Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 July	31 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 no consensus. Additionally, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Summer King[edit]

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

Non-notable novel, failing WP:BOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Even a superficial check turns up reviews from Kirkus and School Library Journal; with such high-profile examples, it's virtually certain that much more, substantial, coverage exists (although much likely found in offline print sources). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:34, 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) 23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge with the O. R. Melling article. Google mostly links to Wikipedia, its mirrors, social media (of the author) and a few book stores.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep reviews in Kirkus Reviews, School Library Journal and Booklist Review are in my opinion sufficient to keep the article separately. Redirect and merge with the Chronicles of Faerie or O. R. Melling might be another option. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge I see no reason why this needs to be a separate page and not merged into the main one. Jab843 (talk) 01:45, 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. The SPAs don't give convincing arguments (and one of them actually states clearly that not enough information to establish notability is available at this point). Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Porter[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, therefore it fails Wikipedia general notability guideline and Wikipedia notability guideline for biographies and qualifies for deletion as per Wikipedia deletion policy for failing notability. (Nothing helpful found on Google news & Google news) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete subject currently does not meet WP:NMUSIC, web search shows lack of significant coverage, only social and music sharing sites appears for the top pages. The references in the article are just iTunes links, site tags and promotional music events sites. ///EuroCarGT 23:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EuroCarGT.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notable per coverage. Emilysantoss (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Although the subject looks notable, this page should be redirected to another page with his real name. (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all let me explain to all the admins who keeps on marking me as canvassed that I am a new comer and learning. I have my right for giving my opinion. I would like to state that as per the recent activities its quite clear that the author of the page is trying to make the necessary changes. So as per the Wikipedia guidelines the page should be kept live till the author tries to establish the notability. After the contest is over admins have the right to take necessary steps. More information required to establish notability.Hillysilly (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Note to deciding admin: I've rewritten Sammy Porter's Wikipedia pages contents. This is a paid edit and I have disclosed it on the talk page. Klokus (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be sock/meat puppeting going on here. The same characters, Klokus, Emilysantoss, and Hillysilly, appeared working together in AfDs for two other paid spammy articles [1] [2]. This is WP:DISRUPTive behavior.

Delete Promotional article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject looks notable and clean. Since the discussion has started, heavy edits have been made to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. I found two links showing the notability of the artist. One is from the magazine called Love That Magazine[3] and another is the press release of Music Industry News Network [4]. Hence this article should not be deleted.I would like to see Anupmehra's comment on this. Popnrock (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Popnrock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment : I don't work with Hilly Silly or Emilysantoss. I assume they work on the same freelancing site as me and are being hired by the same people. I'm not involving myself in this discussion by saying "keep" or "delete". All I did was leave a comment mentioning that I had edited the pages content and fixed the references from when it was first put up for deletion for my client who doesn't know much about Wikipedia or html. I like to think I'm helping people, not being disruptive. Klokus (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep I found this person notable for DJ Database in UK [5], ESA Records[6], Auxiliary Record [7] and musicexistance [8]. I checked the notability and found it notable. Hence I would like to give my concern for a definite keep.Gracybentham (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — Gracybentham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mollen Immunization Clinics[edit]

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

Non-notable, now-defunct obscure company. Orange Mike | Talk 23:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete web search for both news and other media shows lack of company coverage. Subject does not meet WP:CORP with little coverage. ///EuroCarGT 23:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article per WP:CORPDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 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. Deor (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Truax[edit]

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

Poorly sourced (only one of the four cited sources actually passes the WP:RS test) WP:BLP of a person whose only substantiated notability is as an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary. As always, this is not a claim that passes WP:NPOL, and nothing else here is properly sourced enough to get him past a different inclusion standard instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wish him the best on his political ambitions, but he ain't there yet.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside the US presidential race, loosing a primary pretty much always means you are a non-notable politician at that level (although many failed senate candidates have held other notable offices). There might be exceptions for those with especially indepth coverage, but Traux lacks that. He may or may not do something to become notable in the future, but he has not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He lost a primary, there's nothing else to say about him really. Tiller54 (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, WP:TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good nomination and yes he is not in the position right now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:16, 5 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Abraham[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Article practically indicates that it fails ENT. It says that the subject had minor roles in films, but ENT says that the subject must have significant roles. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor roles generally indicate a failure of entertainment notability guidelines. There are other ways, but no indication he has a cult following or such. The fact that all the sources are local also suggests he is not up to our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is a "minor roles" actor. Sorry so does this mean you are to delete the profile? When there are probably hundreds and thousands out there will little notoriety at least Jake Abraham has appeared alongside major actors ie Samuel L Jackson. I'm astounded. What is that all about "cult following"? Again that is surely irrelevant!Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:32, 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 keep. The article has been reverted and cleaned up (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio City (Indian radio station)[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 13:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Usually radio stations are kept per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media but exceptions have to be made when there's promotional crap like this which serves no purpose to the 'pedia as it now stands. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did see a shout for help from the new editor, so I gave a link to this page. I also told him that the reason was advertising and promotion. But he also hit the alarm bells with his comment: I started editing this page as per my company rules on Sunday, 20th July. Look like another marketing intern send out to advertise on Wikipedia by a boss who has no clue what an encyclopaedia is. The Banner talk 19:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements made, Still not entirely perfect but it's alot better than before!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article have significant coverage in the public domain as well as it meets the Wikipedia criteria of WP:N and WP:V. But I am afraid to say, that this article is written like an advertisement. I believe that this article can be improved and the contents against wikipedia's policy can be removed. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 16:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - afd unnecessary; I have simply reverted all the promotional changes made in the past week by a coi editor, who may be blocked if similar behaviour is repeated. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:23, 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:28, 30 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 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's been cleaned, deletion is unnecessary. XeroxKleenex (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SOFIXIT to remove promotional info done, like nominator should have done in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 23:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article progress noted above.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:37, 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. Per request (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10th (Magdeburg) Hussars[edit]

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

I guess it is a google translation, with very strange sentences bordering on gibberish. The Banner talk 22:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the edit summaries, history, talk page note and discussion between the IP's talk page and mine explain that I created it to allow him to slowly (manually) translate from the German WP. Yes, needs work but that has been happening almost without pause since it was created. IP just used me (yay, collaboration) rather than AFC. Being a work in progress isn't really a valid reason for deletion but the discussion is fractured and I can't blame the nom for that. But I'd ask that he withdraw this as a misunderstanding. I don't think there's any doubt the subject is notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, use a draft page the next time. The Banner talk 10:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely mate - was a quick means to an end and was discussed extensively but, as I said, the discussion was all over the place so would have been hard to track. All good. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs some cleanup and better citations, probably by someone who speaks German as well as English, but it looks like it could be a good article. XeroxKleenex (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for the support. The article is an important part of history and is very notable as demonstrated by the German wiki article. The rationale to delete is unjustified as it is new article and very premature to the point that I consider it frivilous. I have been working with stalwart to translate the article. My German is rusty so it takes some time and the references did not come over well from Deutsch wikipedi. I also have a request on de.wiki for help translating. I also have some difficulty with referencing. I get it done but it takes some time. Again thank you for the support. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability not in question, and apparently the translation efforts have progressed substantially.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, and we have WP:Pages needing translation into English, where translations needing improvement can be listed; I have just done so. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regiments, especially historic regiments which have seen combat, are generally considered to be notable. Needing work does not equal lack of notability. This is AfD, not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Then start working on it instead of just criticizing an AfD. The Banner talk 10:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No mate, that's your job. You lazily nominated it for deletion instead of bothering to do a bit of cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request closure as speedy keep as nominator. Not that Necrorthesp managed to convince me (his approach is far too negative) but Yngvadottir pointed me at part of WP:Pages needing translation into English that I had missed. So the article get the benefit of the doubt. The Banner talk 10:05, 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 Keep. Despite the article having only a single reference, the consensus is unequivocal. Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High-waisted trousers[edit]

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

Not notable Wayne Jayes (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Subject has a lot of results on Google and Google Scholar. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE - not liking them is not the same at not notable. I have to assume that's what's going on here because the nom hasn't given us much to go on and even the most basic Google search brings up plenty of results. There's 6 pages of Google News results alone - stuff from the last 30 days! Unless the nom wants to fill us in? St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, you are assuming too much. The rationale you seek is WP:VAGUEWAVE. Nom is pointing to N and offering no rationale to support the gesture. Anarchangel (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs work, but there are a lot of reliable source hits for high-waisted trousers. XeroxKleenex (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I wonder why all the different waistline articles can't be merged into one. But I think the content of this article should not be deleted.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give It A Chance. We have an article for Low-Rise Pants, so we should have one for high waisted trousers too, instead of just mom jeans. I didn't add alot. It's just to get us started. We all have to start somewhere, and I would really appreciate contributions and expansions because I can't do this all by myself without taking several hours... talk • contribs 21:450, 30 July 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Legitimate subject for an encyclopaedia on everything. To User:Esprit15d, I see your point, but there are so many different kinds of waistline that to merge them all into one article would make it unwieldly and ridiculously long. I could see a case for combining this into a general article on high waists summarising the different above-normal-waist lines such as Empire line, high waisted trousers, etc, but then, in this case, what we call "high waist" is actually just a normal waistline - we are so used to low rise nowadays that when faced with a natural waist, it's like it's hooked on under our ears - so it would be arguably not right for such an article. So, keep. Mabalu (talk) 12:24, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Threston[edit]

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

Looking at the name of the creator, this seems to violate the "not geneology" rules of Wikipedia. This guy was a Justice of the Peace and held other very minor local positions, nothing even comes close to rising to the level of notabilityJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the author certainly has a conflict of interest and is likely on a genealogical bent, the subject meets WP:GNG based on mentions in the Wilkes-Barre newspapers. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every one of those references cites the subject himself as the author of the reference. I suppose there's a possibility that the creator just cited them incorrectly, but by the evidence at hand they're WP:PRIMARYSOURCES that don't count toward getting a person over the GNG hump. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article appears to be primarily genealogy, the offices held don't appear to confer notability, we don't have every small town magistrate judge here, and truant officers aren't notable. If a mention in a newspaper is sufficient to be notable, I'd be eligible for my own article here - and I'm not. XeroxKleenex (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no claim of notability in the article and zero online presence. The not-geneology policy is just a pile-on.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and no indication of notability. What's with the concordance of Chaucer? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info on the case: there is a sockpuppet-investigation undergoing against the initiator of this and all the other Threston-related articles as well as against those that were involved in it. The whole Threston-case is highly questionable as far as coherency and references are concerned. For more details see the data listed here. There are reasons to believe that Threston-related articles might be a fraud or at least reflect a distortion of the facts. I highly recommend to cross-check all references given in those articles. Apart from that: if those data still proof to be sound and true, I still do not find the encyclopedic relevance of this figure. LagondaDK (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article has carried out a campaign against deletion on his talk page and my talk page. One of his claims is that this person being involved in the hearings about a disputed congressional election makes him notable. Considering we don't even have an article on the challenging candidate in that case, that seems to be a stretch. What would seem to apply most in this case is the notability guidelines for politicians, which this person fails miserably.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. A truant officer? Maproom (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - another Threston vanity article about an incredibly obscure local minor officeholder. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.--Susumu (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No credible claim of encyclopedic notability in the first place ("justice of the peace" not being a role that gets a person into an encyclopedia). Furthermore, the sources that are being cited as real footnotes all claim the subject as the author of the reference, and we don't count "writing about yourself" as prima facie evidence of notability if that's the only sourcing you've got — and even if they actually were valid references which the author of this article just cited incorrectly, if all it took to pass GNG was getting your name into your own local newspaper two or three times then we'd have to keep a Wikipedia article about every person on earth who ever coordinated a church bake sale. GNG requires much more substantive coverage than has been shown here. Meanwhile, the sources that are just listed and not actually cited as footnotes largely seem to relate to the family genealogy and not to John Threston as an individual (as just one example out of many, "The Bishop of London's Commissary Court 1578-1588" couldn't possibly contain any content whatsoever about a person who wasn't even born until 1872 — and there's no way in bleeding hell that he's got one whit of coverage in a concordance to the works of Geoffrey Chaucer, either.) So passing WP:GNG has not been properly demonstrated here. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 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 United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016#Green Party. Closing this slightly early, as consensus has emerged for a redirect. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party presidential candidates, 2016[edit]

