Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 July 1 August >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garden City Shopping Centre (Winnipeg)[edit]

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

NN 75-store, 285,000 sq. ft. shopping centre. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage). – which this is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like many malls today, it is surrounded by other retail and it forms a sector centered around Garden City. It seems arbitrary to remove the article on size that seems set for bigger metropolitan areas. user: jdobbin
  • Note, I am in the process of trying to improve the sourcing for the article. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It's not the most notable shopping centre around, but I believe the subject meets WP:GNG criteria, with sufficient significant coverage in multiple third-party sources. It was difficult to research, as a search of "Garden City Shopping Centre" + "Winnipeg" in my library's database of newspaper and magazine articles resulted in 216 hits. As expected, most of those articles simply mentioned the mall as part of some routine coverage of local events and crimes. I had better luck when I focused in on the national-level sources, and found coverage of the shopping centre's construction, expansions, changes in anchor tenants, and ownership. One of the sources says that Garden City was one of the four largest regional malls in the city of Winnipeg. I've added sources and expanded the article. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paul -- In the past at mall AfD, you have also added refs to offline material. And !voted keep. It was only after you were pressed repeatedly (by more than one editor) that you admitted there that none of the refs to non-regional publications had substantial coverage of the mall in question. All articles in non-regional media had limited references to the mall. Here, similarly, you have added a number of articles in non-regional media -- but again, by their titles most if not all of them appear to focus not substantially on this mall. But rather on mall in general, or inflation, or a different mall. Is that the case again, that you are adding articles that the rest of us can't read, to non-local media, and !voting keep on that basis, while nearly all those articles do not have substantial treatment of this particular mall? --Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's your own spin on what happened here, as you're referring to one National Post source at one AfD, in which I stand by my "keep" recommendation. One editor changed his mind when I answered your question about how much coverage was in that one particular source. The coverage here for Garden City Shopping Centre is substantial enough for the GNG. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I don't have some sort of hidden agenda. (It is untrue to say that other editors can't read the sources I've added. "Can't read online" is not the same thing as "can't read".) I already stated above what the coverage includes, and even if editors have not read the sources, they can see what sorts of things the sources cover by looking at what I add when I add each source. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paul -- These are facts, not spin. In the indicated AfD, similar to this one, you added offline refs. That's fine -- but of course, as indicated both here and in that AfD, other !voters can't necessarily see the articles themselves. To evaluate whether the treatments of the topic are substantial, and thereby satisfy GNG. The small matter of the level of treatment of the topic in those articles was a question that you answered in the last AfD -- but only after two editors posed it to you, a total of three times. It was only then that you revealed that the treatment was not substantial. Leading one editor, who had relied in good faith on your addition and your !vote, to revert his !vote back. So here I ask, similar to there ... "Can you tell us, in any non-local article you added here, that is off-line and therefore can't be viewed by other !voters such as me, how many sentences in that article or articles are devoted solely to this mall?" In that AfD, you answered ... to my astonishment ... "None", I suppose, is the answer.." Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added eight non-local sources. From what I recall (I haven't gone back to look each of them up, as I do not think that would be a good use of my time), all of them have at least one sentence about the mall, and several of them have a few sentences. Please consider the possibility that not all editors approach this sort of AfD as "how many sentences?" or "how many words?" in reliable sources. For example, in this case, prior to the AfD the article looked like this, and with the sources I found I was able to build it up to this. Without WP:SIGCOV that sort of improvement would not be possible—in my view; I don't necessarily anticipate that you would agree with me. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 11:54, 6 August 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) 02:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The apparent consensus is we don't keep malls below a certain size (500,000?) unless they pass WP:N independent of size. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:29, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Paul Erik has improved the article substantially and this one is borderline. All the sources are offline, so I can't evaluate them, but with the amount of history Paul was able to write I think it just barely meets WP:GNG. In addition, The Globe and Mail in Toronto is located 1200 miles away and decided to report on this mall multiple times. That is a strong indicator of notability. Me5000 (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Appears likely to meet WP:GNG per sources added to the article (the sources are not linked, so cannot review, hence the weak keep). NorthAmerica1000 08:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Note that the AfD nominator removed material from this article before nominating it for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  No doubt here that this topic has attracted the attention of the world at large.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 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 redirect to Simba Rebellion#Hostages. There are a range of options given in the discussion for this article; the bulk are for deletion, the next largest group are for merging or redirecting, some for either merging or keeping, and limited support for outright keeping. As a merge has already been done of the pertinent and sourced points, and the consensus inclining toward deletion, but with enough support for redirecting/merging, deleting the article, but using the title as a redirect toward Simba Rebellion#Hostages seems the most appropriate outcome. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Ernestine Declercq[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not seem to meet WP:GNG. She was a hostage with many other missionaries, but there seems to be no coverage of her that makes her notable. This article seems more like something for a family history, not an encyclopedia. EricSerge (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Sister Declercq appears to have been an admirable person, she does not appear to meet our notability guidelines at least in English language sources. Her main claim to notability would appear to be her negotiating with the rebels at Uvira but unfortunately that is sourced only to her eulogy. In an attempt to look for more possible dutch and french language sources, I looked to see if she had a page at dutch wikipedia or french wikipedia, which she does not appear to. Someone with more facility in dutch and/or french than me could perhaps do a better search of other language sources if he or she were so inclined. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Peterkingiron's comments below: Merge the Missionary Hostages section of the article to Simba Rebellion between the "Early fighting" and "Late fighting" sections. Editors can expand and edit appropriately. The rest I still believe should be deleted. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usable content merged into Simba Rebellion article [1]. EricSerge (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I've been unable to find anything that supports WP:BIO. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - poorly sourced, with citations to MySpace, blogs, and Wikis. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or merge into an article on missionaries in the Congo crisis. A significnat number of Christian missionaries, both Catholic and Protestant, were seized and hled prisoner by the Simba insurgents. Many were rescued by a UN (or mercenary troops) within a few months, but they missed a few who remained captoves for some years. There ought to be an article on this. If we do not, this one should nbe kept until we do. Of itself, I suspect that her ministry was not very notable, so that I would prefer to redirect, if there was an appropriate target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. I've seen far less detailed and interesting articles on males kept and if I was a deletionist I'd spend a few hours a day getting rid of them; but I'm not. The Hostage at Uvira in Congo section is certainly of note. Maybe they'll try to make her a saint some day. It would be silly if we had to rewrite the article. Put a "needs more refs" tags on it so those who want to ref it can. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dismissing this nomination by calling me names is neither assuming good faith nor constructive to the conversation. What did I miss? I looked for sources, in English and French, and found none. Find a reliable source to verify the good Sister's participation in the Uvira hostage crisis. I tried and failed, but saying other stuff didn't get deleted does nothing to preserve this article. By the way, if you see articles that do not meet our notability criteria and don't want to nominate them, let me know, I will dig around for better refs and then delete them if none are found. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I said "if I was a deletionist" not "if I was Eric Serge." Don't read to much into comments. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would agree to it being interesting and a noteworthy addition if it were sourced to our standards, but it is not. The Sister does not seem to rise to our level of notability with quality reliable sources. Her page is part of a since deleted web of Declercq genealogy type articles. EricSerge (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the one who wrote the original "delete" response above, since modified to "merge", and while I still think that that is the correct answer under our byzantine guidelines, I do also believe that there is systemic bias in those guidelines (and many people of good faith trying to interpret and follow them fairly and, to be sure, some who are not). I agree with The Vintage Feminist that this article is an interesting addition to history. I particularly enjoy studying the history of over-looked and marginalized peoples and our notability guidelines make it difficult to add such stories and help perpetuate the marginalization. I can't speak to the motivation of the nominator, and I assume good faith not just because of policy but because I, myself, chose to look at this article because I hoped to save it. That's what I like to do; find good references for obscure or overlooked topics. I spent a lot of time and I was unable to find an RS that even demonstrates that Sister Declerq (herself, as opposed to a group of religious) was at Uvira and I couldn't. (Which doesn't mean tthere isn't something I missed.) And I fully believe that she was there and that she did negotiate with the rebels and nobody ever bothered to write about this incredible thing she did partly because she was just a nun (more systemic bias). I have no good idea about what to do about what I'll call "historical reference bias" except maybe suggest that we need to have some sort of notability leeway for marginalized people and subjects. Personally, I wouldn't mind if we repealed WP:NOTMEMORIAL and just put refimprove tags, as needed, on any biography where we can verify that the person existed. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merely existing does not meet the community's notability standards. Most Catholic organizations keep meticulous records. I will WP:AGF on the Sister being there, but there is no verifiable reliable source out there that supports her inclusion in the encyclopedia. I merged the content that was of historical value into the Simba Rebellion article, but at this time, there is nothing more that seems to be salvageable as you admitted after your fruitless search for sources (which I also conducted). Unfortunately, this appears to be a more interesting than average genealogy article. EricSerge (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SINGLEEVENT. No notability beyond being hostage. Nothing to merge beyond listing: she was not spectacular during being hostage either. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks significant independent coverage of biographee in reliable publications, in fact she is not even mentioned in many of the sources, e.g. FN8 through FN12. At best was a minor participant in one event. --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Simba Rebellion#Hostages. It's a sad truism that women like Declercq often don't get as much in the way of reliable sourcing, but we can only work with what we're given inside the framework of WP:V. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet GNG. It might be appropriate for her story to be covered in another article as others have suggested, but I don't think that that could be done by merging from this article, the referencing is just too poor. The first three are respectively to Myspace, Commons, and Dutch Wikipedia, all unacceptable sources. The fourth fails verification and is not even about the subject, it is only referencing a fact about Judith Declerqc, but even in this it fails. She is only mentioned in passing and the referenced fact is not in the source. So it goes on, the majority of the sources do not even mention the subject. The primary source for the article appears to be the subject's funeral eulogy (it is offline, if it was printed at all, so I cannot check, but if it is not the primary source then the article is essentially unreferenced). In any case, I am not sure that funeral eulogies can be considered reliable, and they certainly don't count towards notability unless it was published by a reliable publisher. SpinningSpark 02:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Simba Rebellion#Hostages. After two weeks of listing we just don't have significant coverage in reliable sources. Nowhere near it, in fact. The article cannot be kept. I suggest a redirect instead of a merge. The article is overly eulogistic and I don't think its text will contribute substantially to the target article. But keep the history behind the redirect in case there's anything, even just sourcing, that might be useful. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirect to Simba_Rebellion#Hostages. All usable content has already been merged to that article. Frmorrison (talk) 15:51, 11 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. A major argument presented for delete was WP:ROUTINE. I don't entirely buy into that being a relevant guideline here. WP:ROUTINE is part of Wikipedia:Notability (events) and a person is clearly not an event. It would apply to an article about one of Scott's matches, but not to an article about Scott herself. However, other arguments were raised, particulary the similar WP:SIGCOV, which is relevant. Even discounting those relying entirely on the ROUTINE argument, on balance the debate is still pointing to delete. I believe a single article addressing Scott directly, rather than a match, would swing this situation and it is entirely credible that the article could be rescued. On that basis I would be pleased to userfy the article on request. SpinningSpark 03:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veda Scott[edit]

