will save a draft to include the few good references); if the article stays, I will try to fix it up. In the meantime, the argumentative tone made in favor of inclusion is somewhat backfiring, annoying contributors who have much experience here. Please remember WP:AGF.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer Greetings Tomwsulcer I see you are a reasonable person and acting imparcial, maybe you can answer my most important question, i am confused and i really would like to know ¿why should this pageant be deleted and the other ones i mentioned could stay? Jose Cuello (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomwsulcer DGG Pigsonthewing Pinkbeast

Can some one provide a simple and professional answer ¿Why should this pageant be deleted and the ones mentioned bellow should stay? what do those articles have that this one does not have?

Bride of the World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_the_World

Fresh faces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Faces

Miss Black: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Black_Universe

Miss Color international: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Colors_International

ECOWAS Peace Pageant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOWAS_Peace_Pageant

I can list many more but the point is what do those articles have that this one does not have? Jose Cuello (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The issue at hand is to explain why this subject is notable: please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And, again, please tone it down. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am, I am calmed but i have a sincere question i will then rephrase it ¿why is it that the pageants mentioned above that are clearly less notable stay and this one should be removed? what do their references and google search have that this one does not have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose Cuello (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Cuello, I will be glad to answer your request provided that first you read WP:RS, WP:NOTE, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:ADVERT, and WP:AGF and give some indication here that you've really read these things, not just glanced, okay?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomwsulcer Ok i will read them carefully thanks

Tomwsulcer I have read the WP:RS The source should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

http://listindiario.com/dr2/corp_nosotros.aspx 120 years old newspaper, the most reputable, the main source of news. the first news paper in the history of The Dominican Republic http://listindiario.com/la-vida/2013/8/30/290300/Concurso-de-belleza-para-todas Jose Cuello (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomwsulcer I have read WP:NEUTRAL this article is not based on opinions, i have also read WP:ADVERT and this article is not advertising the pageant, the other pageant articles i read are actually making commercial statements, i have also read the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the more i read the more proud i am of my article (for being my first as a beginner) and the more mistakes i find on many other articles, I also notice that comments from administrators such as (Delete and salt the earth) as if deleting my work is amusing for them, are not ethical or encouraged by wikipedia. well what can i say put your self in my shoes, i have put hours in to this and i am very serious about it, i might be the little guy right now, but please remember your early wikipedia days.

The more i read the more i come to the same question ¿why is it that the pageants mentioned above that are clearly less notable stay and this one should be removed? what do their references have that this one does not have? i will very much appreciate a professional answer thanks Jose Cuello (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is (1) I do not know and (2) life is not fair and (3) whether other articles deserve to be in Wikipedia or not is irrelevant to this discussion, and it may be that all of the others should be deleted, or none of them, that is, what matters here is Wikipedia's guidelines and (4) one contributor felt the Miss Multiverse article should be AfD-ed so this discussion is reacting to that. Wikipedia can become battleground-ish. Many of us here have all experienced it, have been put through the ringer so to speak, so yes we can understand how you feel. It helps your cause in the long run to be less argumentative and more collegial.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also salt per above, the article is not up to par with notability. More second party sources are needed and not just ones that talk about how the local tourism has been boosted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt per everyone above - Enough's enough, 5 years it's been going and in those 5 years there's been no evidence of any notability, Jose Cuello should also give up and edit something else since he's fighting a losing battle here!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR

Wikipedia does not have a single administrator with pageant experience

No one here knows, actually there is not a single administrator in the wikipedia group board created for pageants that can make a valid contribution, how can i go and edit other pageant pages when a storm of non knowing about the subject administrators will delete my work, that already explains why there is no one in that board, they are all gone, soon i will also not be here, because its a waste of time.

Not every topic has to be on CNN or mentioned in a best seller book, there are many industries that are not world news, wikipedia notability guidelines mention that is not about popularity, its about facts for example, that this pageant boosts tourism, that is a fact but some one with ZERO pageant experience would not be aware of what this means, what they see is just pretty girls and not the big picture.

1) Pageants are meant to boost careers of young women, charity, cultural awareness and...... tourism 2) Because no one here has experience then they don´t know what Missosology is. I have found a second coverage http://missosology.org/uncategorized/12017-miss-multiverse-2014-punta-cana-dominican-republic/ 3) A pageant with a TV reality program, how can notability be questioned, go to their website www.missmultiverse.com and seek for your local channel so you can enjoy it on your TV and maybe learn about pageants.

Why should i give up, when i believe in something vs those that don´t have any experience, the moment i see a good reason, i will totally rest my case. but in the mean time i will answer to every single nonsense posted here, and i do this for pageantry, it might be ridiculous to you but some people out here see a worthy value for the community in all of this and wikiopedia needs an enthusiastic people like me, i am a wikepeidia ally not an enemy what is the point of trying to discourage me. Jose Cuello (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can you prove that no Wikipedia administrator has pageant experience? Can you tell me what experience I have? I don't think so. Don't think that we put everything about ourselves onto our user pages. Anyway, what has experience in pageants got to do with assessing something to see if it has sufficient reliable independent coverage. All coverage I found on Google fitted into 13 pages of 10 hits for "Miss Multiverse" (and that's not a lot Googlewise) - and at least one was about a sculpture called 'Multiverse' which one was being advised not to 'miss'. The rest appeared to be not WP:RS compliant. The Missology link you give is a promotional piece, and a very large part of the ghits seemed to be promo too. By the way, articles are not approved by administrators. An admin might give an opinion that he or she thinks an article is ready to launch, or that it doesn't fail a certain criterion, or so on. We do not put a stamp on an article saying that it is officially approved on behalf of Wikipedia as a whole and may not be challenged or deleted. Peridon (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you did Peridon, then you would collaborate with the beauty pageant group, otherwise what is the point of having such experience: furthermore, with your experience can you then answer my one and only question so i can finally understand why other less notable pageants are here and this one is under attack? i turn your question around, can you prove that you have experience? if so can you then tell me if those pageants mentioned above are more notable? besides, am i wrong about the notability guidelines, is this about popularity? the pageant with more money to pay the press is the one entitled to be here? and WOW 13 pages is not enough? does every article in wikipedia have more than 13 pages on google? Administrators do much more than just give an opinion, they also help improve and are here to collaborate, and of course they put a stamp, what do you call the Delete you placed here. Regarding your experience, then what position do you put missosology, do they endorse and promote just any pageant? is this why they are seen as the main board? do they have credibility in the pageant world? I would be delighted to hear your experience, would definitely be great, maybe we can finally re open the pageant wikipedia group that has been abandoned, hummm... can you explain why it is abandoned? why is everyone gone?

TLDR

I am not here to win a popularity contest, i want facts reason and fairness, but it is clear that this is a snow ball effect of administrators supporting each-other, i can imagine that with time if a person spends enough time doing this they start to get fed up with persisting people like me and see this as a battle ground, in fact read above how it is mentioned that i am loosing a battle as if this is an xbox game

This article may be deleted after all because wikipedia is your, but unfairly and based on opinions driven by those turning against me, because i am insisting and will continue to request for a good answer, the only answer i have received to my question is that life is not fair and that is not an answer,

I ask for the next administrator that wishes to post something here, instead of posting a vague opinion, to bash me down some more, to please give a professional answer to my question, give me an answer that can finally silence me, i need to rationalize that this article was deleted due to not meeting the same wikipedia requirements as other pageant articles so i can feel that wikipedia is fair and neutral.

I hereby repeat the question:

¿why are the clearly less notable pageants mentioned bellow, able to stay and this one should be removed?

Bride of the World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_the_World

Fresh faces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Faces

Miss Black: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Black_Universe

Miss Color international: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Colors_International

ECOWAS Peace Pageant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOWAS_Peace_Pageant

I can place many more articles here, but please don´t bother to go and put a delete stamp on them, otherwise there will be only four pageants left in wikipedia.