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

There is already a page on Green Party candidates--as well as other third party and independent candidates--in the 2016 presidential election, making this page redundant. ALPolitico (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016#Green Party. Essentially the same content, no need for duplication.--JayJasper (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per JayJasper.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sounds good to me, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is all highly speculative, and probably too soon to create a valid article. A redirect allows it to be created in two years' time. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 5 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. Deor (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Chandos Russell[edit]

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

"Self-styled" historian and artist, this may be an honest description but it doesn't suggest notability and I can't find anything sugnificant online about the person or his books. Seems to read like a CV overall, of someone who's done many things, but nothing that's caught wider attention. There have also been a wide number of single issue editors working on this, maybe suggesting sockpuppetting? I've no idea why the first AfD was closed as no consensus (or why it was suitable for a non-admin closure), when the 'keep' advocates were all from these single issue crowd. Either way, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the indepdent, reliable sources needed to pass GNG. Also no clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Intensive Web search confirms that the subject lectures for National Association of Decorative & Fine Arts Societies (NADFAS) on a regular basis and supports various good causes. But this is not a clear claim to notability. DorsetArt (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- I struggled to find anything notable in this bio. His lectures are on such wid-ranging subjects that I have to conclude that they must be deriviative from the work of others: thus not a serious academic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 5 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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelan Luker[edit]

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

This guy was a high school and college football player and a bass player in a band that is not notable. The one source we have is a local news story. Nothing to indicate this passes above local notice, let alone anything with permanent encyclopedic value. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged notability for eight years and nothing has been improved.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Comment re available sources. I haven't time to assess just yet, but a quick google search does reveal (1) this article from the Abilene Reporter-News, (2) this and (3) this from the Dallas Observer, (4) this from the Stephenville Empire-Tribune. These and any other feature stories about Luker should be assessed before determining whether or not he passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the depth of coverage is enough, the sources are too local. Not sure if the subject passes WP:SPORTCRIT.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so with respect to the Stephensville paper. Not so sure about the publications from Abilene and Dallas. There is also (5) this from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and (6) this from the Arkansas Times. Maybe a lot more behind pay walls. Will try to review more carefully later. Cbl62 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ 180.172: The portion of WP:SPORTCRIT you referenced is meant to ensure we use caution in assessing coverage in non-independent, local sources such as school newspapers and small, hometown newspapers. Here, we have widespread and in-depth coverage in multiple feature stories from across Texas and even Arkansas, including the state's major daily newspapers. This is far beyond "routine" coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've now seen enough (20 feature stories about Luker in reputable media sources) to persuade me this guy satisfies WP:GNG. The article definitely needs improving, but there's extensive, in-depth coverage in multiple media sources, including some of the largest daily newspapers in the country. A search of the NewsLibrary database turned up 547 articles referencing Luker. I haven't reviewed them all, but these ones, in addition to the ones referenced as (1) to (6) above, are all feature stories about Luker: (7) Rock on! Luker, SMU part; Former starting QB quits team to record, play with his band, The Dallas Morning News - July 24, 2002; (8) Stephenville QB takes aim at records, Fort Worth Star-Telegram - December 17, 1998, (9) Submersed Pony KELAN LUKER: SMU QUARTERBACK Former quarterback's career pick sounds better 'In Due Time', Dallas Morning News, The (TX) - April 25, 2005, (10) Full circle Six years after leaving football for music, Stephenville's Kelan Luker has left music for football, Abilene Reporter-News (TX) - August 24, 2008, (11) QB position is put back on his playlist, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX) - May 7, 2008, (12) Luker drops back, finds success at QB Stephenville passes on tradition, Fort Worth Star-Telegram - October 7, 1997, (13) Luker hopes to win QB job at SMU, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX) - August 10, 2001, (14) SMU passer sharp where it counts, The Dallas Morning News - April 8, 2001, (15) HEAVYWEIGHT SHOWDOWN QB Luker destroys defenses, Fort Worth Star-Telegram - October 9, 1998, (16) QB not tuning up for SMU Junior considering being bass player in rock band over football, The Dallas Morning News - June 26, 2002, (17) Pressure cooker Stephenville ex named SMU's starting QB, at least for now, The Dallas Morning News - August 23, 2001, (18) Luker: It's been long enough, Stephenville Empire-Tribune (TX) - December 6, 2012; (19) BURNING DESIRE Kelan Luker steps into the fire at quarterback with hopes of reviving SMU, The Dallas Morning News - August 23, 2001. Cbl62 (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass per excellent research by Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Strike my original !vote.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:49, 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 keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Maxwell[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominator. He clearly meets WP:NHOCKEY criterion 3. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. I made a dumb mistake. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable minor leaguer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY Tchaliburton (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2014

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment unless I am missing something he does meet WP:NHOCKEY with prong 3 - played 240 regular season games in the AHL/IHL which are listed as meeting the requirement for the presumption of meeting GNG. Thus, the nom is factually incorrect (does meet WP:NHockey and presumably meets WP:GNG) and unless the presumption is overcome the article should be kept. RonSigPi (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common misconception. Check out WP:NHOCKEY/LA. IHL games don't count toward criterion 3, only his AHL games would be counted, and he falls short Tchaliburton (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NHOCKEY/LA it appears IHL games prior to the 1979-1980 season don't count, but games from the 1979-1980 season and after do count (for this player all games are after the 1979-1980 season). Can you please elaborate on the common misconception? RonSigPi (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sorry, my brain wasn't working. IHL does count. I would like to withdraw my nomination as he clearly meets WP:NHOCKEY. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 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. The advocates of keeping the article have one and all failed to address any of the rationales given for deletion, and their own rationales are not based in policy. Anyone who wants to create a redirect at this title is free to do so. Deor (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabina Altynbekova[edit]

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

17-year-old volleyball player, unexceptional other than for her attractiveness. She's currently in the news over attention to her appearance. There's no claim to notability for her work on the 7th-place team. The roster for her team, Kazakhstan women's national volleyball team, shows that no other teammate has been deemed sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, presumably because they are not as babelicious as Ms. Altynbekova.

It was nominated for speedy deletion, but (correctly, I think) declined because the article asserts significance (although I hold that the assertion fails).

This is Allison Stokke all over again. TJRC (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best notable for one event. Not worth having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after having read that horrible example of how bad Wikipedia was in 2007 (hopefully we would not have had such a close fight to keep such a horrible, lack of respect for human dignity article today), I think we can see why this article should go. Despite the claims of some back in 2007, Ms. Stokke has done nothing since to come close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I'm fine with people being mainly known for their good looks! In this case the event is very recent indeed (the last week) and, though the has been widely featured in major newspapers they've done little more than report on the number of Facebook fanpages and Twitter followers (which I'd describe as shallow journalism). Finally Sabina Altynbekova has said herself she would far rather be known for her volleyball skills. At the moment she clearly doesn't meet WP:NSPORT criteria, having only played in a few junior matches. Overall I'd prefer we waitied to see how her career progresses beyond this week, before enshrining her here. Sionk (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E applies.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Brayan Jaimes (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I agree that Subjects Notable Only for One Event applies. Additionally, as all the media coverage of Sabina appears to be trivial in nature, it doesn't fulfil the non-triviality requirement. --Pavithran (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP – Obviously an Internationally recognised sportswoman. There are literally thousands of wikipedia pages on sports-persons. I suspect this AfD is being carried out in bad faith. Wikipedia should not be an extension of the "Twitterati rage" against this girl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeddyTesseract (talk •

contribs) 10:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously an Internationally recognised sportswoman"...how so? What are your sources, the articles that all say the same thing? "There are literally thousands of wikipedia pages on sports-persons"...meaning what? That by simply being a "sports-person", Ms. Altynbekova automatically receives relevance? Kkbay (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT It's clear the nominee of this AfD isn't familiar with the sport of Volleyball. The Kazakhstan national Volleyball team isn't "7th placed", it is 7th seeded in the World Championship. That means her team is ranked 7th out of 105 other national teams in the Fédération Internationale de Volleyball. Quite an achievement for a developing nation.

To compare an international sportswoman like Sabina Altynbekova with Allison Stokke (a high school athlete somewhere in the mid west of the US) is fallacious.

The nominee of this article even casually uses the sneer of "babelicious" whilst making this nomination for AfD.

Which is the phrase now being used by the Twitter "trolls" and other juveniles on social media sites (like 4chan), so it certainly indicates the nominee may be acting in bad faith. TeddyTesseract (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree if she had played in an international match for the senior women's team I would vote 'keep'. But she has only played in the junior team [9][10], so wouldn't meet WP:NSPORT. Sionk (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarifications:
- As Sionk points out, Ms. Altynbekova is on the junior team, not the senior team. The Kazakhstan women's national volleyball team article appears to list a roster for the Junior team only. I just edited that article to make that clear ([11]). Note that the Junior roster is unreferenced; the FIVB site does not appear to include it (another factor suggesting lack of notability).
- The "seventh-place" refers to their standing in the tournament; see, e.g., [12] ("Besides, she shared her impression from the championship where Kazakhstan's team ended up in the 7th place.")
- Not that it matters, but the Kazakhstan Junior team is ranked 36th ([13]) and the Senior team is ranked 23rd ([14]); neither is ranked 7th.
- Finally, the notability of the team is not material to the notability of particular members of it. The notability of a team is not inherited by its members; see WP:NOTINHERITED. For Ms. Altynbekova to be deemed notable, there needs to be some basis of notability for the individual, not mere membership on the team. TJRC (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like articles of any other athletes and there are a ton of sources talking about her. Plus, 6 foreign language Wikipedias have an article on this athlete and she is on the national team. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Kazakhstan_women's_national_volleyball_team#Junior, and properly source the section of that article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect sounds good. Or we should just remove the "event" (if you can even call it an "event") and talk about the person. But then agian, even the captain of the team doesn't have an article. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable, minor, short-lived meme. 75.172.191.176 (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the person who nominated this AfD doesn't do his cause any good by use of the "babelicious" comment, there are just not enough online sources, much less content, to justify this article. The few sources named all repeat the same info: coach/teammates are upset, media went wild, Ms. Altynbekova's discomfort with the attention, etc. Kkbay (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- 172.56.7.146 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- why? at least give some reason... 75.174.204.48 (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are tons of articles about minor sportsmen who did not win anything such as this Filip Bjork or this sv:Hector Mercedes . The latter one is a boxer with 1 win and 7 losses. Besides if we are going to delete this article cuz this person is famous for her looks, then we should delete all articles about all models such as Heidi Klum--Zidane-Materazzi (talk) 14:52, 6 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. Deor (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Scherer (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can only find two news stories about him. One about him as a college hockey player and one about an appearance on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. That's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. If someone can dig up more coverage I will consider changing my vote. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No longer meets WP:NHOCKEY since it was changed. Player has retired and is unlikely to generate notable coverage in the hockey arena, at least. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 19:02, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manta Publications[edit]