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

This article was deleted via AFD earlier this month. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Tchaliburton (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". This article is a re-creation of an article deleted in AfD on July 1, 2014. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Person who contested G4 speedy tag claims that recreated article is better sourced than original. A review of the footnoted sources shows a collection of wrestling industry websites that do not appear to be independent of the subject per WP:RS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sure the sources are independent. Not so sure that they are reliable though. starship.paint ~ regal 15:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - stop the presses! "Veda Scott" turns up 338 results for reliable secondary sources for professional wrestling. She's not as un-notable as she seems. The article is simply in poor shape and does not reflect that. One of her selling point is that she's had around 18 matches for SHIMMER, which is not currently reflected in the article, including one tag team title shot where she won via DQ (therefore didn't win the title). She's also wrestled internationally in Japan before. She's also prominent for ROH (national TV) somehow in a non-wrestling role which I have yet to determine. starship.paint ~ regal 16:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After adding numerous sources to the article, she obviously satisfies WP:GNG. starship.paint ~ regal 02:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - @Starship.paint: As I am sure you know, Google hits are meaningless for purposes of determining notability per WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Have you reviewed these sources in any depth? I've just waded through several dozen, and I am not impressed. Most, if not all, of these sources appear to be fansites, blogs or industry promotional sites, and the "Veda Scott" mentions seem to be WP:ROUTINE coverage or trivial one-sentence mentions. Lots of video clips, too. Can you pull five or six sources out of the 300+ which are (a) reliable sources per WP:RS, (b) independent sources, i.e., not industry promotions, and (c) include significant, non-trivial coverage of Veda Scott individually? Oh, and don't forget: multiple stories/articles from the same website, newspaper or other publication count as a single source, and we need multiple sources to establish notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Starship weeded out unreliable sources and specifically searched for sites which the Pro Wrestling Wikiproject have deemed reliable. That said, most are passing mentions. Those which include her in the headline are videos ([2][3]) or this. She's definitely covered more than she was when the first AfD happened but I'm not sure if she passes the WP:GNG yet.LM2000 (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dirtlawyer1, the five websites I narrowed the search terms for are confirmed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling to be reliable sources in our style guide. None of them are fan-sites or blogs. I'm not sure what you're getting at saying that they are "industry promotional". Yes, the five websites are industry-related, but that doesn't stop them from being reliable secondary sources, None of them are affiliated with the companies that Scott has worked for. There are other industry-related websites used as reliable sources. WP:Football uses worldsoccer.com. WP:Film uses Filmmaker Magazine. I hope to be able to address the rest of your concerns later. starship.paint ~ regal 03:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delving into the sources...
Gregkaye, the fact that she's on national television is a positive point IMO. Even half of the US is significant. Also, she has 12,500 followers on Twitter. 424 is who she is following. starship.paint ~ regal 05:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What national TV channel is she on and to what extent is she on it?
Thank-you, I've learned something about twitter. I looked up http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/11/02/top-50-wrestlers-of-all-time?page=5 and came to the first name on the top ten and then went to https://twitter.com/TripleH . Hunter Hearst Helmsley) (as I learn his name to be) has 1,740,000 followers. https://twitter.com/WWE has 4,500,000 followers. I went to the Vega Scott page and followed the internal links labled Horizon Wrestling Alliance and Absolute Intense Wrestling in a bid to find an equivalent to the WWE. Both links led to List of independent wrestling promotions in the United States but neither title was found. I know that I've been asking about popularity and that actual notability is something different. Gregkaye (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have much time so I'll answer your query about Twitter for now. You have to understand that since 2001, WWE has had a monopoly over the professional wrestling industry not just in the USA where it is based in, but also internationally. They are so far ahead of everyone else. JTG was a wrestler who won only one match from 2012-2014, and he didn't appear very frequently on television. He has over 300k followers. The #2 company in the USA, which is TNA, let's look at the three most recent TNA World Heavyweight Champions. They have 110k and 157k and 80k. It's unfair to compare WWE to everyone else, and we shouldn't have only WWE articles on site. starship.paint ~ regal 13:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gregkaye, as I said above, you'll find no equivalent to the WWE in the whole world. The Mexican and Japanese wrestling companies are pretty much restricted to a national product. You're right, AIW and HWA are pretty much insignificant. But you're looking at the wrong companies. You should be focusing on Ring of Honor and Shimmer Women Athletes. ROH is the #3 company in the USA, with a national TV product. SHIMMER (from a 2013 article) is the top all-female wrestling company in the US. Apart from that she's wrestled in Japan and Canada. starship.paint ~ regal 06:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the claim above "SHIMMER (from a 2013 article) is the top all-female wrestling company in the US" the only thing that I can say is that the word top is very subjective. Looking at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvKkqg_tibs it seems that NXT Women's Championship events have vastly higher attendance (but this may be due to being on the same bill as other events). Incidently I added the { {Professional wrestling in the United States} } template to the bottom of the NTX page. It would be nice if people in this industry could use honest and fair representation in ALL their links. Gregkaye (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I said "all-female". Men don't wrestle in Shimmer, but men do wrestle in NXT. I dare say that for mixed gender promotions, the women are definitely not the highlight. Exact quote is Dave Prazak's SHIMMER promotion, which has been the top women's wrestling group since its inception a few years ago. starship.paint ~ regal 13:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Scott has become more notable. She appeared in two major promotions; Ring of Honor and TNA (One Night Only Knockouts Knockdown Pay-per-view) and she has competed in major female promotions such as SHINE Wrestling and Shimmer Women Athletes. She has won the Rookie of the Year as well has being ranked #43 of the best female wrestlers in 2013. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not any more notable than she was earlier this month when the article was deleted. Coverage is overwhelmingly routine sports reporting or passing mentions, not the significant independent coverage required by GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the references? I fail to see how a detailed report of her wrestling a match is "routine" or a passing mention. Her matches have been covered in detail by the Wrestling Observer, Pro Wrestling Torch, Wrestleview and PWInsider. Meanwhile, SLAM! Wrestling has two instances for her having talking segments on PPV / iPPV 1 and 2. starship.paint ~ regal 02:20, 1 August 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, Deor (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not ignore the fact that there are now over twenty references to reliable sources independent of the subject in the article. starship.paint ~ regal 06:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plentiful references? Yes. Reliable references? I'm not sold on that. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tchaliburton, the five sources I quoted above are approved by WP:Professional Wrestling in our style guide. SLAM! Wrestling is the closest to a mainstream source, being run by the Canadian media company Quebecor. Wrestling Observer is ran by Dave Meltzer, hailed as a foremost expert on the industry, see here and here. Pro Wrestling Torch is ran by Wade Keller, who is probably second to Meltzer but still managed to be quoted by the New York Times, amongst others. As for PWInsider, their chief writers had experience in the industry by working with the USA's #3 company at the time Extreme Championship Wrestling, as well as having written for the Daily News (New York) and various other wrestling magazines since 1995, and they have fact-checking as well. WrestleView was approved as a reliable source before my time by a prominent FA/GA reviewer. I'm afraid I can't immediately go into more detail upon your reply - I will be away for the next three days. (update: I have limited Internet access) starship.paint ~ regal 10:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only seeing routine coverage and passing mentions in those references. That's not significant coverage. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tchaliburton, what's so routine about the references I brought up in my 02:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC) post? Those are detailed match reports. starship.paint ~ regal 23:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Detailed match reports are still routine coverage. Every NFL game has detailed coverage, but they're not considered individually notable. Miss X Factor, rankings have no value when outcomes are scripted. That's why, according to WP:NSPORTS, pro wrestling falls under entertainment, not sports. Jakejr (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jakejr, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you say that pro wrestling is not a sport, then please don't compare its match reports to NFL games. Under WP:ENTERTAINER, Veda Scott has had multiple notable appearances on television shows as evidenced from the reliable sources' coverage. Also, even if results are scripted, some rankings, like the PWI one she received, are not scripted. starship.paint ~ regal 02:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the application of WP:ROUTINE applies not only to sports, but to all subjects, although the meaning of what constitutes "routine" coverage may vary from one subject area to another. Please see linked guideline. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources provided are reliable but I don't believe match reports cover WP:SIGCOV. PWInsider, PWtorch, and Wrestleview, amongst other reliable sources, give detailed reports on nearly every show. We've deleted 3MB more times than I can count. They appeared regularly on Raw, Smackdown, Superstars, Main Event, and occasional PPVs for two years. We could find thousands of match reports if we wanted to. The sources covering the matches could count towards notability for the shows which they appeared on but are far too routine to go towards the matches -- and even the wrestlers -- which appear on those shows. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • LM2000, 3MB was a group, Veda is an individual. One of the chief reasons supporting deletion was that all of 3MB's info could go into the individuals' pages. If this article is deleted, its information is going to go nowhere.
  • Secondly, we agree that PWTorch/Wrestleview etc are reliable sources. If multiple detailed televised match reports don't guarantee notability, then what from these sources does? I'm sure that you're aware that the majority of references to current wrestlers' articles are made out of these match reports. starship.paint ~ regal 11:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consider match reports to be only slightly more than passing mentions. While WP:GNG doesn't require the subject to be the main focus of the article, one article can cover up to a half a dozen matches meaning that one wrestler can be involved in the show for a few minutes and end up in the article's recap of the event, a recap often features dozens of other wrestlers. From what I can tell most (but clearly not all) of the sources mention her 2-5 times and describe her interviewing position on the show.
Interviewing's only for references 33-38, nowhere near qualifying for a "most"? starship.paint ~ regal 12:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I only looked at her ROH career. 33-38 are interviews, 39-40 is commentary, 42 is both commentary and an interview, 44 is an interview again.LM2000 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with the sources themselves. I have no problems with how they're used in the article. We use these event summaries from reliable sources to verify the results. Passing mentions are fine for that. But that's pretty much all there is to this article and that's what separates her from clearly notable wrestlers whose articles have many match reports as references. Looking through the wrestling AfD archive I recall a number of deleted articles which had sources identical to Scott's. Eli Cottonwood, Jacob Novak, and Brandi Reed stand out from memory. Sources aside, she's never won a notable championship and while she won the Rookie of the Year award from PWI, as previous winners Ace Hawkins and Tim Zbyszko show, that's no indication that the recipient gets an article.LM2000 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cottonwood and Novak apparently stopped wrestling since their WWE releases, therefore their notability would never increase. Reed has apparently never wrestled a match. The only similarity is that between all three and Scott is that they have not won a major championship. Does that mean every wrestler who hasn't won a major championship should have his/her article deleted, regardless of whether they've wrestled or appeared in a major promotion with national TV coverage? Jinder Mahal? Ricardo Rodriguez (wrestler)? Garett Bischoff? Rosa Mendes? Wes Brisco? Taryn Terrell? What makes these wrestlers worthy of articles? Is there something that the reliable sources gave them but not to Veda Scott? If so, what is it? starship.paint ~ regal 12:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Scott is in a similar position to Novak and Cottonwood though. If she hangs up to boots tomorrow what will her claims to notability be? I believe that WP:ENT covers the examples you listed above... Terrell was ECW GM, an OVW Champ, and was a top Impact Knockout before her pregnancy; Rosa and Rodriguez managed champions; Brisco and Bischoff were involved in major PPV feuds. The only title Scott ever won isn't notable and it's not from a notable promotion and most of her opponents are redlinks. Scott's main accomplishment so far seems to be her PWI Rookie Award. It would be WP:CHRYSTAL to assume, however likely it may be, that she has a bright future ahead of her.LM2000 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good, at least we have some progress on the criteria needed. Since this article already has substantial information, I propose that it be restored if she meets any one of the following criteria to judge success.
  • a) if she is given the spotlight to wrestle a match on one of ROH's pay-per-views or is somehow involved in main event feuds. This is because ROH has no female-specific championship to gauge success.
  • b) if she manages a champion in ROH / or becomes a GM.
  • c) if she wins a championship in a top female-only promotion like Shimmer, Women Superstars Uncensored or Shine.
  • d) if she joins and debuts for WWE (NXT) / TNA (if it still has a TV slot) on a permanent basis.
  • e) if she gains international success by winning championships in Japan / Mexico etc.
  • f) if she is ranked in the top 10 female wrestlers of the year by Pro Wrestling Illustrated.
LM2000, do you agree? starship.paint ~ regal 08:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC) By the way, to correct your spelling, it's crystal (chrystal) and lead (lede).[reply]
Sounds good to me for the most part. Not sure about joining NXT (Cottonwood and Novak did that) or TNA (Athena [their first major female talent, besides maybe Goldy Locks], among other knockouts, has no article). One PPV match may not cut it either, context is important, a TNA PPV match sounds good on paper but when it turns out to be one of those non-canon PPVs that takes a lot of air out of it. That aside, there's obviously a good chance she'll be notable one day so if somebody saves a copy of the current page to work off of later, that's fine.lede isn't incorrect. While crystal is the correct spelling, for some reason WP:CHRYSTAL links to WP:CRYSTAL so I use it just to be different :). Thanks though, my apologies for being a pretentious asshole!LM2000 (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She's already wrestled on a TNA One Night Only that hasn't aired. But I didn't argue that. I argued one ROH PPV. This is because ROH presently has no women's championship at all. Therefore wrestling on a PPV is the pinnacle achievement of a female in ROH. starship.paint ~ regal 13:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly object to the point that she doesn't have significant coverage. If detailed match/show reports are routine coverage, what then constitutes significant coverage? (for PWTorch/F4Wonline/PWInsider etc)
Take a look at Primo (wrestler). He's won multiple championships in the biggest wrestling company in the world, WWE. Could anyone give me an example of significant coverage he has received?
It's the pro wrestling websites' job to cover the most notable shows in detail. While notability is not inherited, a wrestler can only become more notable by appearing on a notable show with a significant role. The less notable the show, the less detailed the coverage. This or this or this is what I call routine coverage. Almost every match is one sentence because the show is not notable enough. On the other hand, this and this or this or this is clearly much more detailed coverage. Every match is a paragraph or more, and sometimes opinions and ratings are offered.
There should be no doubt that Scott is appearing on a notable show. It's whether she is appearing in a significant role. If you wish to reply, LM2000, Dirtlawyer1 and Bejnar starship.paint ~ regal 12:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Street Ninja 2:The Bloodbath Continues[edit]