My proposed answer to this question is that this article was created by someone with no wikipedia experience about a year ago, the author did not receive any guidance, it was quickly deleted and now the article has a stigma on it, i am of course standing up to this situation, and this only fuels more the desire on others to have it deleted, but this is no reason to tip the balance of a (notability) blurry wikipedia guidelines towards that favor, only to delete an article, disregarding that other similar articles are within the same parameter because those articles cannot escape those parameters reasoning that the pageant industry can only reach a certain level of notability (excluding Donald Trumps pageant and the big four) and this article does not clame the notability or position of the big four.Jose Cuello (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To Jose Cuello - please read WP:TLDR. Long posts don't impress us, and your points may get lost in them. My point is that we don't need experience in the pageant business. We're not deciding whether this contest is better than another one or not, or which of the candidates is the best. We're trying to see if this one is notably by Wikipedia standards. Not whether Wikipedia standards are right or not - that discussion goes on elsewhere. The nominator for deletion here is known to the regular editors here as very keen to save articles. He and all the regulars here want to build the encyclopaedia. That means getting more articles. But not at the cost of lowering our standards. The other articles may or may not be suitable. You are free to nominate them for deletion. We will subject them to the same examination. There seems to be quite a bit of publicity around for this contest - but it does not look as though it is independent publicity. It does not look like independent review. When we see coverage that shows that this contest passes our standards, we will have an article on it. Not until. In the mean time, you can use the other places that allow free pages and don't worry about advertising or notability. We are not for or against this beauty show. All the pageants have to pass the same policies. I'll be looking at those other ones now - but whatever I do there won't affect a thing here. Peridon (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the five articles listed above, I agree that they are not up to standard, either in indicated notability or referencing. All now carry tags to this effect, and I'll be looking back to see if anything is being done to improve them. Things do slip past the patrollers sometimes. Thank you for pointing them out. Peridon (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability rules when rigidly applied to all industries with a single bar or parameter is the problem, humans and organizations are similar, we are born as flexible babies; then we grow old, become inflexible then we die. But Ok Peridon, DGG, Andy Mabbett I will review every article in wikipedia, related to beauty pageant, pageant host, beauty queen and post it for you, unfortunately you will wipe out 90% of pageant history out from wikipedia because they surely don´t have the high notability you are referring to, pageants just don´t reach that, and thats really a shame, all those girls with a dream, proud to see the moment conserved in wikipedia, all that work from those that made those dreams come true, i came here to help and contribute not to destroy it, this is really very sad :-( Jose Cuello (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've collapsed Jose Cuello's replies as as it stood everything became too confusing, Jose Cuello - Please post shorter comments as it makes replying to you a hell of alot easier, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jose Cuello: That was just too much to leave unanswered. Who do you think you're fooling? Your claim that "your" article has had no chance to be improved is patently false, it has in fact been vastly improved by other editors here, compared to what it looked like when you created it (as can be seen here). Not only by having been made encyclopaedic, but also by having had several references added to it. But it still doesn't meet our notability criteria, for the simple reason that the in depth coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject that is required doesn't exist. Your beauty pageant, which has existed for several years now without really taking off, desperately needs publicity, which is why you want an article on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with articles about persons and things that already are notable, not a place for promoting things, in the hope of making them notable. Thomas.W ^talk 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: Ok so you really think that wikipedia is the place to promote pageants?? I thought it was missosology, contestants and fans don`t come here, thats why there is not even an active pageant administrators group, but lets hypothetically say that wikipedia is the place to promote pageants, then what is promotional about the article in comparison to other pageant articles? I think you are missing the point. To make my self clear, the pages i am referring to have been in wikipedia for years and instead of a delete or notability tag they receive a help to improve tag.

Regarding the in depth coverage; i agree, but then you also have to agree about the numerous other beauty pageant pages with reference to missosology, their own websites and way less in-depth articles, if any; to put it simply, pageants are not big world news unless a contestant though off as a woman turned out to be a man, then you can see it on CNN.

I was hoping for a fair solution, but the chosen route is exactly the one wikepedia advices administrators not to take (the so call all or nothing) penalize the whole pagentry because of not meeting notability standards tailored for other industries versus acknowledge that there is a real point here ¨one article that can be supported and improved ¨,

I notice you sound a bit upset... With your attempt to get me banned, I learned to keep calm, respectful but to the point, so that will not work any more, if you want to be upset and retaliate with this article, that is all up to you, i seek fairness and equality, even the constitution was challenged on this basis, so why not a wikipedia policy and a couple of administrators that cannot see this from the same perspective some administrators say notable, others say its not and some vote based on being upset with me, indicating that this policy is totally based on opinion Jose Cuello (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jose Cuello: Your endlessly repeated message about other articles being no better than Miss Multiverse is not going to sway the opinion here. Every article is judged on it's own merits here at AfD, so it doesn't matter if there are other articles that are as non-notable as Miss Multiverse is. Period. I'm not the least upset, BTW, only bored by your endless repetion. Thomas.W ^talk 19:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt This subject of this is simply not notable and @JoseCuello's feelings that such !votes for delete are personal attacks tells me that salting it will give him some time to calm down. The !votes for deletion are not personal, they are simply our comment on the notability of the topic of the article. Simply stating that there are other articles that he believes are less notable than this one does not justify keeping this one. If he believes the others are less notable, then he should nominate those for deletion. As a reminder to @JoseCuello, please remember to sign your entries. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 01:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [Back from a week-long vacation - did manage to insert my own humble opinion.] A few points about the discussion above:

The nay sayers clearly disregard the independent, verifiable sources in daily publications on several continents, seem to be tainted by I don't like it and in this case also "I don't like him", as a participant in this discussion seems to create antagonism.
The otherwise valid point of PR is totally irrelevant if the article has been cleaned of PR. Thomas put a comment on my talk page (!) about PR that has recently been introduced into the article. I will look into this. He did get my attention.
While concealing rant can be a reasonable measure, at least one of the sections closed also includes the substantial part of Jose's statements, notably the body of coverage in the international press, including a detailed list of sources not yet included in the article (only some of these are usable). Thus the rant and concealment may have contributed to a snowball effect, while deleting the article has, frankly put, no legs to stand on.
Suggestions of salting seem to be tainted by emotion rather than substance. Most contributors to the discussion above duck the sources, the centerpiece of AFDs. Even if you'd claim that the sources fall just short of notability (that'd be a tough one!), this could change any day, hence salting should be totally off the table. gidonb (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*New found references for Miss Multiverse[edit]

inside this collapsed comment, would like to know if these references are good, thank you Jose Cuello (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's dissect the sources in the article, one by one. They're numbered the same as in the article.

1. Het Nieuwsblad, a newspaper in Belgium. It's a short news story where Ellen Bequeart, winner of Miss Multiverse Belgium, is the main subject, not the Miss Multiverse pageant, telling the readers what school she attends, what her hobbies are and who designed the dress she's wearing. Meaning that it IMO fails to give Miss Multiverse significant coverage, as required even by WP:GNG.

2. Listin Diario, a newspaper in the Dominican Republic. It's an interview with the people behind Miss Multiverse, largely in the form of direct quotes, and presented in a way that reads like a prepared press release. It does give significant coverage to the pageant, but since it's just an interview I would personally not rate it as being independent of the subject.

3. G1 Espirito Santo, Brazil. An article about Deborah Lyra in a regional news source, which, like #1, is totally focused on a contestant, not on the Miss Multiverse pageant. Meaning that it IMO, just like #1, fails to give Miss Multiverse significant coverage.

4, 5 and 6. missmultiverse.com and missmultiverse.wordpress.com. Sourced to the organisation themselves, i.e. primary sources.

7. de Stentor, a newspaper in the Netherlands. An article about Dominique de Haan and her daughter and their participation in a totally different beauty pageant in Paris, with Miss Multiverse mentioned only in passing. Meaning that it fails just about everything.

8. D.R. Ministry of Tourism, Dominican Republic. A letter, reading like a press release, from Linda Gausachs, the CEO of Miss Multiverse, thanking everyone "who has made the event possible", and then listing a Mariam Matthias from the Ministry of Tourism (who has apparently helped coordinate some events during the pageant, which would be a normal service provided by a Ministry of Tourism) as one of those they want to thank, along with a list of hotels and others. In other words a standard thank you letter from Miss Multiverse, making it a primary surce and not a reliable secondary source.

Meaning that only one of the eight sources in the article, #2, can be said to be a secondary source giving Miss Multiverse even significant coverage, which is very far from the "in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject" that is usually required. So how anyone can claim that the notability of the subject of this article has been established beats me. Thomas.W ^talk 14:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*New found references for Miss Multiverse[edit]

Thank you very much Mr. Thomas.W for your valuable time spend highlighting the references that need to be corrected in this article. I am sure this was done with your good spirit of collaboration and constructive means to evaluate the references. I have followed Mr. gidonb comment and therefore included in the article 21 new references.