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

No indication of notability in the article as it stands. This is the personal publishing imprint of Dawn Navarro Ericson and Dominique Navarro – see, for example, the Details section of this Worldcat listing (notice anything about the author of the fulsome Goodreads review?). The COI here is very obvious. Though the page was clearly created for the sole and solitary purpose of publicising their work, a speedy deletion nomination as G11 was declined by DGG, hence this discussion. Oh, and much of it is a copyvio from http://mantapublications.wordpress.com/about-manta-publications/, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this publisher is notable enough to merit an entry. If by some chance (unlikely as it is) that Dominique Navarro survives deletion this could redirect there, but I'm not really optimistic about its survival. I do have to note that Goodreads does allow authors to review their own work as long as they identify themselves as the author in some form or fashion, which Navarro did. I'm not personally a fan of people doing that, but Goodreads does allow it per their guidelines. Now if she'd posted it under a different account (as author accounts should automatically tag the review as an author review from what I can tell), then it would be considered unethical. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I never thought it was notable, but it indicated possible importance as publisher, and therefore did not fit into speedy criterion A7-- A7 is strictly limited to those which are obviously unsuitable, and do not need discussion. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Landau[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG; one article is a news story on him suing, another is a database and the other is his own website. Would be better as a entry at University of Bridgeport#Alumni. Laun chba ller 17:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He did win an Emmy for Pirate Master in 2008 and was nominated for 2 other Emmys, I think that is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - An Emmy would definitely appear to meet WP:ANYBIO. XeroxKleenex (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Emmy award and noms make him worthy of inclusion, so it's irrelevant whether he meets WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 16:48, 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 Move to Amram Taub. Consensus is that the congregation itself is not notable, but Amram Taub himself may be notable, and since the majority of this article is already about Taub, we might as well rename the article. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 23:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation Arugas Habosem[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG without reliable, independent sources. TM 15:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or move to Amram Taub, reorganize, and redirect from Congregation Arugas Habosem: As I hinted in my deprodding edit summary, Rabbi Amram Taub probably passes the GNG easily, and his congregation, which is mentioned/described in most articles about him, may as well. If, at worst, these mentions should be considered insignificant, the article should be renamed (it focuses on Taub anyways) with the current title as a redirect. (Even if there is some significant coverage of the synagogue in reliable sources, which I will try to determine later, moving to Amram Taub is to be considered, as it is the congregation's only claim to fame. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @הסרפד: (aka "Hasirpad") note that the key word "Congregation" because this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. Also, on WP there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable, regardless of age, size of student body, availability of reliable secondary sources, etc. Along those lines, there appears to be a general consensus that significant age does impart at least some degree of notability to a synagogue, despite what the subjective importance essay says. IZAK (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's one of the most important WP:N Hasidic Judaism's Orthodox synagogues, in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, and listed in the History of the Jews in Baltimore#Important synagogues in Baltimore article. After all, what makes any synagogue notable? It is there for Jewish worship and religious gatherings, and if it is a long-time well-known synagogue it is in and of itself important and notable, as can be seen from the many synagogue-guides that refer to it: jewishtimes.com/synagogues-and-congregations (listed on Baltimore Jewish Times site); alljewishlinks.com/arugas-habosem-congregation-in-baltimore-maryland; baltimore.about.com/baltsynagogues; associated.org/jewishbaltimoresynagogues; vosizneias.com/baltimore-md-remembering-rabbi-amrom; jdate.com/synagogue-directory/temple_city; godaven.com/-Arugas Habosem-Rabbi Taub's Shul, and many more. The nominator has nominated not just this synagogue but another one at the same time as well for "deletion", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel (2nd nomination). The nominator should withdraw this ill-considered nomination immediately as it seems to lack any insight to what the function of a synagogue is, especially one that is a well-established, and what it means to Jews and Judaism in Baltimore and beyond. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wiki is not a catalog or directory of synagogues- NN. In addition, there seems to be Original Research in the process of arguing for keep. Most synagogues are by definition listed in synagogue guides, it does not make them notable. --Jayrav (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and redirect to Amram Taub per Hasirpad's excellent suggestion. I wasn't able to locate reliable sources for the synagogue as easily as I did for Congregation Tiferes Yisroel, but there is plenty out there on Rabbi Taub. Yoninah (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Nominator, User Namiba (talk · contribs) aka "TM", seems to have started an arbitrary process of eliminating articles about Orthodox Judaism synagogues from Category:Orthodox synagogues in the United States, he is requested to stop this process of mass nominations for deletions without further discussions and requests for improvement of the articles. So far he has nominated for deletion these articles, plus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel (2nd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts) that looks like its heading for mass deletions in this area. The nominator is requested to consider WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE and to please start a discussion or a WP:RFC if he feels such articles are not up to snuff at a venue of his choosing, or at WP:TALKJUDAISM that would make the most sense. Quite frankly this is not the best time to start a move to delete any synagogue articles given that the current Israel-Gaza conflict is now so hot that it is spilling over into attacks on synagogues in France, see Protesters scuffle with police at Paris synagogues (AP, July 13, 2014), and the problem is growing, so it behooves any editor undertaking such deletions to proceed with great care in order to avoid any semblance of impropriety until the temperature surrounding the role and place of synagogues as current flashpoints of conflict stops. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Comment: An RfC that concerns this AfD has been opened. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#RfC: Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Community input has been requested, see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Trying to avoid WP:WAR over spate of AfDs and PRODs. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—due to lack of WP:RS. A redirect would also be reasonable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arethere enough synagogues in Baltimore than a combination article might be possible? (analogous to what we do for school districts) DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something along the lines of List of synagogues in Baltimore? Solar-Wind (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a combination article could be made, the content of this article belongs at Amram Taub—the synagogue is discussed only in the first sentence, while the other three and a half paragraphs are about Taub. Should someone so desire, Congregation Arugas Habosem could redirect to List of synagogues in Baltimore. Wherever the redirect will point (as there seems to be a consensus on reidrecting somewhere), please bear in mind that there is a somewhat more notable Congregation Arugath Habosem in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, New York, sometimes spelled Arugas like the one in Baltimore, so proper disambiguation should be maintained. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is almost entirely about an individual, not the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ... about a notable individual, hence the suggested move and redirect. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, a quick search doesn't find anything WP:RS on the congregation or the rabbi. XeroxKleenex (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage about Amram Taub is mostly in Hebrew ("עמרם טויב‎"). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's fine if true, but doing what I could (pasting that Hebrew in a Google search, then running the results through Translate) I didn't see anything that looked useful. If you can read Hebrew, please find something relevant and RS, and either add it to the article or at least link it here, if he's notable I'll support a rename. XeroxKleenex (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I thought I had already added the links I had found; for now, I'll add some here: (pp. 360–362): an article on the Taub family, with special focus on Amram Taub (all of p. 362; see also [15]); (pp. 34–35): an article about Taub's daughter's wedding, with half of the coverage devoted to Taub. There is much of the same in similar sources (rabbinic periodicals of the 60's and 70's). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the alternative English spelling, "Amrom Taub". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:51, 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. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes.
(Despite being "involved" - The nom's withdrawn so obviously the outcome's gonna be the same.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Roxxi[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and reads like an advert with questionable factual accuracy (I cannot believe the phrase "the only Indian female club DJ in South Africa", for example). Laun chba ller 17:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the consensus of the last AfD was to keep but improve, and I can see no evidence of improvement. WP:TNT applies.--Laun chba ller 17:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The result of the first AfD which was only 6 months ago was 'Keep', not 'Keep but improve'. The sources identified in that discussion clearly show that WP:GNG is satisfied. --Michig (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per User:Acb314's comments in the previous AfD. The article may need cleanup, but sources exist and do appear to establish notability for the subject per WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig - Why no one's bothered adding the sources from the previous AFD is beyond me but perhaps the nom or someone here should transfer them over otherwise this is going to be a merry-go-round!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (for now) - Unless somebody actually puts the references in there, this fails WP:BLP. If nobody cares enough to do that, perhaps it should be Delete next time this comes up, and it'll probably come up again if it stays this time. It's been six months already, and it's not fixed. XeroxKleenex (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another solution is to treat this as a WP:BLPPROD; i.e. if no-one can be bothered to add the references, it should be deleted until someone can because as written this is a WP:BLP violation. References on an AfD mean absolutely nothing to me because - and I am not the first person to say this - they are just links on some random talk page.--Laun chba ller 13:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the references are present I'm going to withdraw this. I know notability is independent of the article but waiting until the references are there saves a third AfD.--Laun chba ller 12:48, 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 keep. (WP:SNOW) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Walters[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. (I found this linked to at WP:AFD/Today despite this page not existing, and I agree he is not notable.) Laun chba ller 17:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear keep. Played in the NFL therefore he passes WP:Athlete.--Yankees10 18:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played for San Fran Chargers for 5 seasons, clearly meets WP:NGRIDIRON JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article is a stub that needs sources, the article's subject does appear to meet WP:NGRIDIRON. - Aoidh (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes Athlete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional athlete = notable. Also was written about for other things including: [16] --Jersey92 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Stats linked to in the article confirm that Walters played five seasons in the NFL. WP:BEFORE, anyone? Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Subject appeared in 56 regular season NFL games over five seasons. Clearly satisfies the specific notability guideline for football players for having played in a professional game in a top-tier league per WP:GRIDIRON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:28, 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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology[edit]

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

Contested PROD. reason was "Only primary sources are used and this has been so for over four years. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42." Fiddle Faddle 16:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not fully fixed, but I've put in a few references. It's obviously notable, it needs to be fixed, not deleted. XeroxKleenex (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom has failed to do a WP:BEFORE check -- plenty of reliable sources exist for this long-standing society. It is listed in the reference book "Scientific, Technical, and Related Societies of the United States," for example. -- 101.117.110.81 (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs cleanup but with sources like doi:10.1080/02724634.1990.10011787 available that should be entirely possible. Academic societies in general are hard to source well (see a discussion of this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Academic Organization notability guideline) but this one seems better than many in the sources that exist for it. There are also many web pointers to it from various science museums etc. which aren't much help as actual sources but do convince me that this is a legitimate and well respected organization, well known to those who work in this area. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Pouget[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete. As the nominator says, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY.~~ Tchaliburton (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Does not fail WP:NHOCKEY. Listed as having played for HC Valpellice, which is in Elite.A, which is Italy's top tier professional hockey league. I didn't check more, one is enough. XeroxKleenex (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:NHOCKEY/LA Elite A is a lower minor league. Merely playing at this level does not confer notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Can't believe this was nominated for deletion. Pouget enjoyed a 20+ year career in the top level Euro leagues, and also played in the top tier of the World Championships on seven occasions and in the Olympics on three others. Passes WP:NHOCKEY by a country mile. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 16:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Speedy Keep. His pro career isn't notable but he satisfies WP:NHOCKEY having played in the Olympics. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The subject competed in three Olympics and as such passes WP:NOLYMPICS. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bennett (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 16:26, 30 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 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Satisfies WP:NHOCKEY, has played 399 professional top level minor league games, requirement is 200. XeroxKleenex (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XeroxKleenex, where are you getting the 399 number from? I only count 12 AHL games that would go toward the 200 game requirement. The other leagues do not satisfy this criteria per WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor league player who does not pass notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After some google searching he does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Only substantive article I could find was [17]. RonSigPi (talk) 22:06, 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 Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Shaw (politician)[edit]