Street Ninja 2:The Bloodbath Continues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this film exists, let alone that it's notable. Possibly a hoax. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 22:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G3 HOAX. None of the information in the article is in any way verifiable. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:07, 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. SpinningSpark 10:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohak Meet[edit]

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

Draft article moved to mainspace by cut-paste, was rather technically broken. The subject is not 'yet' notable, has had minor walk-on roles, been in tv commercials, and has a role in an upcoming movie. Neither the subject nor the upcoming movie has even an entry in imdb at this point. Subject's closest 'claim' to notability is having been a semi-finalist in a reality dance show. Reventtalk 20:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly guide me how can I improve this article

Thank you @Revent sir for your detailed explanation about why this article is nominated for debate. From March to July 2011, Mohak Meet played the role of Aditya in Chandragupta Maurya (TV series) who was the friend of Chandragupta Maurya. His upcoming movie Vartak Nagar is presented by Kunal Kohli Productions. Isn't it notable? Should I collect more references? Kindly guide me through as I am newbie and don't have experience of writing articles about living persons. --Khushiar (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Please keep this article for further improvements.--Khushiar (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Keep so it can be improved" is not a valid argument against deletion. If you wish to work on the article further, a WP:REFUND request after its deletion (or a request made now to have the article userfied as its sole author) can be made, and the article worked on outside of article space until the subject meets notability criteria. Main article space is explicitly not an indefinite home for unacceptable articles. Reventtalk 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ENT fails WP:GNG, come back in five years if Mohak Meet has had multiple significant major roles, and/or significant awards. --Bejnar (talk) 23:56, 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 deckertalk 17:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarieha Alsawaf[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that she meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably her total failure to even come close to notability guidelines is exemplified by one of her listed roles being "girl on a bike".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure to have any significant coverage, much less significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Way, way WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 00:02, 8 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 02:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

María Benítez[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that she meets WP:Notability (people) Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 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, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequate notability established in third party publications, significant in her field. Montanabw(talk) 04:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User:Jim-Siduri has now been blocked for being unconstructive, and I cannot establish where his link was meant to go. If anyone knows, please add it to the discussion. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Diderot. I assumed that the redlink was to point out that Jim-Siduri believes we should be more encyclopedic. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs to be beefed up, but she's notable and there is no reason to deleted it. Put a "needs more refs" tags on it so those who want to ref it can. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The refs listed above should be added to establish her notability though. Also, not quite sure why there is an "reads like an advertisement" notice, I don't find the article is particularly gushing. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources found by the IP editor establish notability. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehot Magazine of Contemporary Art[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to met WP:NOTABILITY requirements Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tagged for lack of notability since 2012. It is safe to assume it will never be able to prove its notability. Fleet Command (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all provided sources are in-house. Pretty slim pickings for an "international" journal, of the recent articles one about Iran ("The Work of Hadi Fallahpisheh") and one about Paris ("Michael Riedel @ Palais de Tokyo"). The magazine appears to be of purely local NYC interest. Google hits are blogs, and reprints of articles by subjects (not neutral, not independent). The NY Times has managed to successfully ignore it for five years, despite articles, or at least mentions, about other new magazines. Volume 1 seems to be the only one that was actually printed. Since then it's been electronic. I didn't find a list of issues or an index. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 00:27, 8 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 deckertalk 17:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faleolo Alailima[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (people) Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate to do this, since in some ways his minor level of roles is because Samoans are given bit parts and background roles today almost as much as African-Americans were given such 60 years ago, but the fact is he has had 1 time appearances and bit parts in his career, and lacks the roles and the coverage to be notable. I guess maybe I am a bit too pessimistic, since actors like Al Harrington (actor) managed to get significant roles, but I have to admit I wish I could support keeping this article, but he just does not cut it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of coverage. A lot are non-speaking roles. --Bejnar (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted (G7) by Bearian. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serbian companies by employees[edit]

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

This is non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 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 deckertalk 02:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Edward Threston[edit]