I will begin by providing a wikipedia link toward the main and most important news papers of The Dominican Republic so their reputation and professional level is not put here in question.

Listin Diario: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List%C3%ADn_Diario
Periodico Hoy: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoy_(Rep%C3%BAblica_Dominicana)
Diario Libre: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diario_Libre

In order to not overflow this message board with links and information, i will summon by stating that references are located following each paragraph of the article, as means to provide a secondary source to support that particular information. Each reference does not have to be in-deph coverage as this is a reference to that particular chapter or phrase and not the entire pageant or article. There are 3 solid newspapers similar to the one you believe gives significan coverage, each news paper reporter has their own style or section within their news paper; reporting, interviewing or both. each newspaper organization has issued diverse articles regarding different activities of the pageant and on different occasions. This is called coverage.

The complete wikipedia article has 3 blocks of information, each block is referenced as follow:

A. General information about the pageant, the TV program, the current holder of the crown

ref1) About the pageant in general
ref2) About the TV reality program
ref3) Reference that it is held in The Dominican Republic
ref4) The current holder of the crown

B. list of winners of this event since its conception Each winner per year has several reference source

C. Selection criteria

ref15) References the touristic region
ref16) In addition of this being mentioned in most of the news articles, the placement of an article, mentioning a letter or message directed to the president minister of tourism, and the ministry of tourism puts this article in their official website, corroborates that this is with their awareness and support; furthermore, providing tours, visits to the presidential palace and much more, is the whole point of referencing that phrase. your comment that this is what any ministry of tourism is supposed to do is irrelevant of this being a reference to that fact
ref17-18-19-20-21) Reference that there is a fashion show in support of an orphanage.

I hope you have had a good Sunday, mine was very insightful with learning how to reference in Wikipedia. Jose Cuello (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding in-depth article, I would be delighted if you can provide a link of an in-depth article of a beauty pageant so i can take a look, and see the difference with the article you mention that has quotations from the president of the organization, i don´t see how an in-depth article can be in-depth if it does not include the reporter interview with the directors of the organization. Please enlighten me Jose Cuello (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. DGG i find it not fair that some one that voted against the article can be self appointed to collapse my comments USER Davey2010 is doing so, every time i post something about new references or points i believe are important for the article, but he leaves other comments that are just as long but negative, for example me fueling, upset at the beginning. How is it possible that someone that is not impartial could do this? when everyone knows that this can strategically influence peoples opinion, he is now sending me warnings limiting my answers to 3 lines, how can i for example explain this right here in 3 lines, what is this? an imparcial person has to do this or DGG whom opened this board, if Davey2010 could collapse, then i can also collapseJose Cuello (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As explained on your talkpage - Your comments are excessively long, and confusing to everyone here & to whoever closes this AFD, As I said above and on your TP - Post short messages that are to the point. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question i answered to was just as long, and posted there in the open for hours, but my answer you collapsed in minutes You are a voter, you cannot be impartial, if self appointing is possible for anyone to do, then i hereby self appoint the job of giving you a hand and collapse one of my very long message that you missed because that particular one makes me look bad, and please don´t post on my talk page if you feel i am in breach of a wikipedia policy and deserve a warning, do it here in the open Jose Cuello (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous in every sense of the word!, If you deserved a warning I would've given you one a long time ago my friend!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Cuello, as I see it, Davey2010 was trying in good faith to keep the discussion focussed. And to help you, also, for the way you have been arguing during this discussion is inevitably going to result in the article being deleted. Right or wrongly, we generally do interpret over-fervant defense as over-committment, as showing a lack of proportion and judgment. It is advisable to make one's case, and then perhaps answer one or two objections briefly, or add other evidence, but after that it is better to stay quiet and let the discussion happen and the community come to whatever conclusion it does. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG This is all new for me, and i am reacting and learning as i go, this is emotional for any new wiki user made out of flesh and bones. I am not alone others here are also posting an over-fervant offense and i take this opportunity to ask for this to stop, i might have been upset at early moments but i have already learned that being upset just puts peoples focus on me and not on the real issue on hand, therefore, I posted my latest messages very respectfully, I have taken it down and hope others do as well, I am focused on seeking feedback from those that can tell me if i am improving the article with new references or not. If Davey2010 was trying in good faith, then i ask for a sincere apology, and hope he does not take it personal, when i say, that i still stand behind that articles should be collapsed by a neutral moderator, here and anywhere else where opinions are divided. I am prepared to hear feedback that is factual even if is pro or against the article, and hopefully without unnecessary or upsetting remarks, so we can all reach a constructive conclusion regardless of what it may be, because at the end the knowledge gained from all of this is still a benefit. Jose Cuello (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting sillier and sillier. We're looking for reliable third-party sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject of the article, that is the Miss Multiverse pageant, not "references" like this one, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Miss Multiverse pageant, or this one, which mentions Miss Multiverse only in passing. Which are typical of the new "references" you added. And why are there no references for the claimed world-wide TV broadcasts of the pageant? If the pageant was on TV there ought to be dozens of very solid references... Thomas.W ^talk 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and thank you for looking in to this and for your feedback. I see that you have objected to 2 references out of 24

As I mentioned before each reference points to an individual frase of the article; the first one you are addressing about, (the fashion show) is 1 out of 5 references used for of a single short frase, and this reference together with the others [20][21][22][23][24] that you are not posting here becomes coverage of that particular event, which is more than enough for a fashion show to race funds for a children's orphanage.
TV program, the wikipedia article does not suggest or support your comment that this is a world wide TV program, there are more than one article listed as reference but i have used [3] because its focused on the TV channels broadcasting.
The third reference you mentioned, i did not put there, but i do thank who ever did, for their contribution. I am not sure if videos can be used as references in Wikipedia, but maybe some one here can tell me if videos such as multiverse press release video can be used. Wishing you a good day Jose Cuello (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jose Cuello: No, I object to many more of the new "references", in fact I didn't find any reference among the ones you added that establishes the notability of the subject. I only linked to two of them, though, and then wrote that they're typical of what you added, since there's more than enough to wade through here as it is. Don't try to twist my words around, BTW, you're not good enough to manage that. The article doesn't mention any TV shows, but the interviews, press releases and passing mentions you have linked to do, which is why I asked, but I guess the TV broadcasts never happened. And no, company press releases on Youtube are not reliable sources and can not be used to establish notability. Which, from your point of view, is a pity, since it seems to be all you have... Thomas.W ^talk 17:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you, have a nice day Jose Cuello (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the abundance of independent verifiable sources, I would like to suggest that AfD will be withdrawn or closed as keep. There is simply no case for deletion. gidonb (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