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

This is an article on a person who is part of a Borough council in London. While members of the Council of Greater London may be notable, there seems no reason to think that members of local councils are notable. The fact that this article is only sourced to the subjects webpage is also not helpful, and shows a failure to meet the general notability guidelines, even in the most lenient interpretations of independent sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I share the concerns. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone who has been a councillor for almost a quarter of a century, being re-elected 5 times, might be notable. I'm not checking her webpage, I don't want her cookies, but if she is at least locally notable there should be some local newspaper mentions of her (the search will be Carol Shaw councillor, not Carol Shaw politician). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While London is a large and internationally famous city for which members of the main London Assembly are deemed to pass WP:NPOL, that does not automatically extend to members of the individual borough councils — a borough councillor must actually pass WP:GNG by virtue of a substantive volume of reliable source coverage, of which there's exactly none here. No prejudice against keeping if the sourcing can be beefed way up, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a quick search for "councillor Carol Shaw" produces tales of defections and redefections (Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats and back to Conservatives), being the unsatisfied other woman in an extramarital affair ("We’d be stuffing envelopes late into the night,’ she says". Yes, I'm sure you were, wink wink) that would, years later, hoist an arrogant idiot by his own petard, and "a reputation for being fiery and outspoken". So she is at least a little bit interesting! And maybe slightly tragic. But probably not Wikipedia material. Does that add to the tragedy? A life is unlived unless you are notable enough to be on Wikipedia? The local newspaper would seem to be the Kilburn Times http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk but its search isn't working. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 5 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter M. Swartz[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2008. Sounds like a WP:Promotion - I don't think he is notable Gbawden (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 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) 16:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a promotional article about a non-notable subject. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to establish notability. ~KvnG 15:15, 5 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Branham[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've already got one good reference [18] from the Deseret News. Finding references may take some trouble -- there's a high school principal by the same name who was involved in a lurid sodomy case -- but following another AfD where references were easily found, I wonder if the nom has any idea that WP:BEFORE requires nominators to do due diligence and search for references themselves before filing AfDs. Ravenswing 00:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for "tim branham hockey -sodomy" I couldn't turn up anything beyond routine sports coverage. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't come close to WP:NHOCKEY. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability guidelines for hockey. The Deseret News is based in Salt Lake City, so their covering him is no more notable than coverage they would give to a high school football coach. I can assure you we can find DN coverage of High School football coaches, and we don't want to use that as grounds for creating articles on lots of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above. Seen a Mike (talk) 20:48, 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 Resorts World. The revision history of this article will remain intact. If anyone wants to merge content over to Aqueduct Racetrack, feel free. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 23:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resorts World Casino[edit]

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

Article is being contested. Launching to see if this article is worthy as there are many casino articles on Wikipedia. RWCasinoKid (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unusual for someone to nominate his or her own article for deletion! However, the article does need additional references in order to be "safe". Deb (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did it so the article could be reviewed and establish a consensus as to whether the article should be kept or deleted as opposed to a "WP:CSD" RWCasinoKid (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine, but it could use some more information. Look at other Casino articles for ideas. Frmorrison (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have Parx Casino and Racing and Yonkers Raceway (and Empire City Casino), well written articles. Maybe you could help me find similar sources I could use for RW casino. RWCasinoKid (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a casino - that is not enough to establish it is a WP:notable casino. This AFD was created when the author could not come up with a hangon rationale to prevent a speedy delete. noq (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the page title, redirect to Resorts World as a DAB page. As for the article itself, aside from renaming it to Resorts World New York City, a merge to Aqueduct Racetrack (i.e. create a new section) is probably better at this point. There has been a lot of coverage about the casino in the New York media, so you or another editor should be able to easily expand on it with a little work. A (legal) casino in New York City that rivals and is seen as a threat to longer established casinos in Atlantic City and Connecticut is certainly noteworthy in its own right. (I am User:Tinlinkin, but I am still on an indefinite hiatus from Wikipedia editing by my own choosing.) 173.2.183.225 (talk) 03:52, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous title merge to Aqueduct Racetrack and then redirect title to the disambiguation page Resorts World, per User:Tinlinkin. There is more about the casino at Aqueduct Racetrack than here, and it is an integral part of the article. --Bejnar (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted to add a comment, if it isn't obvious already, this is a racino -- this casino is strongly tied to the parent racetrack. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was completed about 3 years ago. RWCasinoKid (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No offense, RWCasinoKid, but I hate "fake" AFDs where the nominator doesn't actually want it deleted, but is "testing" consensus, i.e. using up wikipedia editors' attention for no good purpose. So, I feel inclined to say, really, let's just delete it, if the creator thinks it is bad let's not argue. However, RWCasinoKid is a new editor just started in May, and that would delete a substantial fraction of their edits, and would be wp:BITEy, and there is not adequate coverage in AFD policy/guidelines that "fake" AFDs should not be proposed / should be speedily closed. Don't do it again, please, RWCasinoKid! --do ncr am 04:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consensus is important for what should be done with the article, but as I gain experiance I'll know what to do next time. RWCasinoKid (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I trust that you have come to an understanding, I just wanted to weigh in here a little. It was noq who initially tagged the article for Speedy deletion A7, [19] but RWCasinoKid then brought it to AFD. So I would not place all the blame on RWCasinoKid. But I agree with doncram that the deletion process (speedy or AFD) should not be used solely to bring attention to the nominated page. And as for suggestions for the article creator/nominator, the Sandbox or a user subpage is a good way to compose articles before you want them to be published. If you are unsure if they should be published, see Articles for creation. Tinlinkin (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

doncram, while your point about the AFD process is valid, it is my understanding that the history of most edits should be open and not be deleted if there is content to be merged (WP:CC BY-SA). And, due to the circumstances I presented in my AFD vote, particularly the page title is a manifestation of an ambiguous topic, I don't think a simple deletion can apply. I probably would have been WP:BOLD and simply redirected it with the page history intact so I could create a separate section in Aqueduct Racetrack at a later time, but I would rather wait until the AFD has been closed. Tinlinkin (talk) 10:20, 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) 16:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Well, User:Tinlinkin, if the article is deleted, you would not have access to its contents to use in developing a proper section in Aqueduct Racetrack]. I do think that redirecting to such a section, i.e. to something like Aqueduct Racetrack#Resorts World Casino would be okay as an outcome here. And if it is redirected rather than deleted, u and others would have access to the material provided so far. --do ncr am 06:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Resorts World (disambiguation) would preserve the content in history for any further development of the article at Aqueduct Racetrack. Resorts World (disambiguation) is the better redirect, because almost all the Resorts World sites have casinos. --Bejnar (talk) 18:35, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Leaman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chris Leaman

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

Leaman is a member of a borough council for one of the borough of Greater London. This falls far short of the level at which a politician is notable for just holding an office. Nothing else about him suggests he passes notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local councilor fails WP Politician. Szzuk (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 5 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 keep. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The First Intimate Contact[edit]

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

Can't find any reviews to demonstrate notability; seems to fail WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book is mentioned in multiple sources ([20][21]) as one of the earliest web novels in China and has been adapted as a film. It is also reviewed in multiple research papers ([22][23][24]). It seems to pass WP:NBOOK criteria 1 and criteria 3. @Mikeblas:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 14:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the general notability guideline based on the sources cited above plus the other seven in the Chinese Wikipedia article. Needs expansion though. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:27, 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems like a local self-published article and the author is irritated that someone else appears to have plagiarized its content. The article contains no references that suggest notability and I find nothing online that suggests any notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a paucity of references in English because it is a Chinese phenomena, which doesn't make it any the less notable. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources on Chinese Wikipedia plus noted above. -- GreenC 04:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NBOOK.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:48, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bederow Miller LLP[edit]

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

Non-notable law firm. Yet another article about a law firm peppered with citations about the firm's cases, but with no evidence of substantial coverage of the firm itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Referenced articles are about cases that the firm handled, not about the firm. It is no more notable than a thousand other law firms.--Rpclod (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The history of the law firm dates back to 2007..." What a long and storied history. Delete per nom. postdlf (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; just another law firm. TJRC (talk) 21:32, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logan K. Phillips[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Claim of honorary degree from Lawrence University is not validated by school's web page. ... discospinster _talk 15:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he had an honorary degree from Lawrence University, that is not enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I hope he continues his charity works even after the article is deleted. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:49, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Navarro[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for this wiki. Apparently an autobiography; does not meet WP:ARTIST. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find anything to show that Navarro is ultimately notable enough for her own article. She was an art director for Big History (TV series) along with one other guy. However the issue here is that what little I am finding is primary or otherwise unusable to show notability (ie, IMDb type stuff). At most this could probably redirect to Big History, although we'd probably need to find a way to list her on the page because otherwise it would just redirect there without showing why it redirects there. We don't really have a line for art directors in the television infobox template and I'm not entirely a fan of listing every crew member in an article if it isn't in the infobox and the person isn't given special notice as part of the crew. She is listed on the ballot for the Emmy nomination for Big History but she's one of about eighteen people listed for the award, which could be unwieldy if we were going to list every crew member. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability.--94.234.170.198 (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Insufficient WP:RS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:16, 6 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 keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Days[edit]

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

Previously nominated (resulting in consensus to redirect back to series article). Can't find coverage in non-trivial sources to meet WP:NBOOK. No awards, motion pictures, or use for instruction. Probably should be Redirect again. Mikeblas (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Google search yielded a bit of coverage in reliable sources that didn't exist during the previous AfD[25][26] as well as a few other sources that may or may not be superb sources, I'm honestly not sure, but they also didn't exist when the previous AfD happened.[27][28] However, even with just the Huffington Post and Tor these sources appear to show enough notability to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NBOOK. - Aoidh (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Book regularly published in 2012. [29] Ngebendi (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)~~ It would appear that Mikeblas' request for deletion/redirecting is based on the existance of a previous request put up on 2011, and rendered obsolete by the book's publication in 2012, regularly mentioned in the article. If this is correct, and no ulterior motive which I failed to notice exists, there is no case at all; I've therefore removed the AofD template from the article. I'm not familiar with the notability issues invoked, nor how they should applied to the question at hand, but I bought both Cold Days and the following book, Skin Game, from Amazon, and I'm sure one can find it listed on any on- and off-line retailer one cares to consult; this should be enough to ensure notability. Ngebendi (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazon will happily sell you self-published books, so that doesn't mean anything. This isn't one, though; it hit #1 on the NYT bestseller list. Cryptic 00:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It meets the first criteria of WP:NSOFT, but unless I'm seriously misreading WP:NBOOK, being #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list for hardcover fiction doesn't indicate any type of notability for a book? That seems odd, since something similar is the case for songs. - Aoidh (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope; my activation of the AfD process is based on the current article's state. In the AfD process, it's customary to enumerate previous AfDs for the article nominated. In fact, that happens automatically; but it didn't happen automatically in this case because this article was renamed since the last AfD. Presently, the article contains no claim of notability, and therefore references to support its notability. In my searching, I didn't find any reviews or references to help establish notability for the title. The ability to buy something from an online retailer doesn't make that product notable; the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (books) do. You might familiarize yourself with them so that you can apply the criteria to articles you edit. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll do that, Mikeblas - now that more details are brought into the discussion, your activation of AfD makes some sense. However, please take into account that Cold Days is one of 16 published books, its deletion, if performed, would prompt someone to recreate the article to fill the gap. Next time, please address the issue so that people motivated by this kind of reasons would react more appropriately. Ngebendi (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The way I understand it now, the problem might have been the lack of links, such as reviews, bestseller lists and such, unrelated to the author, publishers and online retailers, which has prompted MikeBias to suspect lack of notability and tag the article for deletion. If so, it would have been more appropriate to use one of the source-requestiong templates, particularly since none of the other 14 Dresden Files have been challenged this way, though they also might require a working over like the one Tokyogirl79 has given this. Am I wrong? Ngebendi (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know if that comment was directed at me as it seems Mikeblas, but a quick Google search very quickly showed that this article meets WP:NBOOKS, which given that you're asking others to "familiarize themselves with", is something you should have known. Saying that your "activation of the AfD process is based on the current article's state" shows a pretty critical flaw in the way you nominate articles for AfD. Follow WP:BEFORE and you would have quickly seen that this subject meets WP:NBOOK; the current state of the article is completely irrelevant to the notability of the subject. Given the time between this and the previous AfD you created, I think you need to slow down and follow WP:BEFORE before trying to pump out all of these AfDs. - Aoidh (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A book can exist but that doesn't really do anything for notability, nor does the NYT bestselling status. There's been a little talk about trying to say that being #1 on the NYT list can give some notability, but so far nobody has really gone for that for several reasons, most of which come from the fact that publishers can and do manipulate things in order to achieve a higher ranking on the charts. One guy even wrote an article about getting on the NYT list, although I can't recall his name. Because of stuff like that, the bestselling status is more of a trivial thing when it comes down to it. I did, however, find multiple reviews and mentions of the book in various articles and I added enough sources to where it should pass notability guidelines now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Keep This is a notable book and part of a notable book series. Its critical commentary in the public domain and its presence on bestseller lists makes this a very clear and simple case.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The argument that the deletion of a book article eighteen months before publication has any kind of weight after the book has been published and topped best seller lists is preposterous, laughable, and palpably absurd. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The book is a bestseller, part of a bestselling series that has been adapted to television, optioned a second time, and which has its own distinct fandom. Arguments denigrating its notability are spurious at best, and smack of 'nerd rage' against a disliked franchise. The best argument thus presented was that it is possible for publishers to manipulate various bestselling lists, but even this falls flat, as successful manipulation garners coverage and attention, and thus notability. If not, no publisher would bother engaging in such manipulations. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City of Fallen Angels[edit]