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

No claim to notability. No reliable sources. Largely sourced to a self-published book that came out a few months ago, with the premise of proving that the Threston's are part of the rightful nobility of England. No indication of any claim to notability for articles subject. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The subject was a knight and therefore passes notability per WP:ANYBIO. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC) *Delete. The only references that actually seems real and relevant is the 2014 document which appears to be self-published. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unless some genuine reliable sources, rather than a self-published family genealogy, can be found to support the assertions in this article. Every line of this is related to the Threston glorification agenda of a couple of editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure that WP:ANYBIO is so broad as to encompass every member of the Knights Templar. Membership in the Knights Templar was not a reward of honor (as modern knighthoods), but rather a reward for the wealth required to join. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability. All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. In 13th century England, knighthood was not a significant honour. Maproom (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like part of the ongoing attempt to add the Threston family tree to Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whilst I heartily endorse keeping someone who's been knighted in the modern era under WP:ANYBIO, since knighthood is awarded for achievement, I really don't think we can extend that to medieval knights, who were usually knighted as teenagers because their father was also a knight and not for any especial distinction. Essentially, they were equivalent to baronets (hereditary knights) today; the first to receive the honour is inherently notable, but his successors aren't. Threston wouldn't have been knighted because he was a Knight Templar, as the article says; he would have become a Knight Templar because he was knighted (lesser individuals joined the order as brother sergeants). There's no evidence he was especially notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No RS, no notability.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious candidate for deletion. Per nom. and above. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:37, 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) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Susuma that the SPI and the number of socks that this editor were using should be speedied. MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main source, this book, could politely be described as dodgy. Self-published (CreateSpace), commissioned by the central figure of this whole Threston/Zoransky walled garden, its attempt to show that the Threston family are "of nobility class" rests on finding this man in a list of Knights Templar. There is then a lot of fluff about how his title would have been passed on to his family and descendants, citing passages from the website of one of the modern "Knights Templar" organizations, which have absolutely no connection with the medieval one. See Knights Templar and popular culture#Modern organizations:

"There is no clear historical connection between the Knights Templar, which were dismantled in the 14th century, and any of these other organizations, of which the earliest emerged publicly in the 18th century. However, there is often public confusion and many overlook the 400-year gap. It is also worth pointing out that medieval Templars were members of a monastic order and most were required to take vows of celibacy and avoid all contact with women, even members of their own family. Therefore it was not possible, in most cases, for Templars to have any descendants."

The extract shown in the McHugh/Lynn book simply shows the name "Edward Threston" as one in a list. Without seeing the head of the list, there is no way to know whether it is a list of knights, or simply of members of the Order, only about a tenth of whom were knights. In fact, the name two below in the list is "Richard Crooke, Esqr." which does not sound like a knight.
Even if we assume that this is a list of knights, his presence in it is absolutely the only thing we know about Edward Threston, and that is not enough to justify an article. JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- He might be a remote uncle of the contributor, but his appearance in a couple of edited volumes of historical documents is miles from making him notable. Whether properly called "Sir" is beyond me, as I am not sure what the Templars were referred to. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 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 deckertalk 02:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard Threston[edit]

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

This is a confusing article, but after having read it multiple times I realized there was no claim to notability. This person was the executor of the estate of someone who was notable, no claim is given that Ricahrd Threston himself was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep per WP:GNG. The nom has begun a crusade to delete every contribution a user they don't like has made. This nomination is questionable in the vein of WP:IDONTLIKEIT like all the others. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can skip the ad hominem defense, and explain how he meets WP:BIO The entire article, "Sir Richard Threston (Sir Richard de Threton) was a priest, executor of Sir Robert de Throp, and former a chancellor of King Edward II of England." is ungrammatical and unclear. Was Threston or was de Throp "a chancellor of King Edward II" and is there any online reliable source in addition to the book cited, so that others can verify the claim? Being a "chancellor" might be a good claim to notability. Edison (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with users that make decisions about the editor, rather than the article at hand. I make no apologies. The one mention I could find is the 1898 Cutts book. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep If the subject was a knight they pass notability per WP:ANYBIO. The same is probably true (though arguable) if the "Sir" refers to a baronetcy - there are certainly lots of baronets with articles in wikipedia whose only notability is the "Sir" in front of their name! Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC) *Delete. My brief further research suggests that the citations do not exist or do not support the article Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Actually this article may be part of an proactive campaign to boost the notability of a living person. Do we even have clear evidence that this person really existed?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost certain that this and the other articles are designed to boost the image of T.R. Threston. However, this subject appears in the 1898 Cutts book as cited. I can't find the proper mention in the Art Journal article and I'm AGF'ing on the others. This isn't a hoax and even if it was written for the wrong reasons, I think the subject is still notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agreed - the AfD re. the present-day Threshton seems to be self-promotion but that doesn't change the fact that the articles about the 14th century Threshtons seem to pass WP:GNG and to have merit - assuming the facts stated in the articles to be trueFiachra10003 (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe the intended meaning was that he executed Thorpe's will, not Thorpe himself. Even so, my !vote and my incredulity stand. Maproom (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the England in the Age of Chaucer citation was to a book which apparently does not exist, according to my WorldCat searches by both title and purported ISBN. This is either a hoax or WP:SYNTHESIS. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the now-deleted claim that he was chancellor (or some other clear claim of notability) can be substantiated. I think a bona fide chancellor would be likely notable, but given the doubtful nature of this claim, the article seems to fail the notability test. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and previous comments. EricSerge (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Sir Richard de Threton, he did exist and was a real person. What we know about him, from an illuminated manuscript of donors to St Albans Abbey, is that he was a priest, gave 20 marks to the abbey and was the executor of a former Lord Chancellor's will. IMO, appearing once in a catalog of donors does not confer notability; he's been reproduced in Cutts etc. as an example of clerical dress, not because he has any particular importance of himself. @Ealdgyth: can you supply a informed second opinion? Choess (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not appear in Phillips' Edward II. Being a priest (it isn't clear if this means he was ordained or if he was in minor orders) was not that rare a thing in this time period. Search at British History Online shows nothing - so he's not in the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae - which pretty much means he didn't hold an office that would be notable. He doesn't appear in the Victoria County History volume covering St. Alban's either. Not notable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside - I would argue that WP:ANYBIO does not apply to medieval knights - there are thousands and thousands of them, and the mere knighting of someone does not fulfill "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Members of the Order of the Garter, yes. Tenants-in-chief, yes. Summoned to Parliament, yes. Just being knighted? No. Not every village squire is notable, and that's probably the best equivalent - or every village parson. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there is no evidence of him being notable with respect to Wiki encyclopedic criteria, references are poor at best, if there is a mentioning of a Threston, there is no evidence in the references, additional to that: the involvement of sockpuppets from AustralianThreston's sock-farm raise suspicion. For more details on questionable references please check hereLagondaDK (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious candidate for deletion per nom. and above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:38, 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 -- Notability is not inherited. As far as I can tell he was a NN cleric. This one may not be a hoax (though I do not know), but merely being executor to a notable person, without more, does not lift him beyond NN. "Sir" in this context may only mean "Rev.", and not imply a knighthood. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL. All priests in England once had the courtesy title of "Sir". Bearian (talk) 19:50, 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) 13:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threston (surname)[edit]