????? Not a single one of the "abundance of verifiable sources" that has showed up so far has established any notability for the subject of the article, which is what matters. It's not about numbers, it's about quality: "in-depth coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources". Thomas.W ^talk 20:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, several of the sources do fall into that strict criteria. Others, that you use in your postings, are reference to specific information in the article. I would like to advise taking more distance from the subject by not developing complicated theories why a topic cannot be notable (because eventually such theories will collapse on you) and stop inserting messages in people's talk pages that mislead. This is a very annoying practice. I have been so long around that it won't matter for me, but if you do this to new Wikipedians you will chase them away. Also the "vote summaries" that you have put in your closure requests are unnecessary and against policy. You also mentioned on my page how you "voted" and that therefor you cannot improve the page. Discussions here are not voting or to quote WP:AFD: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." and "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." I see these behaviors as errors and would advise you to do some thinking about what you are doing. If you would, in the end some good could come out of all this. gidonb (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: Thanks for the lecture, but I'm very familiar with the procedures here, and what an AfD-discussion is and isn't. Which is why I wrote "!vote" (with the preceding exclamation mark, the symbol for logical negation), both on your talk page and everywhere else. A way of writing it that since 2006 has been the established Wikipedia way of clearly indicating that it's not a vote, but a keep/delete/whatever opinion. I didn't write that I couldn't improve the article, BTW, I wrote that I didn't want to remove the few sources there were, as can be clearly seen in the diff I provided. So stop misrepresenting what I write, it's the second time now, first in an edit summary and now here. Thomas.W ^talk 21:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you know the procedures as well as the strategies to achieve what you set your mind to within wikipedia, as i see others in here have as much experience as you do, and perhaps they don´t need a lecture about references to judge if the references are good or not; your vote is already well established and i respect that very much, everyone is well aware of your vote but please allow the rest of the community to evaluate the 20 new found references so everyone can make an educated and well informed decision to cast their vote.. I know you have a strong stand behind your vote but please regard the advice above given by other administrators, we generally do interpret over-fervant defense as over-committment, as showing a lack of proportion and judgment. I wish you a peaceful and wonderful day Jose Cuello (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antoniy Balakov[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another football related article which fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to DeleteJust read this article http://regnews.net/newss/bg/9477 ,if You can't translate from bulgarian,it says that from 30.07.2014 Lyubomir Genchev and Antoniy Balakov becomes professional players.I checked the list of fully professional leagues,and I don't understand why you accepted that second level of Albanian championship,and the third of Greek championship is professional(it's not like that,i can show you),but the second level of Bulgarian championship isn't.I think you have to corect this.Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsekolini TM (talk • contribs) 15:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - its not a case whether or not the players or the clubs are professional, it is whether the player has played in a FULLY professional league. the reason some are on this list and others not is to do with consensus gained based on reliable sources. Fenix down (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Bruno[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hardly any content in the article. RWCasinoKid (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG as the nominator states. Only minor roles. Only source is IMDb. Searches for RS coverage come up empty. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT, and I'm not seeing coverage to suggest subject meets WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 15:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substance to the article, fails both GNG and actor notability requirements. It is telling that for the film Apollo 13 he is not one of the 30 people on the cast list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heilind Asia Pacific[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Organisation is not notable. AlanS (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the reason given above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 July 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 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 05:36, 20 July 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being #9 among the largest electronics distributors in North America, really isn't much of a claim to notability. Company has no in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pernom and Bejnar. Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Powell[edit]

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

Non-notable semi-pro and former small college American football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH (no major national awards, etc.) or WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season game in the NFL, CFL or other top pro league). Fails the requirements of the general notability guidelines for lack of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Linked footnote appears to be the only significant coverage of the subject in an independent source, and it's from a small-town Ohio newspaper that's the hometown paper for the subject's college. Although there appear to be multiple persons named "C. J. Powell," none of them appear to be notable, and our subject's coverage in other sources does not appear to be independent of his college or other temporary teams, and appears to be WP:ROUTINE to trivial in nature. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find coverage of this individual in reliable sources sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. A single blurb in a small-town newspaper doesn't do it. For a modern player, more than this is needed to show notability. Cbl62 (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage doesn't meet GNG and subject doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Davis (designer)[edit]

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

virtually no references to support an article with questionable notability Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 10:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I was able to find a few sources to establish notability. Wired is the best of the lot. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essmaker, Ryan; Essmaker, Tina (September 4, 2013). "Joshua Davis (Interview)". The Great Discontent. Retrieved 29 July 2014.
Finck, Nick (November 14, 2000). "Joshua Davis (Interview)". Digital Web Magazine. Retrieved 29 July 2014.
Kirsner, Scott (March 2006). "The Chaos of Joshua Davis". Wired. Retrieved 29 July 2014.

Ah, great, progress! Is this enough to substantiate what's in the article? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scalhotrod. I was just doing a quick check for citations, but my impression is that most of what's in the article can be sourced. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so who is going to fill in the citations? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 07:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT THE HELL...this reads like some guy's resume...obviously written by Joshua Davis himself. Look at this fluff...it's total bullshit, he makes himself sound like some kind of super human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.57.101 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a vote for Delete? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I was also able to find that the biography was written from several online sources / museum and publication

Lupton, Ellen. "Design Life Now". Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum.
Culatti, Valentina. "Dynamic Abstraction, the beauty of randomness by Joshua Davis".
"Design at the Design Museum". Design Museum.

Keep per GNG -- GreenC 02:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - This is just a person's resume - it does not deserve a wikipedia article. It is extremely subjective and blatantly obvious that it was written by the person himself - Joshua Davis. At the very least the fluff needs to be deleted - only facts please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.57.101 (talk) 04:06, 1 August 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. Obviously notable, If anyone wants to set up an SPI on the nom please do (I'm useless at them!), (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Stapley[edit]

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

Not notable for anything outside this series, her role within it was not substantial, and her life is not extensively covered by reliable sources. Anything here can easily go on her Survivor season's article. HouseHusbandD.A. (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these related pages for the same reasons:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At least Benjamin Wade (Survivor contestant) should be removed from this AFD as the article has been at AFD three times before with a consensus to keep it twice and the middle one speedy keep.

This would need to have its own separate AFD because of the history. GB fan 10:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - Sophie Clarke has been through a separate AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Clarke, also with a determination to redirect to Survivor: South Pacific. This was done and then about 9 months later the article was restored. GB fan 10:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: I had noticed that myself. Most of these had already been redirected per consensus in the past, only to be restored later for unexplained reasons. This AFD is totally asinine, but is likely the only way to get the job done for good. HouseHusbandD.A. (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Survivor is a wildly popular reality TV show in the U.S., and each winner receives tons of media coverage. Web searches for each of these names turns up plenty of results and plenty of sources with varying information. They all pass our general notability guidelines. Gloss • talk 14:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep, the Denise Stapley and Benjamin Wade articles are well-sourced, and the citations indicate notability. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Especially with sources to her mother's breast cancer. What does that kind of sources add to one's notability? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Someone isn't notable just because a relative is mentioned in the news. Even if Denise's mother was notable, that wouldn't automatically constitute an article for Denise. HouseHusbandD.A. (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Benjamin Wade article, but no strong opinion on the others. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and renominate or otherwise discuss separately. Group nominations like this, where most or all of the outcomes will turn on article-specific issues, are bad practice and often lead to questionable outcomes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the nominator's accounts first ever edits were nominating these pages for deletion. Gloss • talk 21:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloss: @Unscintillating: My brother is an occasional Wikipedia contributor, I've learned a bit from him, and I've made some edits myself as an IP on a few public computers. I created this account because I saw the issues with these pages and I was unable to nominate them for deletion as an unregistered user. I plan to make further contributions, but I'm rather busy in real life, so I only spend time online sporadically. I'll get back to you guys later. HouseHusbandD.A. (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Second edit to Wikipedia is to mass nominate articles for deletion. This needs SPI. Unscintillating (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Mitchell[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer or MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:KICK and WP:NMMA. He has no top tier MMA fights and the article's only source is a link to his MMA fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets no notability criteria and has no significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Doyle (kickboxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP. Even if the claims in the article are true, he wouldn't meet WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no sources and also fails to meet WP:KICK.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Godbeer[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Does not meet WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only 1 top tier fight (a loss) so fails WP:NMMA. No significant coverage to show he meets GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with just 1 top tier fight.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil language films released during Diwali[edit]

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

Redundant info with articles like List of Tamil films of 2009, List of Tamil films of 2014 etc - Vivvt (Talk) 09:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I earlier nominated the article for deletion as I found it too trivial and full of POV puffery accompanied by poor prose and less sources. The result of the discussion was to "keep", as editors believed it could be expanded. However, no effort has been made by the creator to improve the article, so a "Delete" seems valid. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale given at the first nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many Indian films coincide their releases with holidays like Republic day, Independence day, Diwali, Eid etc. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 14:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - a single page with all details of a major festival release is good to give readers a good statistics rather than going to each and every films of Deepavali, let us keep this page. Others can develop this page as well...