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

Giant in-universe plot summary, only reference is a dead link from a local paper. Can't find coverage in non-trivial sources to meet WP:NBOOK. No awards, motion pictures, or use for instruction. Delete, since this topic fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some reviews, although I seriously had to dig for a lot of them. I replaced the link for the Manila Bulletin review as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article links to 5 reviews that pass WP:NBOOK's test despite the assertion to the contrary (as none of the sources cited in the article are blogs, personal websites, bulletin boards, usenet posts, wikis or sources identified as unreliable). In addition, the book is part of a series that was optioned and made into a major motion picture (its failings as a film notwithstanding), and I had no difficulty in tracking down addition reviews, such as this or this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79 & MjolnirPants. Sources sufficient to pass WP:NBOOK & WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 20:51, 5 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha JamVwal[edit]

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

I'm quite concerned about this article. Originally nominated for speedy, but few minutes after the nomination, author added some sources so moved here. All the provided sources are not inline. Bollywood hungama can be used as an external link but not a reference. The author seems to me a bit WP:COI, since the image uploaded by the author have mentioned him/herself as Nisha JamVwal. Now I can't really decide if she meets WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Article was created on behalf of Nisha JamVwal and all the information provided to me was from her directly. If needed copy of all original documents can be provided. All information mentioned is accurate. Regards, Chintan Pavlankar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintan Pavlankar (talk • contribs) 16:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes that is were I'm concerned, the article must stand on reliable third party independent sources, which unfortunately this article don't have. And I'm more worried to know that the author has close relation with the subject (WP:COI & WP:PROMO). Chintan, although I can understand that the provided informations might be correct but as I said, here self promotion and since you know the subject WP:COI will interfere. And Wikipedia is not a blog or free hosting website. Here subject should pass our WP:GNG. And an article only passes notability if the subject has verifiable inline third party reliable sources. Bollywood hungama and Shiksha.com are not reliable. In addition please carefully read this and this. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I did find a Times of India article about one of the awards and linked it as a reference, it appears that this person may actually be notable in India. XeroxKleenex (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes I know the subject but the only reason I made the page was not to PROMOTE her, shes already a notable person in India and does not needs a promotion. This page was created because she is a notable person and I would provide you with valid external 3rd party website links. Media in India spells her name as Nisha Jamval and some spell it as Nisha JamVwal. I will update the links on the page soon. comment added by Chintan Pavlankar (talk • contribs)

You are encouraged to make good changes and add more sources to meet WP:GNG. But since you know the subject, it is better to rewrite the article since there are still WP:COI issue in the article. And I think WP:TNT is the best way for now. @Chintan if you want to write an article then I encourage you to do it here. It is the best way to get your article in the mainspace. If you wish I can move it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Nisha JamVal. You can improve your article there without any worry of deletion. And when you complete improving your article then just submit it for review and a member of the project will move the article to mainspace. Note: But we don't encourage creating articles about someone you know. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOI (notability of awards is doubtable) does mention her, but about it. Also, there are some bytes where she promotes Tata's Zoya collection. But not "significant coverage".Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything other than the TOI article. As Redtigerxyz says, that's one award and not a significant one. The links at the bottom of the article are all not really sources. And, merely being a reporter for a newspaper is nowhere near sufficient for WP:JOURNALIST. --regentspark (comment) 14:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"'Do not Delete"' She is a notable person in India and the sources seem genuine. She has won several awards which have been featured in Times of India and Bombay Times and can be verified online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.172.189 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"'Sources"' Jim, I met the subject via someone and shes a notable person in India. Due to which I wrote the wikipedia based upon all the reference link i am pasting below and then also got the information verified from her. please go through the link it should validate all the information i have written about her.

NISHA JAMVWAL’S VERIFIED FACEBOOK PAGE AS A LEADING CELEBRITY FROM INDIA with a 1,19,897 following

https://www.facebook.com/nisha.jamvwal

NISHA JAMVWAL’S VERIFIED GOOGLE + ACCOUNT IS RANKED TEN IN INDIA WITH 1,859,703 followers|33,095,426 views

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+NishaJamVwal/posts

Top Verified Females in Google+

https://plus.google.com/+LynetteYoung/posts/QXMmLhzftuj

http://www.circlecount.com/in/p/+NishaJamVwal

http://www.circlecount.com/in/euromaestrowhoswho/

http://www.lynetteradio.com/2012/top-verified-females-in-google-as-per-circlecount-com-03302012-2

RANKED NO 9 AS MOST FOLLOWED PROFILES IN INDIA

http://www.circlecount.com/in/

NISHA JAMVWAL INTERIOR ARCHITECT SPEAKS/ WRITES ON INTERIORS

TIMES OF INDIA timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/home-garden/Get-that-trendy-look-at-home/articleshow/9247641.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/home-garden/Let-colour-dominate-your-home-this-season/articleshow/21160464.cms

NISHA JAMVWAL HOSTS ‘INDIA ON CANVAS’ NGO EVENING TO RAISE FUNDS

http://www.eventfaqs.com/eventfaqs/wcms/en/home/news/Khushii-India-on-canvas-fulfils-its-purpose--GhtUuLqoSK.html

NISHA JAMVWAL IS INVITED TO GIVE THE TIMES OF INDIA GOOD FOOD AWARD TO ZODIAC GRILL

http://timescity.com/mumbai/2012/timesawards_gallery

http://im.timescitycontent.com/awardsgallary/2012/Jul/azura_600x400.jpg

NISHA JAMVWAL’S TELEVISON SHOW ‘HOME SHANTI HOME’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSRvnU2vVB0&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=68

NISHA’s FASHION SHOW IN MADRAS

http://web611.32.119.new.ocpwebserver.com/nightOut/lifestyle/content/lifestyle.aspx?slno=101

AWARDS

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/mumbai/Nisha-Jamvwal-awarded-for-innovative-thinking-at-an-awards-function-in-Mumbai/articleshow/39175720.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/mumbai/Nisha-Jamvwal-wins-womens-achievers-award-from-the-World-Women-Leadership-Congress-in-Mumbai/articleshow/31281960.cms

http://www.youthincmag.com/2014/04/01/celebrated-philanthropist/

http://news.lotsbuzz.com/nisha-jamvwal-receives-womens-achiever-award-for-outsanding-csr-work/

http://dumkhum.com/?p=35822

http://www.indianshowbiz.com/?p=51702

INDIA’S LEADING YOUTH MAGAZINE http://www.youthincmag.com/2014/04/01/celebrated-philanthropist/

http://breakfastnews.tv/celebrity-columnist-nisha-jamvwal-fashion-designer-komal-sood-shine-at-5th-annual-india-leadership-conclave-indian-affairs-business-leadership-awards-2014/

http://www.worldwomenleadershipcongress.org/html_2014/role_players.html

INDIA ON CANVAS & OTHER NGO/ CSR WORK

http://dnasyndication.com/dna_photogallery_editorial_images/pid=DNMUM27823&filename=Abhinandan_Lodha_Kapil_Dev_Nisha_Jamvwal_%28L-R%29

http://nishajamvwal.com/sushmita-sen-nisha-jamvwals-special-secret/

RAPID FIRE WITH NISHA JAMVWAL

http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-rapid-fire-with-nisha-jamvwal-1049318

ART

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JTS8yMDEwLzEyLzAxI0FyMDMzMDE%3D

LORD JEFFREY ARCHER WRITES NISHA JAMVWAL’S STORY

http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/fashion/tale-piece/article433523.ece

NISHA JAMVWAL WORKS AS A LUXURY CONSULTANT WITH LEADING BRANDS WORLDWIDE

http://www.sliceofreallife.com/2013/03/01/nisha-jamvwal-abha-gupta-and-priyanka-gupta-host-a-champagne-evening-at-icasa/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLIQdTcffpQ&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=57

DNA NEWSPAPER INTERVIEW WITH NISHA JAMVWAL http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report-zoya-s-luxury-consultant-nisha-jamvwal-speaks-on-the-perceptions-about-jewellery-1989801

TIMES OF INDIA’S MUMBAI MIRROR COVERS AN EVENING WHERE NISHA JAMVWAL HOSTS AN EVENING AS BRAND AMBASSADOR http://mumbainewsnetwork.com/nisha-jamvwal-geetu-hinduja-karaoked-at-the-musical-high-tea/

DNA NEWSPAPER TAKES TEN TIPS FROM ART CONSULTANT & INTERIORS ARCHITECT NISHA JAMVWAL FOR THEIR READERS http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report-art-consultant-nisha-jamvwal-lays-down-her-rules-of-style-in-home-d-cor-1493962

DNA NEWSPAPER –NISHA COMPERES AN EVENING WITH POLITICIAN SALMAN KHURSHEED http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-nisha-jamvwal-back-to-school-1806963