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

No real indication of why this surname merits an article John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not sure that surname pages need to be notable; they also act as navigational pages. (Of course, if there less than two notable bearers of surname there is no need for a navigational surname page—is that the case here?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply All but one of the linked articles therein were created by the same group of accounts and are currently under AfD discussion. --Finngall talk 21:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware of that, but the jury is still out as to which, if any, are notable, so nominatiing the surname page for deletion is premature per my argument above. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, it could arguably have been premature, but anyway, the other articles are all deleted now. PhilKnight (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is only 1 name which isn't a hoax created by a sock farm. PhilKnight (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sock-farm product, obviously meant to raise relevance of T.R. Threston (article deleted), for more details please see: hereLagondaDK (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comment of "completely made up or at least distorted the facts" is a good summary of what we are dealing with. PhilKnight (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to delete the page first, because of the concerns about hoax content. However, I certainly don't object to the creation of a redirect to Joseph T. Threston. PhilKnight (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I object to the current content being deleted. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant coverage. fails WP:GNG, and per WikiDan61. However, some kind of a Threston dab page might be needed sometime in the future. --Bejnar (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed. A site on that name makes only sense if there are more articles dealing with that name (redirect) and if there were more data on it. The original content of that site was taken from unreliable sources and have been brought up by a sock-farm. If there ever was sound intelligence on the topic: why not? The way it is now: nah ... don't need that! LagondaDK (talk) 10:48, 8 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 greater weight of the discussion was that there was insufficient truly independent coverage of the subject establish notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary K. Greer[edit]

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

While Greer has authored a number of books, the only non-shopping site, non-blog coverage of her is this obscure coverage. Falls short of WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. The Dissident Aggressor 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with the conservation of bits, but this passage, had you read it, would have helped you make a meaningful contribution instead. It's not a vote. Care to elaborate on your insightful opinion or is it in the cards? The Dissident Aggressor 05:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at Her publications list she obviously has been published a lot. Women of the Golden Dawn: Rebels and Priestesses (1995), is a noteworthy book and at least one review exists. Just because one doesn't like the topic she writes on and/or no one has sufficiently beefed up the article is not a reason to deleted it. It's a reason to put a "needs more refs" tags on it so those who want to ref it can. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because one doesn't like the topic she writes on" is an absurd statement to make!, We as far as I know !vote on evidence of notability (or lack of) ... Not whether we like the topic or not!, As for references - I found nothing as per –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In universe publications fail WP:NFRINGE, Second Quantization (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all clear that WP:NFRINGE applies to the notability of an individual person: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Note that the demarcated list of "theory, organization or aspect" does not include a "person". There has actually been much discussion of this. See RFC on the scope of WP:FRINGE (no consensus) Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_18#RfC_on_the_scope_of_WP:FRINGE. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Struck !vote per reasoning of Mkativerata below. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep - although I myself think that tarot is bullshit, but it seems she is definitely notable in this stupid domain, i.e., she is not a loonie with some individual kookery, but a significant person in a major kookery of our society. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed, after some thinking. None of the cited references come from something which may verifiably considered to be an authority in this domain. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the external link to her blog Mary K. Greer's Tarot Blog should be taken out of the body of the article because to me it seems mostly a sales site for her DVDs, workshops, books etc. Just my view. I'm kind of surprised this is considered keepable. Parabolooidal (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Counting [4] as a reliable source is an embarrassment to whoever proposed that. So is proposing that writing lots of unreliable books makes someone notable. No coverage in reliable sources equals not notable. The keep arguments are empty. If you want to say she meets a specific other criteria, the guidelines are there for a reason (WP:AUTHOR WP:NFRINGE). Second Quantization (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all clear that WP:NFRINGE applies to the notability of an individual person: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Note that the demarcated list of "theory, organization or aspect" does not include a "person". There has actually been much discussion of this. See RFC on the scope of WP:FRINGE (no consensus) Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_18#RfC_on_the_scope_of_WP:FRINGE. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFRINGE doesn't add any additional constraints that aren't already there in policy, it is simply discusses the policies in the context of a fringe subject so that what one should do is clear. I was involved in that discussion (a lot; Ctrl+F IRWolfie-). The RfC didn't make any sense in what it was talking about, WP:FRINGE applies where fringe theories are being discussed wherever that may be. The wording of "a fringe subject" stuck but it was current practice anyway. If a person is notable because of involvement fringe theories, then WP:NFRINGE applies. If a person who is involved with fringe theories is notable for other reasons than this, then other guidelines apply (just like every other notability guideline). Second Quantization (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Staszek Lem and Second Quantization. Also, this isn't a reliable and independent source. Parabolooidal (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NFRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The one page or so entry in this book is the closest thing to significant coverage that has been presented in this discussion. Let's assume for the moment that that page or so constitutes significant coverage. Is it a reliable source for our purposes? In my view, no. The book is called "Psychics and Mediums in Canada". The large part of the book - Chapter 15 - is a set of profiles of psychics. The main purpose of the book is to help people "find a reputable practitioner" (Chapter 13). Chapter 1 states that the profiled psychics are "among the most highly regarded psychics and readers in Canada". The book is, as said above, "in universe". It is not reliable, as it not truly independent of the subjects it covers. The reason we ask for significant coverage in reliable sources is to ensure that the article that is the product of that coverage is itself reliable. That can't be done here. The principal source (and sources) presume that, and promote, the subject of the article as a reliable practitioner; any article we have on the subject thus, inappropriately, risks doing the same. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this is a very persuasive argument and it is independent of applying WP:NFRINGE, the text of which does not explicitly apply to the notability of an individual person as opposed to "a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory". Accordingly, I strike my keep !vote above. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a lot of the Keep !votes make arguments such as "widely published, therefore notable", but what makes someone notable is third-party, reliable, and significant coverage. There is none of this for Greer. Fails WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:27, 10 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 snowball delete. I'm going to be bold (for me, at least) and shut this down after less than a day of discussion, since some of the comments are, I think, unnecessarily speculative regarding the motivations behind the creation of this BLP. All of the participants other than the now-blocked SPAs agree that the article's content, including the sourcing, fails to establish the notability of the subject, and I don't foresee that consensus changing if the AfD continues. Any admin who disagrees is welcome to undo my closure, and anyone else is welcome to raise the matter at DRV. Deor (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T.R. Threston[edit]