Rajeshbieee (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You can't wait for "others" this way. But if the article must stay, please add a ref for every film mentioned. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We actually don't need references to every entry. The problem here is not that. The problem is that the topic itself is not notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Screaming for Vengeance. I won't protect the article yet but will keep a watch over it. If it is recreated again, will protect. Right now redirecting. Wifione ^Message 15:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Take These) Chains[edit]

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

This was made into redirect to album, but overturned. Does not appear to meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. I propose deletion or redirect to album. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Screaming for Vengeance, the song's parent album. I'm not seeing quite enough material to support a standalone article, but as a single by a notable band I prefer redirect to outright deletion. Gongshow talk 14:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Screaming for Vengeance. Non-notable song can be covered in the album article. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no objection to redirecting at all, the only issue is that it is often reverted and back to an article, as has already happened with this article. Is there a way of protecting it if we do make it a redirect again? Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a comment here requesting that the closing admin salt the article title to prevent recreation. Oh, I just did that :) Philg88 ^♦talk 06:48, 2 August 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. Davewild (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. H. Schryer[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Helen Fry. Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. I found a couple of what look like reliably published small-press reviews of Goodnight Vienna [23] [24] (and also a release party announcement [25]) but nothing like that for the sequel. I don't think it's quite enough.
Delete as no evidence of any no-ability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article currently does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Powell[edit]

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

Does not comply with WP:NACTOR . Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much more is needed to support notability as an actor.--Rpclod (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actors like this can become very notable over night so why make someone go through the work of having to rewrite it? I'm sure we can find lots of white male actors with far less impressive resumes and maybe one more ref who are kept without question. Let's not practice systemic bias here, please. Keep the tag on. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if and ONLY if, it's expanded, as it stands now its barely a stub. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Carolmooredc - Carol, what are you saying? "White", "male"... Why do you think I proposed the article for deletion? Do you know me? Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning a factoid about bias, is not to say that a person is consciously biased vs. women or Africans. Their only bias may be that they hate bios without 15 solid WP:RS. However, in the overall scheme of the project, it tends to reinforce a systemic bias to remove articles about minorities and women when generally articles about white males will not receive as much scrutiny. Systemic bias is not necessarily a personal charge against a particular editor, unless one fully investigates their AfD history and finds it, which I'm not interested in doing. (Though I'm not against someone doing an across the board study of such a thing, and the Wikimedia Foundation has been funding all sorts of projects like that.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG is gender blind, and the only possible usable source was this one which I'm not even sure is reliable. Carolmooredc is arguing that she -could- become notable in the future, which is not a valid argument. We're talking about now, not later. In the future, if more reliable sources take notice of her, this article will be recreated. Tutelary (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can one know if this article contains libelous information when there are no refs other than a movie database? Gandydancer (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are big TV shows within the UK and major theatres, even if they are small parts, if she fails to live up to the promise she has shown so far (by not going on to bigger parts) then the question could be asked again. At the moment she is a rising star. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If she is a rising star, then where are the reliable sources for her to meet the general notability guideline? Tutelary (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm afraid - I couldn't find any indepth reliable sources about the actress. Not 15, mind, any. The best was this list of roles, and a reference to IMDB. Should she become notable overnight, yes, we will restore or rewrite it. We have the technology. --GRuban (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no there there. SPECIFICO talk 02:46, 2 August 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. Davewild (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marston Neighbourhood Church[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG Flat Out let's discuss it 06:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, completely unremarkable organisation.TheLongTone (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in Google books. Not much information is available, although there is an assertion that the size of the organization is "small". Unscintillating (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus is that the individual is not sufficiently notable, and with only a single source used, there's no way to confirm other possible options for notability.. Consensus is that the individual is not sufficiently notable, and with only a single source used, there's no way to confirm other possible options for notability. the panda ₯’ 19:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyman G. Bennett[edit]

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

Fails WP:MILPEOPLE. Seemed to be an otherwise non-notable cartographer. One biographical article was found online, and it was used to write this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep] - I would highly disagree if this article was removed. Since this tag was placed, I have added additional information, and a photograph of the Major to Lyman G. Bennett, so as to keep him from being what has been called "non-notable". A 283 page book entitled Powder River Odyssey: Nelson Cole's Western Campaign of 1865, The Journals of Lyman G. Bennett and Other Eyewitness Accounts by David E. Wagner (2009) was written almost entirely from the 1865 journal's of Bennett. Major Bennett was the chief engineering officer of the Powder River Expedition, in 1865, and over 2,000 soldiers depended on his experience to build roads and bridges to travel by and transport over 150 wagons during the expedition. He also mapped the route of the column, with the fact that some of the land he mapped had never been mapped before, so is he still a "non-notable cartographer". Lyman G. Bennett also wrote the first hand written account describing Terrett Butte, a prominent land form in Powder River County, Montana on September 12, 1865. I believe that the deletion tag should be removed. Powder River 1876 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Non-standard layout put to form by me. Carrite (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only criteria from WP:MILPEOPLE which comes close may be #5; that he "played an important role in a significant military event". I'm just not sure how important being the cartographer is (or how "big" the Powder River Expedition was) Magnolia677 (talk) 03:03, 26 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I originally closed but the nom was unhappy so to keep him/her happy I've relisted.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and userfy. I tend to support keeping historical articles like this, but this seems to be based almost entirely on the Wagner (2009). The publisher is reliable (Arthur H. Clark Company) but the one source is a major problem. I'd suggest this is userfied why the author tries to address this issue in light of the WP:BIO policy. Putting it differently: outside Wagner (2009), who else has written about Bennett? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Failure of WP:MILPEOPLE is not a valid reason for deletion. Famous military people (who meet WP:MILPEOPLE) tend to be notable but notability has nothing to do with fame. However, this biography relies entirely on a single source and I can't find any more. Generally we need multiple sources to write a reasonably balanced article. Delete, then move it to user page.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott R. Thomas[edit]

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

Non notable politician in very small city, pop. under 15,000. His highest position was president of the school-board, and he lost the election for mayor. This article has been here since 2008, which is rather amazing.

If he were a current candidate for anything, I might have listed this for G13, promotional, but the article says he's left politics. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN by a wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 09:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the record he seems not to have left politics, he seems to still hold a position as an elected Republican delegate, being reelected in 2014. However the fact that he lost the mayoral election just shows he is no where near notable. Even if he had won he would not be notable. This article just shows that Wikipedia has lots of unneeded articles on local politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, nothing here passes WP:NPOL: school board trustees don't get into Wikipedia just for being trustees; losing mayoral candidates don't get into Wikipedia just for being losing mayoral candidates (and, for that matter, the town he ran for mayor of isn't large enough to automatically confer notability on its mayors, so even if he'd won that election he still wouldn't necessarily qualify for a Wikipedia article); members of state political party committees don't qualify for articles just for being on the committee. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he ever actually wins election to a notable office, but right now he's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 1 August 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) 13:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pottsville mayoral election, 2013[edit]

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

Pottsville has about 15,000 population, so its mayors are in general not notable, and neither are the elections for the position. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable small town election.--JayJasper (talk) 20:35, 1 August 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) 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunwing Airlines Flight 772[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability (events), Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information Wikipedia is not a newspaper and the subject matter is completely non-notable Petebutt (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 16:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 16:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 16:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, cannot see that this incident will have any lasting significance.TheLongTone (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Flat Out let's discuss it 08:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable enough, especially following MH17 and other recent air disasters GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William 13:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:AIRCRASH as there weren't any fatalities, hull loss, or changes in the industry. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, a brief spike in coverage at the occurrence of the event does not necessarily indicate notability. Mz7 (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor incident, not notable. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Randor1980 (talk | contributions) 18:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear-cut violation of NOTNEWS.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad passenger behaviour is a common occurrence, nothing notable or significant here. WWGB (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor incident - hardly notable. aycliffe^talk 07:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: minor incident, not encyclopedic content. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NEVENTS. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Contest - As the creator, it's a disappointment to see my first article get thrown out, but I will respect any decision to delete it. --DaL33T (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eleka Moore[edit]

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

Non notable junior amateur. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a little bit of local interest coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Nothing like notable enough. Thousands of amateur golfers of a similar standard I suspect. Nigej (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete junior amateur fails WP:ATHLETE, lacks significant coverage, of local interest only. --Bejnar (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGOLF Tewapack (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject has not yet competed or won tournaments that would demonstrate that she meets WP:NGOLF. Gongshow talk 15:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGOLF....William 12:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XFree86 logfile[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I declined PROD as the article previously survived an AfD as no consensus. However, that was ten years ago and I will renominate. The following is a quote from the PROD that was placed by an IP editor. "WP:NOTMANUAL. Belongs elsewhere (Wikibooks? Wikisource?). No more encyclopedic than an article about any other random logfile. Previous AfD dates from 2004, standards have changed drastically since the days where "it's interesting" was valid inclusion criteria." I am leaning to delete on this myself. Safiel (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—WP:NOTMANUAL, and there's not much else to be said. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A relic from an older time when Wikipedia had no inclusion criteria. This is clearly indiscriminate. I don't think we need an embedded XFree86 wiki inside Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Morris (engineer)[edit]

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

A search doesn't bring up anything particularly notable. Only reference is an obituary.