LINKS FOR NISHA JAMVWAL AS BRAND STRATEGIST & LUXURY CONSULTANT

http://timescity.com/delhi/party-pics/nisha-jamvwals-party/22626352.cms

http://spicystarsmumbai.com/zoya-launches-its-all-new-store-and-stunning-new-collection-fire-with-nisha-jamvwal-at-linking-road-with-a-grand-champagne-cocktail-fashion-extravaganza.html

http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/events/delhi/jewels-of-the-crown/articleshow/20062878.cms

http://absoluteindianews.com/storydetail.php?nid=331 http://spicystarsmumbai.com/zoya-nisha-jamvwal-host-an-exclusive-musical-fashion-extravaganza-hightea.html

http://afashionistasdiary.com/2014/07/25/zoya-nisha-jamvwal-host-an-exclusive-musical-fashion-extravaganza-hightea/

http://latestnewspics.blogspot.in/2013/05/jewels-of-crown.html

http://latestnewspics.blogspot.in/2013/05/jewels-of-crown.html http://www.missmalini.com/2012/06/02/guest-celebrity-blogger-nisha-jamvwal-zoya-celebrates-greece-with-ambassador-ioanis-raptakis/

http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/hindi/events/34435.html

http://www.santabanta.com/gallery1.asp?mid1=189947

http://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainmenttags/tulip-joshi/gulshan-grover-tulip-joshi-suchitra-krishnamoorthy-zoyas-greece-launch

http://hamaraphotos.com/bollywood/scoops/nisha-tulip-vidya-malvade-at-the-diamond-boutique-greece-launch-by-zoya.html

http://socialdhabba.com/photos/Product-Launch/Gulshan-Grover-dazzles-with-exotic-jewels-and-ladies?page=2

http://apnaindia.com/entertainment/event/bollywood/nisha-jamwal-dipannita-sharma-and-vidya-malvade-at-the-launch-of-zoyas-new-diamond-collection-4712.html

http://gallery.oneindia.in/special-events/zoya-recreates-mediterranean-magic-with-all-new-greece-collection/photos-c59-e39777-p228694.html

http://reviews.in.88db.com/index.php/photogallery/eventsparties/16949-zoya-boutique-unveils-greece-diamond-jewelry-collection

http://fashionfad.in/nightOut/lifestyle/content/lifestyle.aspx?slno=609

http://www.directory-india.com/news/31/tulip-joshi-gulshan-grover-zoyas-greece-launch-gallery.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai/Brunches_seem_better_with_friends/articleshow/3428222.cms http://dnasyndication.com/dna_photogallery_editorial_images/pid=DNMUM62185&filename=Poonam_Dhillon_Aditi_Govitrikar

http://spicystarsmumbai.com/zoya-nisha-jamvwal-host-an-exclusive-musical-fashion-extravaganza-hightea.html

http://afashionistasdiary.com/category/bollywood/page/3/

http://bollywoodgaram.com/32789/nisha-jamvwal-zoya-host-high-tea-exclusive-musical-fashion-extravaganza/

WOMEN OF SUBSTANCE NISHA JAMVWAL

http://indianaffairs.tv/celebrity-columnist-nisha-jamvwal-fashion-designer-komal-sood-shine-at-5th-annual-india-leadership-conclave-indian-affairs-business-leadership-awards-2014/

http://odishaaffairs.tv/celebrity-columnist-nisha-jamvwal-fashion-designer-komal-sood-shine-at-5th-annual-india-leadership-conclave-indian-affairs-business-leadership-awards-2014/

http://www.pharmaleaders.tv/celebrity-columnist-nisha-jamvwal-fashion-designer-komal-sood-shine-at-5th-annual-india-leadership-conclave-indian-affairs-business-leadership-awards-2014/

http://ilc2014.in/celebrity-columnist-nisha-jamvwal-fashion-designer-komal-sood-shine-at-5th-annual-india-leadership-conclave-indian-affairs-business-leadership-awards-2014/

http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/more/photos/view/stills/parties-and-events/id/2586083

SNIPPETS ABOUT NISHA/ NISHA IN THE NEWS

TIMES OF INDIA http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JTS8yMDA4LzA0LzMwI0FyMDM1MDA= http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/slideshow-nisha-jamvwal-promises-to-promote-art-in-mumbai-1614527 NISHA’S BLOGS WITH INDIA’S MOST POPULAR BLOG MISS MALINI http://missmalini.mobstac.com/2013/03/11/celebrity-columnist-nisha-jamvwal-celebrates-womens-day/nj-womens-day-2/ missmalini.mobstac.com/2013/12/20/celebrity-columnist-nisha-jamvwal-bids-goobye-to-2013-at-le-mangii/nj-mangii/ AS A COLUMNIST FOR DNA NEWSPAPER http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report-it-s-the-last-shangri-la-1455819

ART CONSULTANT http://web611.32.119.new.ocpwebserver.com/nightOut/lifestyle/content/lifestyle.aspx?slno=264 NDTV NEWS NETWORK VIDEO’S OF NISHA JAMVWAL http://zonaentertainment.com/mp3/ndtv-good-times--nisha-jamvwal.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5-0UjofnUo&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTfHgIEilG8&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTfHgIEilG8&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=26 NISHA JAMVWAL DELVES INTO ALL ART, AND DIVERSIFYS INTO ART, RENAISSANCE WOMAN NISHA JAMVWAL MAKES A STATEMENT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTfHgIEilG8&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5-0UjofnUo&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=1 http://whataboutproject.com/home/brian

NISHA SPEAKS ON GLOBAL WARMING https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWRvcfzdRgY&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=2 NISHA DOES A SHOW TO SUPPORT THE CHRIS CAIN FOUNDATION WITH CHRIS CAIN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WoffUKRors&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=6 NISHA JAMVWAL SPEAKS ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dL6DSLjcHI&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=4 GENERAL INTEREST NISHA JAMVWAL KNOWN AS ONE OF INDIA’S BIGGEST HAT COLLECTOR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSbENAbNLsY&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=38 NISHA JAMVWAL WRITES A BOOK ON STONE SCULPTURE MID-DAY TV & LEHEREN TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOu4l3pA8FE&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOu4l3pA8FE&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=64

NISHA JAMVWAL IN FASHION

http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/fashion/tale-piece/article433523.ece

NISHA JAMVWAL GIVES SOME GROOMING TIPS ON TV 9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVrh4EuEBlA&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5LEoXpOrGA&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=97 NISHA JAMVWAL RELEASES A BOOK & INAUGURATES IT – ZOOM TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNM0o3dUWZ0&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=85

NISHA JAMVWAL FASHIONISTA SPEAKS ON WHATS IN AND WHAT OUT ON ZOOM TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6ga6I3j_P8&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=83 NISHA JAMVWAL IN A POLITICAL DEBATE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_wavZjnZQE&list=PLD5B48C40184ED122&index=111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintan Pavlankar (talk • contribs) 02:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems to be the case of WP:COI (as nominator suggested) as well as previous CSD nomination should be considered. And even I am failed to find significant coverage in free media (should not consider if it is my personal views). CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 13:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more links to her articles in Youth Inc magazine: Do not delete:

http://www.youthincmag.com/2013/02/01/glimpses-of-a-beautiful-mind/

http://www.youthincmag.com/2013/01/01/nisha/

http://www.youthincmag.com/2014/04/01/celebrated-philanthropist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.226.134 (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@jimcarter I am Nisha JamVwal and was somewhat taken aback at this conversation. I have definitely not initiated this article, I do not know the author at all well and have met him in passing once. There are many followers and fans and I dont know any of them personally as you may recognize. You just have to go onto Google to know the fact that I am a well known celebrity in India. My life story would not be authored by Jeffrey Archer the world renowned author, lest I be a known figure in India and overseas. Do some due diligence please and google me? I have been verified by Facebook and Google Plus without any knowledge by me at all. However after it happened I definitely got more interested in the websites. My email is used to register once my office staff apprised me of this debate, which is why i've elected to write to you directly. I appear on the net as Nisha Jamwal and Nisha JamVwal too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishjamvwal (talk • contribs) 09:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well known celebrity in India? @Nishjamvwal:, you must be kidding me. I watch TV daily, and read the papers, today is the first time I'm coming across your name. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the huge list above, there is nothing of note here. She's had some drive-by appearances on TV and even those look like they may have been the result of her own hype. Where the links are valid, the content is clearly puffed-up press releases etc and, frankly, what looks like opportunism. For example, I'd love to see Jeffrey Archer's confirmation of the authenticity of this claim by the article subject. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 7 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made Men Music Group[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. The only notable artist in the label is its co founder. Versace1608 (Talk) 12:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think Emma Nyra has a bit of notability in reliable sources, but even if all the artist signed to a record label are notable it does not automatically translate to the record label notability, we will still need verifiable independent significant coverage (History, Awards and Nominations, etc) that shows that the label on its own is notable, which Made Men Music in its present state has failed to provide. Darreg (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article fails WP:GNG as clearly explained by Darreg above.Wikicology (talk) 11:57, 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. I agree that ARIA nominations do not contribute to notability. The "delete" !votes have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kosky[edit]

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

No sources other than discogs, nothing to suggest subject passes WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The Age calls him ...highly influential former co-manager and producer ... He and his projects such as Killing Heidi or Wah Wah Music are frequently mentioned in Billboard. He has collaborated with Rage Against the Machine and Crowded House, according to allmusic.com and abc.net.au. The Sydney Morning Herald mentions his influence on early production of Killing Heidi. Redirect to the article about the band would be another option, but I would prefer to keep it separately, given that he collaborated with multiple notable subjects. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page and I am not Paul Kosky, I have added more references to this page including BRW article and Absolute Sound, Limited, 1991. There are more references from MFTCC & RATM . Kosky's career has been highly influential too many musicians and to belittle Aria Award nominations is immature. Zoltan Steal (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing is a large number of passing mentions showing that he's worked with a number of notable acts. No-one is disputing this, but it takes more than association with notability to make a person notable. Where is the substantial, independent, in-depth coverage of Paul Kosky himself that GNG requires? Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One article in theage newspaper from 10 years ago isn't that notable. I don't doubt that this person worked on a lot of music in australia, but so has everyone in the industry. Except for Killing Heidi, none of the referenced bands or web pages (other than discogs) mentions him by name. And considering the size of the australian industry and the number of awards given out at the ARIAs, it's not surprising he has some nominations. The way the current article is written, it talks up his achievements far more than the references support. At the very least this article needs a major triage back to the facts, removal of all the original research (seemingly written by Kosky himself) and a more sensible tabular format with fully reference credits. As it is, it appears as though Kosky is using wikipedia as his resume & media relations outlet. Whistlemethis (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has at least three ARIA noms per refs just added. Only one nom is needed to meet WP:BAND Criterion#6 and hence obtain sufficient notability for an article. To Whistlemethis: there is no limit to the number of awards the premier national body presents each year; there is no requirement to consider the population size of that nation nor the size of its music industry.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kosky's not a musician, though, so WP:BAND doesn't apply. The ARIA awards would satisfy WP:ANYBIO, but ANYBIO is an indicator of probable notability, not a notability requirement. I'd contest that if the ARIA awards are all that he is notable for, and if the only coverage of this is his name being listed on the ARIA webpage, with no further coverage, then this is not sufficient to warrant an article. All we can usefully say about him, with reference to sources, is that he was nominated for three ARIA awards - that doesn't add up to a useable article. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he does sometimes work as a musician, (see here) although principally known for his work as a producer, engineer, manager &c. So I see your point. Aside from ANYBIO, consider also WP:Creative criterion 3: e.g. Killing Heidi's Reflector: a No. 1 ARIA album which won four Awards and received five noms. The subject provided Engineering, Guitar, Keyboards, Mixing, Percussion, Producing, String Arrangements, Vocals (Background) and was their Talent Manager. Clearly he played a major role in co-creating this significant/well known work which has been the subject of numerous reviews.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of Reflector: AllMusic, Pop Matters and Sputnik Music. To varying degrees they all mention the subject.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the sources identified by User:Vejvančický are something at least, they just mention Kosky's involvement with other notable acts, they're not about Kosky himself. I don't believe they comprise significant enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG. I also disagree strongly that being nominated for an ARIA award is an indicator of notability; these days you can pick up a nomination along with a burger and shake at the drive-thru. Actually winning might be better, but it doesn't appear that Kosky has managed that yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. the ARIA nominations meet WP:ANYBIO. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient references to clearly establish notability . Dan arndt (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Being associated, as previously mentioned, with multiple notable persons/groups does not make one notable in their own right. AlanS (talk) 05:40, 30 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, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & everyone above - Non notable producer - Fails GNG . –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article references sites that don't even mention the subject. The need to do so indicates that the subject is not actually notable.--Rpclod (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although many people do get nominated for Aria awards, Kosky has been a finalist (the final 5) in each of the listed categories, which is no easy task. References will be edited within the next 48hrs. Zoltan Steal (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

references will be updated in the next few days Zoltan Steal (talk) 05:08, 6 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