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

Looking over this article I don't see any sources that provide the indepth, secondary source coverage that would be required to meet general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete promotional nonsense. I didn't know you could hire a PR firm to place a biography on Imdb. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have encountered evidently false IMDb entries before. There are good reasons why we do not regard it as a WP:RS. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove the one source not the whole thing! She certainly didn't have PR for being a UN Social Ambassador or attending a UN Social Media Summit. She is a founding member of a professional organization and this is nothing but pure spite with someone with nothing better to do than troll Wikipedia all day! --WJRockford (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One of her alleged claims to fame is being a National Women's Museum Honoree in 2013. Here is a description of how this comes about "The National Women's History Museum enables you to remember and thank the women who have helped to shape your life. It might be your mother, grandmother, aunt, sister, teacher, neighbor, or friend. Upon receipt of your donation and the name(s) of those you are honoring, their name(s) will be listed here in the Roll of Honor and Remembrance." That does not sound like a notable thing at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "UN" link looks to be a self-generated portrait that is part of the campaign itself. Nothing here comes close to being a third-party source covering Threston. The closest is the Harris Charitable Trust honor, but that is a one-line description, that does not make her sound like she would fit our notability requirements at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - shameless press-agentry and fluff calculated to make a socialite look imporant. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above & mainly Orange Mike - I'm getting the sense some firm has simply attempted to make a non important person "important" .... Anyway Delete as serves no purpose here other than to promote. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This continues to show absolute ignorance on your part. There is NOTHING self generated by the UN link but I guess you're so much smarter right? And I am NOT a press agent!! --AustralianThreston (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being smarter has nothing to do with this, and I couldn't care less if you were an astronaut or a zookeeper... She's not notable end of. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To whom could an email be forwarded to show PROOF she was an invited Official Delegate to the U.N.'s first "Media 4 Social Impact Summit", held at the United Nations in NYC on April 11, 2014? --AustralianThreston (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added with contact information regarding her invite to the UN Summit. And, whom do I forward a letter head to from Collective Changes, a women's empowerment program that works in conjunction with the United Nations stating that she IS a Global Ambassador on their behalf? And, if she wasn't working as a Social Media Ambassador for Giving Tuesday then why is it all over her Facebook page and her Twitter account from December, 2013? And tracing an email is as simple as entering the heading, anyone can do it, and, you'll know immediately where the email was generated. --AustralianThreston (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"tracing an email is as simple as entering the heading", email especially, but all digital information generally can be spoofed, this is a terrible argument. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I hope you realize this is a real person and since this is a publicly seen forum, you are absolutely creating a case of defamation of character since the proof of sources and citations can and will be presented in court if necessary and you are on the borderline of slander/libel. --AustralianThreston (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of the significant in-depth coverage in third-party published reliable sources required to demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was just wondering - if that person T.R. Threston exists and is notable, how come we do not have her full name in the title? Its not as if shes T.S. Elliott or something ... as for her Twitter and Facebook account, thats not really a reliable source. There is a reason why people should not create their own Wikipedia articles and other people who do it should not base it on those people's information ... I don't say people are always dishonest about themselves, but it happens too often, therefore information originating from people affected by the articles are not our first choice to back up an article. (To use friendly words.) If she was real, I don't see her relevance that justify an article on her. Also announcing to publish a fiction novel based on her allegedly family, whilst articles on each of her family members pop up at the same time .... come on ... thats just too much of a coincidence. I strongly suspect an attempt of viral marketing here. OR she isn't real, and in that case she should not have her own article anyway. LagondaDK (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of Wikipedia-level notability. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What little info that is our there is thin at best and the WP:SECONDARY sources are thinner. There is nothing that says that, should they become notable down the road, that a new article can't be created. MarnetteD|Talk 23:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not doubt that Threston is real. She seems to have been recognized by some organization in New York for being a philanthropist. However being a local level philanthropist does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks the significant in-depth coverage in third-party published reliable sources to meet inclusion guidelines. EricSerge (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - straight WP:PROMO. Appears to be a paid editing piece at best. John from Idegon (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable or not, this promotional article is not what we want to have. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dergachy and Knochamellie[edit]

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

Collection of names and various quotes without any context. while some refs are provided for the names and quotes there does not appear to be any coherent reason for the existense of this as a standalone article noq (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 18 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, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:46, 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!* 17:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The members of this family tree do not appear to pass WP:BIO either individually or collectively. The references provided confirm the existence of these people, but nothing more detailed than that. This isn't a genealogy site. --Finngall talk 18:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:50, 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. While more discussion here would have been ideal, closing this as keep because the commentary herein sufficiently counters the deletion rationale. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automation Master[edit]

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

I can't find any good third-party sources for this article. The term "Automation Master" in itself comes up with a lot of irrelevant search results, but adding "Max Hitchens" does no better. The article appears to be largely written as a self-promotion piece, and without good neutral sources to work from, that problem is not fixable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automation Master was developed pre-internet. Unless the articles have been scanned and put online you will find nothing using Google. I am attempting to find the articles, scan them and post them. I have recently gotten 3 from Larry Gould from 1983-1993.
My whole purpose of this effort to to contribute Automation Master, which represents 15 years of George Rote and my life, to the community. I am retired and will receive no benefit from it. There are dozens of articles, 10s of thousands of lines of code and 500+ pages of documentation to be contributed. I was hoping to attract some help but no luck so far. If you know of anyone who might help please direct them to me. Thanks.Maxhitchens (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 18 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, §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:00, 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Looking at the scanned articles, there's enough in the way of WP:RS for a respectable article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the two 'MANAGING AUTOMATION' references are significant coverage in a reliable source, and together with the other refs, notability is established.Dialectric (talk) 12:22, 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 deckertalk 02:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Threston[edit]

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

There is no indication that this guy passes any notability requirements. He brought a suit, and he was a knight. Nothing about him distinguishes for many other contemporaries who did exactly the same things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep As per the other articles, if the subject was a knight they pass notability per WP:ANYBIO. The same is probably true (though arguable) if the "Sir" refers to a baronetcy Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC) *Delete. The references appear unverifiable or incorrect. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of notability. He was a knight, which was not then a significant honour. He was involved in a lawsuit - evidence of existence, but not of notability. Maproom (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not even any evidence that subject was Sir John. Just another Threston vanity item, with crappy logic and threadbare sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, he existed but did not seem to be notable by Wikipedia standards. EricSerge (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of any notability. Kleuske (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#G5 for having been created by a member of this sock farm, noted for creating elaborate hoaxes. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - 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) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The contributor appears to have done detailed research into his family history. It may well be true, but everything in the article shouts NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although it may be mostly true, this person is just a run of the mill knight. There is zero evidence that the family ever had noble titles. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 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) 13:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Game Girls[edit]

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

Blimey. Haven't done one of these in a while. Apologies if I suck at it.

Deletion per WP:N, no claim to notability made, no sources provided and nothing pops in a cursory search other than 1st party content. Ultimately, a YouTube channel with no notability at the moment. Previously deletion proposed using WP:PROD but page creator challenged since I wasn't logged in, so I created an AfD. Greg Tyler (t • c) 17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 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. Deor (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of killed Macedonian defenders in 2001[edit]

List of killed Macedonian defenders in 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTCRUFT. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone please tell the author once and for all to stop creating such articles, this is not the first of its kind. Full of hatred, biased, offensive. Albanians mentioned as "terrorists", meanwhile the guy that led these "terrorists" is today's Vice Prime Minister of FYROM. There is no need for this article. The title is ridiculous, sounds like a football team composition review, totally out of line. And most of all, the author should show some respect for people. He cannot just publish soldiers' names online. Mondiad (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LIST. How are any of the entries on the list notable? How does this entire list reach notability? The answer to those questions are not available. It's flavored with soap. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 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 delete. Deor (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen (Documentary)[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking non-trivial support. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 02:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matti Suuronen[edit]

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

Originally it was tagged for CSD A7 but moved here. A very short article (17 words) with no references. I think it also qualifies for A1. But it is better to discuss it here. It seems to me that the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG in the current state. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or redirect to Futuro if the architect is not deemed independently sufficiently notable. See, e.g., [5], [6], [7]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Finnish Wikipedia has more: [8]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I !vote for keep per WP:CREATIVE "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" and "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums".24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case a merge will be the best idea. Since this article is very short and translation is needed. Merging it with Futuro article can help for now. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've subsequently taken some information from the above references and assembled those with other prefabricated parts from Finnish Wiki and Commons. I'm unsure about it's longterm performance (i.e., it needs more editing) but somehow I think Suuronen would smile at the construction process. In its current state, I do not feel that a merger would be helpful, but opinions can definitely differ. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 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. Deor (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Endless (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. The listed film festivals appear to be something of a hoax (see this posting), and the film and its actors and director are not otherwise notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've removed the claim that it was screened in the short film section of Cannes 2010, because it wasn't. I guess most of the other "facts" in the article are untrue too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: The Endless (film), Varadraj Swami, Anwarul Haque Khan, Shahzad Ahmad
  • Delete. Possibly screening in film festivals notwithstanding, what Wikipedia requires is actual coverage in independent sources. This film appears lacking, giving us a fail of WP:NFF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article consists of trivia only; has no real sources and doesn't prove notability. Notable or not, it is not acceptable in this shape. Fleet Command (talk) 07:31, 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. Deor (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recession (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. The listed film festivals appear to be something of a hoax (see this posting), and the film and its actors and director are not otherwise notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Recession (2009 film), Varadraj Swami, Ranjit Biswas,
  • Delete. fake festivals notwithstanding, what Wikipedia requires is actual coverage in independent sources. This film appears lacking, giving us a fail of WP:NFF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article consists of trivia only; no real sources, let alone proof of notability. Notable or not, it is not acceptable for Wikipedia in this shape. Fleet Command (talk) 07:32, 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. The consensus of the discussion is that the subject lacks sufficient notability independent of the riot to merit a stand alone article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surendra Singh, IAS[edit]