(Page creator has a history of creating articles later speedy-deleted due to vanity and promotion.) Holdek (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ delete. An obit in The times might serve, but it doesn't link. I agree about creator Tim Kevan. The sources are inadequate, even the obit in the Times. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Apparently The Times obits currently online directly from The Times only go back to 2007, at least that is what their index said. --Bejnar (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, the general notability guideline requires multiple references. --Holdek (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:OUTCOMES, an obituary in a major national broadsheet newspaper (The Times) is sufficient to confirm notability. It is available online in the Times Online archive if you know how to access it. UK editors can usually access this via their library - if you can't that's your problem, not everyone else's. Even if it wasn't online however, then paper sources are still OK. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that in WP:OUTCOMES? Holdek (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES is previous WP:OUTCOMES. See? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Holdek (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarity with Wikipedia policies is a tad helpful when you are trying to delete someone's good work. This isn't my problem; it's yours. Trying to delete an article so without any justification whatsoever is rather rude. But anyway; FYI: We consistently keep articles that are sourced to obituaries in major national newspapers. We don't judge on notability; rather we let the professionals do the judging and follow them. This is WP:OUTCOMES. If you have any questions about this, please let me know.

Secondly, that you can't find the obituary on the Internet is not my problem either, but again it is yours. I found the obituary in about 2 minutes via Gale. (Roger Morris; Obituary The Times (July 12, 2001): News: p21). If you are based in the UK, using a library card to find sources is basically Wikipedia 101. If you have any questions, then please let me know. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. Holdek (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am being perfectly civil, but I do find that responding to every point with another demonstration of your ignorance is somewhat unbecoming and that whining about "civility" is generally indicative that you've lost the argument. Capiche? Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to this on your talk page. Holdek (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With a template for disruptive editing. What a joke. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. @Holdek: please do not use a disruptive editing template on another editor's talkpage unless he is actually editing disruptively. This is most certainly not acceptable practice. One cannot edit disruptively in a discussion unless one is posting utterly irrelevant nonsense. Your discussion seems to have become somewhat heated, but that is not disruptive to Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia policy, incivility falls under disruptive editing. --Holdek (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, read WP:DTTR you'll benefit from it. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. I find WP:TR more convincing. But anyway, that was the second warning; the first one wasn't templated. --Holdek (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read it, you obviously didn't benefit. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Holdek: Did you actually bother to read the template you left? Because it really is not appropriate to this situation. Nothing has been reverted or removed and there is no dispute over content, only a disagreement in a discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert or remove Barney's comments because, while they come pretty close, I don't think they reach the level of personal attack, just incivility. In any event, I think the discussion here should get back to whether this article should be deleted or not. If you want to talk to me about templates and so forth, let's do so on my talk page. Holdek (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indeed, we have always held that an obit in a major newspaper confirms sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. It not being available to all online is utterly and completely irrelevant to notability (and, since I do have access, I can confirm it does exist and it is a full obit). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one is denying that the obituary doesn't exist. What is trying to be explained is that an obituary in The Times, or any newspaper, by itself is not enough criteria to determine that the subject was notable. The reason why it doesn't fulfill GNG may best be illustrated by this interesting article from the New York Times about its obituary publishing process, arguably the most selective in the world: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/someone-dies-but-that-is-only-the-beginning.html?_r=0 --Holdek (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, an obit in at least one major national newspaper has always been taken to prove notability at AfD. No reason why that should change because you don't happen to agree with it. Also note that phrases like "What is trying to be explained" may be considered patronising, especially by editors with considerable experience on Wikipedia. Best to avoid them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence that "an obit in a major national newspaper has always been taken to prove notability at AfD?" Holdek (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I've participated in many AfDs! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above reasonings. WP:OUTCOMES clearly applies. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficiently sourced, quite notable. I wish there was more information about Morris available. Jim1138 (talk) 08:30, 1 August 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) 18:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Europe, Middle East, Africa and Latin America[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2008 - sounds like an opinion piece rather than a term that is actually widely used. An orphan, nothing links here Gbawden (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the expression was in common use the article would still be a dictionary definition only.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikt:EALA or wikt:EMEALA. A fair amount of Ghits, but this seems to be a term designating a semi-arbitrary collection of geographical areas, rather than a concept per se. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 23:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 11 July 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 11:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and not only this but also Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Nonsense. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:46, 19 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ridiculously implausible that anyone would lump Latin America in with the rest, and I don't see anybody doing it. Europe, Middle East and Africa does get a good number of hits, though I doubt it's worth a standalone article, but that's another story (or Afd). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hits are not to a concept, but are arbitrary listings, hence trivial at best. No utility, no notability. Fails WP:GNG by having no in depth discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Altogen Biosystems[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourcing is mostly PR and primary. Closest two to good coverage are very short mentions from media of limited interest, not enough. A search found nothing better. Prod removed with the comment "Not orphan" duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 12 July 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, Davewild (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having conducted my own search, I couldn't find much more than what is already listed, most of which is not independent enough to be considered coverage in reliable sources. I can't see any way (at this stage) the company passes WP:CORPDEPTH but I'm happy to consider anything anyone else has found. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:08, 19 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Hsun[edit]

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

Non-notable Chinese player of American football. Not entitled to a presumption of notability under the specific notability guideline of WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played in an NFL, CFL or other major pro league regular season game. Completely lacking in any significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Most Google hits are mirror articles derived from Wikipedia, or are otherwise unrelated persons or subjects. Moreover, this article looks like a HOAX created by a single-purpose editor testing our systems. Delete with extreme prejudice. Not sure how this one slipped through -- do we still have New Page Patrols anymore? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a bit worried lately about the state of many maintenance projects (the number of AFD discussions going seven days without attracting a single comment has shot way up; the number of AFD discussions going weeks or months without getting closed has shot way up; categorization project backlog is going completely untouched; etc.), but to be fair NPP never actually always caught everything problematic. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No substantive claim of notability; no verifiability in reliable sources. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 01:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nothing but a hoax.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best fails WP:GNG. At worst a hoax. Either way, delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as CSD G3 Blatant hoax. Seems beyond probability that they would be playing American football against the background of the Boxer Uprising. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete miles away from passing WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Find no coverage of this supposed individual in any reliable source. Quite possible this is a hoax, as others have noted above. Cbl62 (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Blatant hoax!204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Marie Olsson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Suzanne M. Olsson

MfDs for this article:

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

A self-published author who believes Jesus is buried in Kashmir. Refs in article either don't mention her or just briefly mentions her. I'm unable to find reliable references about her, but there are a couple talking about her work from 2010. Bgwhite (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is brand new! It is only a week old. It is developing and sources being added regularly. Give the page a chance to develop. Thank You.Granada2000 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Granada2000Granada2000 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you wanted to develop it, you should have done that in Articles for Creation space and waited for someone to review your proposed article. Once you moved the page to mainspace you gave up any protections for "new pages" and allow it to be picked over by all the mainspace policies. I have no objections to the page being sent back to the draft space so that the advocate for the article can work on improving the submission, but strongly advise that the article not be moved back to mainspace until it is passed by a AFC volunteer to ensure that all policies are met before being re-debuted to mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject certainly fails to meet WP:AUTHOR and also fails the criteria spelled out in WP:BIO in my mind. I am also concerned by the original author's apparent wish to use the article as a vessel to promote both Olssen's writings and fringe theories. I suspect a conflict of interest, to tell the truth. Dolescum (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I won't comment on the articles validity due to the the conflict with my own beliefs (or lack off), however as the Author has shown the desire now to have it removed [26] [27] [28] [29], and there appears to be no proponents to keep the artcile - it would seem a delete is the best action to take. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Can't find WP:RS hence doesn't establish WP:GNG. I mean fails WP:NAUTHOR. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC) (Moving to keep)[reply]