URPS[edit]

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

Unreferenced, this article reads like either an opinion or advertising. Believe it fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this article flies in face of WP:NOTDICT, and I can't find usage examples to overcome WP:NEO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—FURPS is a notable topic (although currently not well-served by its article). URPS is only used in relationship to the full FURPS (or FURPS+) model, e.g., "ease with which it can be split into functional (F) and non-functional (URPS) components". Given this, I don't see where a redirect would be helpful. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:03, 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 and redirect to Sleepaway Camp#Reboot. Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepawaycamp reboot[edit]

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

Not-yet-notable future film. None of the future details can be stated definitively, and none are supported by the source provided. The Sleepaway Camp article mentions the reboot, and I just added the source provided here to support it. I'm not simply redirecting this because the title is an unlikely search text. Previous PROD was removed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious delete, just speculation regarding a possible remake of a hilariously bad horror movie.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect/merge per coverage to Sleepaway Camp#Reboot, where information can be expanded until recreation merited. As the topic of this remake is being discussed in multiple independent sources, we can allow recreation once filming begins per Fangoria, Moviefone, Movies.com, Cinemablend, Bloody-Disgusting (Oct. 2013), Bloody-Disgusting (Jan. 2014), Bloody-Disgusting (Mar. 2014), JoBlo, Ain't It Cool News, et al. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sleepaway Camp#Reboot or delete. It's a bit too soon for an article at this time. I'm not convinced that this is a useful redirect, but I guess it can't hurt. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 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.

Kadir Berk Kapancı[edit]

The result of this discussion was 'optional; default is Delete'. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 01:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musikki[edit]

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

I do not see the significance described in this article. It's difficult to judge the reliability of the sites used with the same confidence as those more familiar to me, but those that are available seem to be mostly PR DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 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 00:35, 23 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) 08:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An online search finds apparently self-publicizing efforts and not much more. This appears to be yet another app and not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 18:15, 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 01:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Loscutoff[edit]

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

Can not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources only mention the subject in passing (i.e. quotes from her as director of The Copley Society of Boston) or as part of routine coverage (i.e. announcements about art exhibits). Outside of her personal website, the source that covers the subject the most in-depth is an article about the wives of Boston Celtics players. As notability is not inherited, there does not appear to be enough for a standalone article. Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 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 00:21, 23 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) 08:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references appear to discuss a gallery that the subject may have directed or to the general art scene in which the subject may have participated. The article and one reference also relate to the subject's husband and WP:NOTINHERIT would preclude that as supporting notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dearth of references. Searched 10 SERP pages, no in-depth sources, only scattered mentions. Good watercolorist. While pageviews is not an official indication, the lack of attention (for me) is a further indication of lack of notability, meaning no need to search the second set of 10 SERP pages.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:43, 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 keep. Wifione ^Message 00:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Morgan (actress)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coupla things. The name 'Elizabeth Morgan' is semi-common; that she is sometimes referred to as 'Liz Morgan' can make it harder for us to identify good sources. For example, there may have been another actress by the same name (probably not the British actress -- an American one, died 1987). So I used this search string in the browser bar: "elizabeth morgan" OR "liz morgan" (actor? OR actress OR brit? OR shoulders OR thalidomide OR wiles OR scarlet OR mysterons), clicked on 'Images', and there was some consistency in images, maybe 5-10 of the same person. That is one way so we can get a sense of what she looks like, if we use a search string like that, since it has a greater likelihood of bringing in obscure mentions, hopefully not excluding good sources. What I've found is that clearly notable people often have lots of photos of themselves, particularly in the entertainment industry, and while of course this is not a formal wiki-test of notability, I sometimes use it to get a sense of whether a person is notable, so in this regard, the paucity of consistent images is a sign to me that she's not notable. Another unofficial sign: so-so pageviews (that is, relative to other entertainment types). I searched 10 SERP pages, didn't find much, although there was a listing in a BBC piece.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Longtime performer and voice actress who is listed by the British Film Institute as both Liz Morgan (28 credits in 1967–68 {including a regular role in the cult TV series Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons}, 1991 and 1993) and Elizabeth Morgan here (81 credits between 1965 and 1996) and here (8 credits between 1975 and 1991). IMDb gives Elizabeth Morgan (including her billing as Liz Morgan) 104 credits in 41 TV series as well as in a couple of films. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt she has had a long career, multiple roles, including as a voice actor, but there is little written about her. Like, what do we say in the Wikipedia article on her? That she was in umpteen shows? That's about all we can say. Here is the wording from the GNG that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I did not find that. That is really what is needed here: multiple independent nontrivial reliable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth/Liz Morgan has not had the career of a star or even a major supporting performer and, it seems at first glance, has not had much written about her, but neither was she a bit player or an extra. In fact, virtually all of her credits provide her with on-screen billing. Although she has been a relatively minor actress, such status is analogous to that of hundreds of other such actors whose Wikipedia entries have little more than a one-line description and a list of credits. Of course, WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS, but in this circumstance, so much other such stuff exists that it would be counterintuitive to single out Elizabeth Morgan (actress) for deletion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate notability established. Montanabw^(talk) 04:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Montanabw, in what way do you think WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG is met? I can't see any suggestion of this from article, the only reference in the article (the unreliable IMDB) or the comments above. Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per Roman Spinner, I think adequate notability is established under GNG. NACTOR is a guideline, not a bright line rule. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Jim-Siduri has now been banned for being unconstructive, and has given no reason for writing 'keep'. Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Not as of when I am writing, I don't see any evidence of a block, let alone a ban. People don't have to give a reason, though not doing so may mean their views get less weight. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As —Roman Spinner. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in documentary Filmed in Supermarionation and Newsnight of 11 January 2013 is enough for GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

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 00:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibhuprasad Mohapatra[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Essentially an unsources BLP with some links to articles written by the subject in one particular blog site. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article lists publications by the subject, but what we need is publications about the subject (or by other people but about his works). As it is, he appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 5 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. Wifione ^Message 00:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K. R. Udayakumar[edit]

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

There is no evidence of notability in the article. The person has not held any elected position. Shyamsunder (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Held a lot of local positions, nothing of note. Even if the Congress Party was to India what the Communist Party was to the Soviet Union, his level of party positions would not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 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 deletion by User:DragonflySixtyseven. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Is Running Out Think About These Three Ways To Change Your Read Up About England On Wikipedia[edit]

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

Several reasons:

1. There are no sources listed 2. It's more like a blog than article. 3 . Sentences often make little or no sense, and have words spelled incorrectly. 4. It's uncategorized.

The user account is new, though. So, instead of rushing the article for deletion, I think it's fair to get a community view. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been speedy deleted. As it directly references Wikipedia, it appears to be a form of bad faith page creation. O N R (talk) 03:03, 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 Matt Glaser. Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central Park Sheiks[edit]

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

Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and sourced entirely to unreliable or commercial sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage at all. I'd be willing to withdraw this if real sources supporting a real claim of notability started showing up, but it can't be kept in this condition. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Matt Glaser, a notable band member. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge fails WP:NMUSIC, Matt Glaser does no seem to be a good choice for a redirect given his notability is also questionable. --Bejnar (talk) 08:20, 25 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) 02:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Matt Glaser. Legitimate notability concerns have been raised over the musician. However, this is best discussed in a separate AfD, not here. So long as he actually has an article, it is an appropriate place to merge this article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Matt Glaser. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 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. Wifione ^Message 00:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Application Development Facility[edit]

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

An article with personal opinions original research, with no sources (other then the to to IBM's website), it has "(written by Roy Cropper. updated by Jim Stewart)" written in the middle of the article, and "(If this is an urban myth then I apologise for it as I would hate to mislead anyone)" Meaning that the entire article could be made up... (t) Josve05a (c) 18:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sorces. Even if my assessment is wrong, the quality of the article would require either stubifying or outright deletion anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:45, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In response to the initial discussion ADF is a real thing, it's not made up. But I don't think it was a very significant tool and there is almost nothing I could find written about it outside of IBM tech manuals and web sites and a site called Technopedia. Except, I did find one article here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07399019408963044#.U-FgoEi-l7M but I don't think that is sufficient to establish notability. Also, it's a very old and out dated technology so there won't be any interest in the future unless IMS databases make a come back which isn't very likely. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:01, 5 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 Detective. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 05:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Detective[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2011. I can't see the need for this article - it is really stating the obvious! orphan article, nothing reaches here so no-one has noticed it anyway Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yup. Just stating the obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This expression is a plausible redirect to Detective. It produces a large number of results in GBooks. If it is not a term of art, it should be redirected. James500 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - happy with a redirect - I should have probably done that in the first place Gbawden (talk) 12:34, 29 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) 02:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Detective. Just make the article a redirect. Frmorrison (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Detective; makes the most sense. TJRC (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Gbawden you can be bold and redirect it to Detective yourself. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Thanks Jim Gbawden (talk) 08:13, 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. Wifione ^Message 00:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Club of Alexandria Apollo[edit]

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

Nothing in this article indicates notability. There are 100s of Leo Clubs worldwide - we can't have an entry for everyone. While their list of projects is admirable there is nothing that makes them stand out from the other clubs. Gbawden (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 01:20, 22 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) 02:12, 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 00:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Kazantcev[edit]

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

Player fails NBASKETBALL and GNG. A semi-pro player in non-notable leagues. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable semi-pro basketball player. Not entitled to a presumption of notability under the specific notability guideline per WP:NBASKETBALL, having never played in a top-tier pro league, and does not satisfy the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:33, 25 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 00:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOOPS.--Rpclod (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOOPS and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Semi-pro is not pro. Fails notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBASKETBALL & WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I can't find evidence of notability and the leagues he has played in are far short of those generating sufficient press where we should assume he meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 20:30, 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. Wifione ^Message 00:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Allen (author)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to write mostly Multi-level marketing books, doesn't seem to meet general notability criteria. Reads rather like a résumé. Scant references. Shritwod (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only truly independent source we have is the Gale entry, and our notability requirements stipulte multiple, reliable, indepdent sources. I'm not even 100% sure that the Gale source works, but even if it does it is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 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 00:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I researched this person and found a lot of self-promotion and not much else. Despite the claims in the article, does not appear to actually meet WP:AUTHOR.--Rpclod (talk) 01:58, 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 00:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadiyo Jim'ale[edit]

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

I don't believe the article meets wiki standards for notability. The only cited sources lead to dead links. Google search doesn't lead to any notable information either except this article. 26oo (talk) 23:56, 29 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 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in article comes even close to passing notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not notable at all. We should also delete this, [Category:LGBT people from Somalia since that's the only article in it. AcidSnow (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to passing WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:51, 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 IAR delete. As the person who just closed the Oron Shaul AfD, I'm going to boldly delete this article per speedy criterion G8, in accordance with the outcome there, even though this AfD has not run the standard seven days. If anyone wants to contest the closure, please leave a message on my talk page. Deor (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaul Aaron[edit]

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

Was deleted under WP:A7, which was appealed to deletion review. The outcome of that review was to list on AfD. My role in this relisting is purely administrative; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the horrible administrator who deleted it. Regardless of that, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oron Shaul.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and redirect to Oron Shaul. While I agree that the consensus of the deletion review was to restore and take it to AFD, that was only because most of the participants in the discussion apparently didn't read my comment that another version of the article already was at AFD. Since a discussion on the merits of an article on this individual has already been going on at that other AFD, there is no point to having this discussion as well. Calathan (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I missed that when I closed the DRV. To be honest, the outcome seemed so obvious, I only skimmed the text. I don't know enough about Hebrew names to tell if these really are the same person. Clearly, if they are indeed the same person, this AfD is moot. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a biography of a living person, who is claimed to have been abducted by an organization, appears to be notable for only one event and therefore does not warrant a Wikipedia article. And, seriously Wikipedia is not CNN, but an encyclopedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Calathan, as creator of this article maybe this can be done speedily. PatGallacher (talk) 01:53, 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. Michig (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Anna Frisch[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF, many MDs have listed professorships due to residency programs. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete: Article fails to support claim of "World Renown" (sic). No independent sources. Just a promotional bio; for me, this is borderline WP:G11. – Wdchk (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since my original comment, I acknowledge significant good-faith efforts made to provide a referenced list of publications, and edits made to reduce the promotional tone. However, notability depends on significant attention from independent secondary sources, and these I still do not see. A list of publications, no matter how long, does not make up for a lack of secondary sources. So, despite the improvements, I have not changed my opinion . – Wdchk (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Info" I am not sure if i am adding this in the correct area. We are still currently updating the page for Dr Anna Frisch to reflect her elite status in the field of Endocrinology. --Xmxpro1 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly welcome to contribute to the discussion here. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A list of scholarly articles written by the article's subject does not, in itself, provide enough information to determine the subject's notability. – Wdchk (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A promotionally-written article with its main editor, Xmxpro1, reverting any attempt to make it less promotional. From the citation record, the subject does not appear to pass WP:PROF. The only nontrivial source given is a local story about a medical patient who happens to have been treated by Frisch; there is no nontrivial coverage in it of Frisch herself, so no reason to believe she passes WP:GNG independently of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to suggest anything else than an actively practicing clinician with a research interest. JFW | T@lk 20:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources not there. A GS h-index of at most 4 is nowhere sufficient to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No proof for the claimed super status. MDs are not inherently notable. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — 66.168.160.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I also haven't edited the article. Plus, I have no interest in this person. And I have edits outside of this deletion discussion (now). Please drop your SPA charge. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

He seems to be rolling through AfDs just !voting keep. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure, it reads like a resume. But put a "refs needed" tag on it for a year. She might do something notable and then someone will end up having to rewrite all that all over. Plus I do not believe a male with an article with that much detail would be considered for deletion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, from you comment I am not sure you understand how wikipedia works. Which stamenents in the article about person's notable achievements need a ref? I will gladly search the confirmations despite the sexism canard you are trying to load on all us. You aslo may request transferring the article in your user space "for a year" and reapply when the person "do something notable" to match wikipedia requirements. As for "male with an article", before accusing 80% of wikipedians of sexism, try get your facts straight by checking how many male articles are deleted every day. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete When I cleaned various WP:PEACOCK stuff, the bio became a rather nonnotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - Are you kidding me?!?!? A researcher whose work could likely (and probably is) cited in other WP articles regarding health subjects and people want to delete it because the article needs cleanup..! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you see the article at all? The cleanup is done already. And what is left does not show the reason for your EXCITEMENT. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I did, and it still needs cleaning up and references. I have the same standpoint for keeping this article as I do for keeping articles on minor or not well known publications, its documentation of potential sources. Why, as an encyclopedia, would we want to get rid of this kind of article? It would be nice if we could get someone knowledgeable about the medical research community to comment. Granted I'm not familiar with the field, but this person's work seems to give her relative notability within it. Side note: this article needs to be moved to Anna Frisch, article names should not include titles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When even people !voting keep say maybe she'll do something notable, you know that there's a problem. Without evidence that this person even meets GNG keeping it isn't justified. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Promotional? I'm sure The American Journal of the Medical Sciences checked her research before they decided to print it, and saying that they printed it is a fact not promotion. (I've cleaned up the first reference and the first of the "Publications" but there are a lot of style conventions being broken such as capitals and something weird going on with square brackets in the infobox, but the subject of the article, Dr. Frisch, is notable and the article should still be kept.) --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That journal, and all other medical and academic journals, print dozens, hundreds, thousands of articles. One publication in such a journal does not make for notability--and note that it's three pages long and has a bunch of co-authors. There are claims that her research is the first to do something, but those claims are unverified. Everything else is a normal part of the job. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It was written in promotional style when posted for deletion. Now it is cleaned from WP:PEACOCK. But not notable per wikipedia standards either. There are millions of people with lots of publications. But they are mostly rank-and-file researchers. wikipedia is not a "Who is Who". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek Lem, it's one thing to nominate for deletion, it's entirely another to campaign for it. Is there something else to this, do you have some perspective that we are missing? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scalhotrod Yes. I don't like accusations in misogyny and hints about ulterior motives. Just the same, I am nominating for deletion of various nonnotable software and don't whine when white young male geek-oriented majority forces these worthless articles to be kept. I don't run around AFD accusing them being white young male geek-oriented; I let the majority rule. I don't forum shop either, unlike what I see happening here. Good luck with your wikifeminist activism, but back off with your personal accusations. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is nothing wrong with "campaigning" neither against, nor for, unless it involves personal accusations. Also, an occasional civilized exchange of arguments is not called "campaigning", unless you are seeking to smear your opponent. Staszek Lem (talk)

You're reading way too much into this, I simply asked if you knew something about this person that the rest of us do not. The Editor who nominated this article did so and hasn't been heard from again, you've been responding to various comments and are seemingly adamant about its deletion. Furthermore, alot has been fixed in the article and there's just barely been effort started to research this person and expand it again. So I'll ask again, what makes Frisch so worthy of this kind of attention? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)

15:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware I had to respond to every comment for articles I submit to AfD. It looks more like a CV/resume now than when first nominated.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 19:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Loriendrew, you don't. What you did was perfectly fine and there was no need to comment further unless you want to. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)

22:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that responding to every comment is usually counterproductive. As Scalhotrod says, it's definitely not something you're expected to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

∀ There is, however, WP:CANVAS.

Knee-jerk keeps are no better than knee-jerk deletes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

Delete No indication of notability. A practicing physician like tens of thousands of others. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis physician has changed the way thyroid is treated. Most of the direct links we cannot put down on paper as it violets HIPPA. I agree that 1 person here seems to have a hard on for wanting to delete. Yes there are many doctors and many great ones. The articles and publication which are listed are high ranking in the research world. Not every publication is weighted the same. This physician is held to a different level by her peers due to research and treatment of thyroid related disorders. Most high ranking people don't go and see the average "Jo". I stand by this doctor and vote to keep this page. If she was there in a bikini my guess is some of you would be looking past the grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmxpro1 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC) — Xmxpro1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Raw information about patients, the kind of information that might violate HIPAA, sounds to me like it would constitute a primary source. These are not particularly useful anyway, in the absence of secondary sources. We are not in the business of interpreting primary sources. Regarding your statements: "This physician has changed the way thyroid is treated," and "This physician is held to a different level by her peers ...", this is exactly what we're looking for: reliable, third-party, secondary sources that confirm these statements. With respect, all this talk of bikinis and the possible motivation of contributors to this discussion is irrelevant. The article's current formatting and grammar are also irrelevant. We are trying to establish one thing – the subject's notability. – Wdchk (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence has been furnished that her academic papers are highly cited per WP:PROF. The news media attention to a chance thyroid cancer diagnosis focused on the patient, mentioning her only in passing. If strong evidence is furnished by an editor with medical experience that her papers are highly cited, I will reconsider. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Crappy writing does not equal deletion grounds, needs improvement not demolition. Passes GNG based on significant publication in third-party sources. Definitely more notable than Lawnchair Larry or a bunch of one-season cricket players from Sri Lanka. Montanabw^(talk) 16:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify what "significant publication" you have in mind. I don't see anything beyond average scholar. Also, from your last sentence it seems you are confusing the concepts of "notability" and "importance for humankind". Wikipedia does not judge the latter. Also, nobody here says that it should be deleted because of crappy writing; this is mentioned several times already. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This doctors page seems to be trying to show the notability of the dr and this far is going a "ok" job. Grammar aside, this is a strong keep for me. The video someone makes reference shows that this doctor is the only doctor who found this rare cancer which in fact saves the patients life. My research of this type if cancer is that there has been only 10 reported cases. Also reading additional online articles this dr has a strong following nationally as well as overseas and is sought after in her field. We need more experts like her to set an example of quality care and research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csforensics (talk • contribs) 17:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC) — Csforensics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I fail to see why is that doctors are supposed to be more deserving than farmers. After all, with nothing to eat there will be no population with rare diseases for doctors' glory to grow. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is being unfairly treated and ripped to shreds. I have searched other doctors with lower research and qualifications and they are no where as documented as this page. Example ^[1] It really makes me wonder the motives behind the attention and hell I (editor) have been put through on every whim and requests. Staszek Lem your comments are uncalled for. You are the type to be the first one to cry when your sick. Go ask a farmer for help. It is not a matter of "deserving" but a matter of respect and notoriety of the deserving. What is good for some on Wikipedia should be good for all. This page is being cherry picked for bashing and highly qualified and skilled doctor. If you don't like doctors who change the way others practice medicine then go troll other pages where your worthless comments will be appreciated. Xmxpro1 (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you don't go to doctor when you are starving, right? Good luck with your tireless promotional push. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No keep vote explains how she meets WP:PROF. She has some academic publications out, but that's not enough - we would need to show they are extremely numerous, popular or well received. I'll ping User:Randykitty, maybe he can calculate the h-index; as she has no created a Google Scholar profile I don't know what other tool can provide automated stats for that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely non-notable. Publications listed in the article seem to be all there is, not a selection. I used the Web of Science to evaluate her citation record. as "A. Kropiwnicka", WoS lists 13 publications, most of them meeting abstracts. Only two have ever been cited (h=2), one a respectable 122 times (Watala et al. 2004), but she's only a minor author on that one, the other just 15 times (Malecka-Panas et al 2002) and she's a minor author on that one, too. "Anna Frisch" renders 5 hits, three of them cited (the other two are meeting abstracts). Combined with previous, h=4, total cites 188. This is miles below what we usually take as evidence for notability here. Given that she's a practicing physician and only an adjunct assistant professor, this is about what I would expect. Listed awards are minor/negligible. Unless somebody comes up with evidence that she passes GNG, there's no chance she'll pass ACADEMIC anytime soon. PS: Xmxpro1, you're right that James Andrews does not pass ACADEMIC either, but he's a clear pass of GNG. Apart from that, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a great c.v., but we are not a webhost. I'm sympathetic to keeping the article, but I'd like to see actual work rescuing this article and cutting out the cruft and unsourced BLP violations. Many of the claims are so over the top, that I'd expect she'd surely have more media attention. If it's not fixed quickly, it probably will be deleted. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 5 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.

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Andrews_%28physician%29

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Andrews_%28physician%29

[1]