Comment: the broadsheet newspaper citation to which the article's creator objects (Arshad, Sameer (8 May 2010). "Tomb Raider: Jesus buried in Srinagar?". Times of India., see discussion at User_talk:Dolescum#Suzanne_Marie_Olsson) should be given due weight and context rather than deleted. It goes some way towards establishing notability for the subject. ~~Anyway, since that was added by Dolescum,~~ I don't think the page meets any criteria for speedily deletion, even if all contributors now support deletion. – Fayenatic London 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, that source was added by Granada2000 and already listed in the article before I started to edit it, Fayenatic, as you should be able to see from this diff. All I did was extract some extra information from it and clean it up. Dolescum (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (to my own surprise) as I have added or made inline use of further citations from reliable sources. It probably needs trimming of WP:OR, but I think notability is now established. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fayenatic london. Adequate notability, article needs work, though. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jim-Siduri (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see it is notable now though it needs some work, thanks Fayenatic london. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just realised that previous articles about the subject have been deleted, so I have added links above to the old discussions. Moreover, SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs) is under a topic ban for writing on the subject of Roza Bal anywhere in Wikipedia. Even though she has also been previously warned about sock-puppetry, this article and its talk page look like abuse of multiple accounts; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuzanneOlsson. – Fayenatic London 10:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Granada2000 left a URL of an external website on KylieTastic's talk page; the page at that URL appears to be a copy of an old version of the Wikipedia page Suzanne M. Olsson, including some additional potential sources. – Fayenatic London 10:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last time the article was deleted per WP:BIODEL. That may become relevant again if there´s no clear consensus. I don´t know if there´s better sources this time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Fayenatic has done some sterling work cleaning up the article. Perhaps there is more here than first met my eye. I'm still concerned that the focus of the sources I've read which deal with Olsson directly result from simple sensationalism rather than any genuine notabilty, given the content of some of the news reports. If someone claimed to be Napoleon and then proceeded to vandalise Nelsons Column, would that be notable even if reported in the news? I'm not sure that it would. Dolescum (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply because it's inherited notability from the tomb in Kashmir. I cannot see a single item of notability related to this writer, certainly doesn't even make the first step for academic notability, so what's the criteria? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fayenatic london. Adequate notability, even if it does need work. Lightbreather (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far more notability evidenced than a lot of bios which never have been challenged. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been established. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs work, but nothing that isn't easily fixable. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:21, 1 August 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. Davewild (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Raider[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking secondary references of substance. Fails WP:BIO and associated notability guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. There's not a single reliable source in the article. Most producers really don't fail into WP:CREATIVE. Often they are just investors or middle managers at a TV studio, and are thus extremely common. For that reason, almost all producers whose articles end up at AfD have been deleted. Otherwise, we'd be a mirror of IMdB. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft space at Draft:TRUSTplus in order to preserve the history. Once references to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" have been supplied to establish Wikipedia:Notability, permission should be sought at WP:Deletion review before the article is restored to the main encyclopedia. Anyone connected with TRUSTplus is requested to read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TrustPlus[edit]

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

This software product appears un-notable. Both academic papers cited in the references pre-date the implementation of any form of cryptocurrency and most the rest are from user generated sources which fail WP:RS. Speedy and PROD have both been disputed by contributors to the article. Dolescum (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to produce a page about a significant digital currency. The Currency is notable because our community is the first community that understands people don’t trust Crypto Currency. Our first step is to define what people want. Our second step was to grow or produce the coin. We are developing it and there are people that are going to need a neutral party to explain what TRUSTPLUS is. I see the benefits Wikipedia's community to keep tabs on our work, but to just hard delete doesn’t support Wikipedia. Give us some slack courtesy of WP:WP_DNB We will get what you need. MitchellMint (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cryptoarticles.com/crypto-news/trustplus-gives-a-new-meaning-to-anonymity-by-using-automatic-transactions is a WP:RS MitchellMint (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it is significant, you should be able to support that claim with reliable sources giving in depth coverage of the subject, as per WP:GNG and WP:V. Your response implies that you wish to promote your software, against wikipedia policy. I note from your talkpage history you have already been advised of the projects conflict of interest policies. As far as WP:DNB goes, you might want to check out the section on "Common newcomer errors". Dolescum (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Promotional article created by parties with WP:COI. Speedy delete tags removed repetitively by parties with WP:COI. This should have been deleted before the AfD was created but the db tags were removed. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:NSOFT, WP:PROMO, etc. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As I explained on the article's Talk page, this does not preclude the development of a page to explain this technology/product/service, if and when it becomes notable enough to deserve an article per WP:GNG (and there are sufficient sources that establish its notability per WP:RS and WP:V). So far, most of the sources appear to be authored by the same people who are developing the article here (hence are not RS) and/or do not even mention the subject of the article (hence are irrelevant to its notability and useless as references). Also WP:CRYSTAL is applicable. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Who says the RS is not V? You need proof. "sources appear to be authored by the same people who are developing the article" Have you done any research? I have had assumptions, classifications and judgment about this article. Now I have to deal with appearances. Nothing about this deletion(s) has had any proof. Its not even complete, but what is written is cited. We have other pages starting to link to ours. I didn't create the article. Why was I ever COI? MitchellMint (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)— MitchellMint (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The burden is on the editor creating or editing an article to provide evidence in support of the article's notability or the edit's factual basis. It is not on those who challenge that notability or factual basis. See WP:BURDEN. Your COI came into view when code you authored was cited as a reference for the article, and was confirmed by statements (such as the one above) in which you self-identify as a developer of the subject of this article. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is WP:BURDEN then there should be a WP:CHALLENGE. Deleting everyone's work seems excessive, if it is just my WP:RS is in question. My COI came up after I cut copy pasted something ridiculous and removed it soon after I discovered the sandbox. n00b mistake and I take full responsibility. I am not a developer, I am an executive producer for an open source software project. Im the guy in charge of the money. I don't code, nor am I an investor. Another assumption among several. MitchellMint (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I did not create the article. I did add a couple lines with citations that I would argue are WP:RS MitchellMint (talk)

This AfD discussion is the challenge you anticipate, as its basis is that the references given do not adequately demonstrate the notability of the subject. See the first entry above for details. They may be adequate to support specific assertions to which they are attached, but if they do not establish the notability of the subject, the entire article is subject to deletion under WP:GNG. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up. Can you give me a suggestion of what will help keep this article? MitchellMint (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that the nominator's statement, my statement just above, and the numerous links to Wikipedia policy found on this page should make it abundantly clear what is necessary for this article to avoid deletion. (As previously explained, if it is not yet possible to do so given limited sources, the article can still be developed; just not in Wikipedia mainspace.) Dwpaul ^Talk 05:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to keep the page while developing, and some sort of link? I understand the need of removing promotional material. The intention of of our article is to inform. I noticed many other altcoins are getting deleted immediately. RS still puzzles me, but it is clear it is not the same as citing or references. Litecoin was able to survive five nominations for deletion. Can you explain to me mainspace? Is it a place for developing a page? I would like my community to be able to continue to work on the article and some sort of link. I am trying to be transparent. MitchellMint (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to work on the article in Draftspace, which means that it's no longer a part of the public encyclopedia (will not be returned in a search and cannot be linked to/from other public articles or categories) but any editor (who knows of it) can continue to contribute to it until such time as it is ready for publication (sufficient independent references existing to support notability and any claim in the article). I have already suggested this (several times now). Dwpaul ^Talk 17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The movement of an article from mainspace to Draftspace for further development under the conditions we have here is described at WP:Draftspace under the heading Incubation. See Wikipedia:Article Incubator for discussion of this process.Dwpaul ^Talk 17:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re the comment by User:MitchellMint that "The Currency is notable because": As I responded at Talk:TrustPlus to User:Sergio.Tafur:
The word "notable" as used on Wikipedia is unfortunately misleading. For purposes of evaluating a topic's notability under the guidelines, instead of arguing among us whether the topic has characteristics that make it notable, we look for external evidence that it has been found notable. The predominate form of evidence used takes the form of substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic.

Delete I originally PRODded the article for a lack of evident notability. The list of references that have been added since haven't led me to feel otherwise, nearly all of them being (a) related, (b) routine, or (c) included for the purpose of verifying something said in the article but not mentioning TrustPlus. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Plazo, you have no credibility in this matter, posted all over my personal page and have deleted members of my community. Your vote is tainted. User Dwpaul is at least making an effort to help keep this page. MitchellMint (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "deleted members of my community", or what you think "taints" my "vote", or what your basis is for your decree as to my credibility as a person having an understanding of and experience with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Dwpaul seems to be saying the same things that I've said. He has confirmed what I said to you about the nature of your COI, though you took great issue when I explained it to you. He has explained to you, just as I have, that signs of notability necessary for keeping the article are missing. As for "making an effort to help keep this page", another thing I said to Mr. Tafur was "It would be helpful if you cited more qualifying references to confirm the notability of TrustPlus." That was, indeed, after I had run my own Google search to see whether I could find such sources myself. If I had, then I would have supported keeping the article. So please desist from implying that I have no interest in being helpful. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am no more or less interested in the survival of the subject page than Largoplazo, who has just as much credibility (and influence on this proceeding) as any other editor. We are both trying to explain what is necessary for the article to remain, and for the most part we have said the same things. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.this is an RS correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellMint (talk • contribs) 14:38, 27 July 2014

Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources. For the most part it is unknown who has written any of them. At any given moment an article can contain false or unverifiable or highly subjective content. However, a well-sourced article will provide references to reliable sources among which some may the support you are looking for. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the only mention of TrustPlus (a row in a table listing cryptocurrencies) was just introduced to that article in an edit made yesterday, and you are the editor who introduced it to that article, no, even if Wikipidia articles could be used as sources this would do nothing to establish the notability of this subject. You see, this is the problem; so far, virtually anything found that specifically mentions TrustPlus is ultimately sourced back to one or two people, yourself included. You cannot manufacture notability. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

MitchellMint (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

--Jersey92 (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your banner puts experts in negative light. Your perception is based on assumption; just because I made a widget and everyone assumes I have a financial or political goal. You also do not have my vision of a financially free society. I am fighting a Financial Paralysis of the 21st century. The human logic of trust is something that everyone needs, and does not have. I am bringing a solution that restores by quantifying a persons trust. You can tell I am passionate about it. My heroes include Jonas Salk, Nikola Tesla, and George Carlin. I aspire to their level of commitment to better humanity. YES I AM CONNECTED!! We all are. WP:COI MitchellMint (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been explained to you that COI here is not strictly speaking dependent on a potential for financial (or political) gain by an editor, but on conflict with Wikipedia's goals and/or policies. If you insist on arguing this point, we can bring this issue up separately at WP:COIN, but I don't think it would serve you well to do so, Travis. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:MitchellMint AfDs are not votes. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Not (yet) sufficient coverage in reliable, independent, third-party sources. Would not object to Userfy. Lesser Cartographies (talk)

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.81.163 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding !vote invalidated, is by IP which subsequent edits identify as MitchellMint, who has already !voted above. MitchellMint is free to add additional comments that will help establish consensus, but not to add additional !votes. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Told them they had to login to vote. We have a shared internet in our neighbourhood, I will have them use their cellphone. Tough Croud. WP:GF — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellMint (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

No sorry, The !vote was placed in the exact same, single edit in which the comments above, which you claim as your own in subsequent edits, were made. You can't have it both ways, and you are digging a deep hole. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My neighbour posted "Keep - 中本哲史 and used 127.0.0.1" Now you think you posted over it. I also have my elderly neighbour posting. This needs to stop. Keep this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellMint (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that attempted falsification occurred later, and I chose not to bring it up in my comments here. But now that you have, see the record of the edit in question at the link in my comment above, which preceded the one you refer to by more than 15 minutes. Please don't waste our time. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, encouraging your "elderly neighbour" to post in this discussion would, if it occurred, be a phenomenon known as meatpuppetry, which is disruptive, is usually quickly identified and prevented from disrupting a debate such as this, and can be grounds for an edit block. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created a place where they could just edit over. This WikiPedia process is not all that easy. There should be a thumbs up and a thumbs down based upon popularity. Ill make sure Sing knows she is not allowed to be a meat puppet. MitchellMint (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A thumbs up and thumbs down system would work well if this was a popularity contest. The fact that this is a debate requires that we express our arguments in a more complex form. Dolescum (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We use consensus on Wikipedia, not voting. -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sergio.Tafur (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Sergio.Tafur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello editors and members of the community who are interested in contributing to this page. I apologize I have been offline for the weekend and just arrived to see this exchange. I have read through the talk page above and would like see if I can help clarify a couple of points.

As is evident from the state of the TRUSTplus page, I am currently working to build a page that presents an neutral encyclopedic entry of an emerging cryptocurrency that has recently received notoriety among academics, but will require time to do so due to my other academic responsibilities. I am more than happy to continue to contribute the reliable sources that support this claim over the period of time I have requested.

By authoring this page I have agreed to take on the responsibility of reviewing edits by members of the wikipedia community and at large in hopes of not having to bear the full responsibility of presenting this topic solely on my own. If this is not acceptable and the only solution is for me to bear this full responsibility alone, I am sorry but I will not be able to contribute this, nor any other entry on wikipedia. If you review the history of the article, you will see I have previously deleted entries which reflect promotional/COI language and improper formatting.

It is my understanding that wikipedia is a community of peoples from around the world that were interested in collaboratively constructung the worlds free encyclopedia. So far, I have been thoroughly dissapponted with the tone of the dialog and the repeated nomintation for deletion of my attempt to contribute to the wikipedia community prior to a candid dialog or exchange.

I sincerely hope that you will allow me the time I have requested to continue to refine the page with other wikipedians and members of the academic community.

Thank you for your time and consideration to this request. Sergio.Tafur (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one is preventing you and/or other editors from developing an article. What is in question is whether you and/or they should be permitted to do so in mainspace, the public encyclopedia, which is where you created it. Please read carefully the discussion above of the WP:Article incubator and development of articles in WP:Draftspace, which is where this article should be moved and edited until it meets basic criteria for inclusion in the public encyclopedia. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did do a respectable job of trimming non-neutral content from the article. It remains, however, that those of us who have looked and reported here have found no or inadequate evidence of this notoriety of which you speak (and I hope you don't really mean "notoriety" anyway, which has a negative connotation). As Dwpaul has taken pains to explain, there is still provision for composing the article outside of the main space, in anticipation of being moved to the main space should sufficient attestation of notability come to be later. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Anything which generates "notoriety among academics" should be expected to also generate some evidence of that notoriety, or a least a mention in a significant number of reliable, independent sources. We are here primarily because none can be found. If you have verifiable evidence of this claimed notoriety to offer, please do. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The additional evidence I am refering to is currently undergoing the peer review process. I understand wikipedia also accepts pre-print material as realiable. I am following up with the authors and requesting that they provide links to the pre-prints of their articles for citation during the peer-review phase. In the meantime I have created a draft TRUSTplus page in case it is deemed necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TRUSTplus Thanks. Sergio.Tafur (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you could please copy the "permanent link" for the version of TrustPlus you copied, and then paste that in an edit summary or to the talk page of Draft:TRUSTplus. The permanent link can be found in the toolbar on the left, or by clicking the date of an edit in the pages History section. The reason for this is to stay in compliance with the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses as attribution is required. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sergio.Tafur (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy’s Taste of Chicago[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:ORGSIG and even WP:GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending explanation. I don't understand the nomination rationale so please explain further. Of course all restaurants aren't notable (why ORGSIG)? Why is the reasoning that the articles in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Detroit News, and the West Allis News (another Journal Communications newspaper) aren't reliable such that it fails GNG? The first two are major newspapers of the United States. Royal broil 03:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ORGSIG, I was referring to the second paragraph which says "... please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment..." Also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) also says "...Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability..." How many sources exist that aren't in that category? As for GNG, well, a few writeups aren't enough to constitute significant coverage. Lots of restaurants get a few reviews. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note no additions, no expansion, since the article was tagged for Afd on 26 July. --Bejnar (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another small regional chain, no lasting interest. Moderate, no in depth, coverage in occasional regional newspapers. Fails WP:GNG. By WP:ORGSIG he may mean that even if everyone in Pewaukee knows Sammy's, that the article still needs to meet Wikipedia's notability standards if it is to remain here; but he more likely meant that it fails WP:ORG, which it does. --Bejnar (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it fails ORG, as I stated above. And, I'm not a "he". :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NGO. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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