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

Bureaucrats are not inherently notable. Further due to lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources the subjects fails general guidelines about notability. He has only passing mention in few sources. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 00:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surendra Singh was criticized during Muzaffarnagar communal riot, he was in news during these period later immediately CM Akhilesh Yadav transferred from Muzaffarnagar as he was DM of Muzaffarnagar. According to news sources, It has Allegation on DM that he is Hindu and might be communal. He was also in news in Durga Shakti Nagpal case for supporting her and Govt. harassed those IAS officer who supported Nagpal . He was recently honoured with Election Commission of India's First Award for Best Electoral Practices on 25th January 2013 for his great achievement and performance in Pratapgarh district, UP. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't stand alone as an article. Should be merged with incident's article page or else deleted. Drsharan (talk) 10:01, 7 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, Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more sources have been added. Not just notable for one incident. Meets WP:GNG requirements, see in particular the discussion in the cited "Muzaffarnagar riots" article. --Bejnar (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. District magistrates are far too junior to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: No claim of inherent notable, claim is has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Bejnar (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simply a mid-ranking official doing his job with the normal coverage given to such an official. No real notability. I see no particular reason why he is any more notable than any other district magistrate in India. And apart from a minor administrative award, certainly not prestigious enough to make him inherently notable, the article makes no obvious claims of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Prime Minister doesn't usually hand out "minor admin awards" in person. Comments like the following are not common for District Magistrates: Known to be a good, honest officer, he had come down hard on his own administration for corruption and had even started a massive campaign against encroachments and illegal constructions. This kind of administration had never been witnessed earlier in Muzaffarnagar, and Surendra Singh was immensely popular for it. You may disagree about the basis for the coverage, but he meets WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. Important people present minor awards all the time all over the world. Smiling photos in the newspapers with shiny, happy awardees look good to the electorate. As to the comment you quote, why on earth does that make him notable? So he did his job. Period. The fact that he did his job properly and previous incumbents did not and people therefore thought he was a great guy does not make him notable in Wikipedia terms. No, he does not meet GNG. Routine coverage does not equal significant coverage, which is what GNG require. If this was the case we would have articles on pretty much every city and district councillor and executive in the world, since they tend to get considerable coverage of their routine activities in the media, but many have been deleted for just this reason. Routine coverage of an individual doing his job is not sufficient unless that job is a very important one. And district magistrate is not important enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact is that he is not ordinary, and more importantly for AFD, that he has received in depth coverage that meets WP:GNG, despite being what you consider a lowly bureaucrat, That is not true of most people in his position. --Bejnar (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this "in-depth" coverage? Let's actually look, shall we. Of the ten references in the article, we have: his personnel record on a government website; a photo of him on the website of his district (cited twice); a routine government article on him launching a driving licence system; a list of district magistrates on the government website; two routine news articles which mention his appointment (along with a number of other officials); a news article on the riots (the only reference that mentions his name more than once); a news article that mentions his award (along with others - his name is mentioned precisely once and there is no further information given on him); and a reference to a print magazine that I obviously can't check. Wow. That's a lot of "in-depth" coverage, isn't it? No, it isn't. It's about normal for a mid-ranking official. It really does not make him any more notable than any other official of his level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the entire riot article, you seem to have missed several paragraphs. --Bejnar (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said the riot article is the only source that mentions his name more than once. What exactly did I miss? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even though the riot article is considered acceptable, still we have only one good source.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that you don't like the non-profit NGO report on his education initiatives either. Abhinav (non-profit NGO) (2013). "A Report on Aadhar: An Initiative towards Excellence in Primary Rducation for Department of primary Education Dist. Muzaffer Nager - Uttar Pradesh" (PDF). pp. 6, 11, and 50. --Bejnar (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this report is not about him, but about an educational programme he helped to introduce as part of his job. His name is mentioned three times, with a brief biography. It's hardly unusual for officials to be given brief biographies in reports. Any conference report has brief bios of the speakers. It doesn't mean they're notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we had the Hindi version of his name, we could see both if he has a page in Hindi Wikipedia which might contain more sources establishing notability and perform a Hindi news archive search. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His name in Devanagari script is "सुरेंद्र सिंह", as in this article मुजफ्फरनगर: बीजेपी विधायकों की गिरफ्तारी संभव. However "सुरेंद्र सिंह" is not an uncommon name, see, e.g. Surendra Singh (disambiguation) --Bejnar (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the riot is notable, but Singh, as a mid-level government employee is not himself notable. EricSerge (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per EricSerge MarlovianPlough (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7 — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge The Fate[edit]

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

Non notable band that fails WP:NBAND. One source that site to a unreliable blog. Current external links include facebook, twitter, youtube. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I declined an A9 speedy on the band's album article since obviously the band does exist at least for now. It should be deleted if the outcome is the same here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A search failed to show enough reliable coverage for this band, instead mainly showing (possibly illegal) downloads/videos of their songs, and a few unreliable blog posts. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtymouth[edit]

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

One line article about a film that fails WP:NFILM. No reliable sources were found. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:17, 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 03:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Dokali Al Seyed[edit]

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

Article about a football player that doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY and fails WP:GNG. No references, 1 line article. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - have changed !vote per article improvement and sourcing. Jusdafax 02:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Player does meet WP:NFOOTY. Consensus is that if a player has played in non-qualifying rounds of continental competition, in this case the AFC Champions League for a side in a fully professional league against another team also from a fully professional league then the player passes NFOOTY. In addition, as a young player, as long as they pass NFOOTY, consensus is that they are notable despite only appearing a handful of times, I have improved the article briefly with reliable sources showing four AFC Champions league appearances last season all against FPL teams and one goal scored. @Jim Carter - Public:, @Johnpacklambert:, and @Jusdafax: you may wish to reconsider your votes in light of this. I can see how there would have been a degree of confusion around this shortest of stub articles as a lot of the information provided was in fact wrong. Hopefully, this has now been corrected. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination Per the improvements made by Fenix down. Now in a better state and passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Good job! Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination cannot be withdrawn while there remains a valid 'delete' !vote. GiantSnowman 12:08, 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. Anyone who wants to create a redirect at this title may, of course, do so. Deor (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Dolls[edit]

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

Non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CLip 1:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clip 2:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clip 3:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Dlete this stub about a DVD compilation. Even if Demonic Toys, Ragdoll, and Doll Graveyard were to be found notable, a compilation of clips from those three films does not have its own independent notability. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete history, redirect to Devil Doll. I'm mildly surprised that this didn't get slightly more coverage than just the DC review, but not terribly so. I'd recommend a redirect to simply "Devil Doll" since that's a more rational redirect than just redirecting the page as a whole to List_of_Full_Moon_Features_productions#Full_Moon_Features. I've already created a year specific redirect to the FMF productions page, so this should just be deleted and made into a redirect for the disambiguation page. It exists, but existing is not notability and no notability is inherited by it containing footage from other films, notable or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Hills Mall[edit]

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

NN 2-dozen-store (article claims 170,000 sq. ft.) shopping mall. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage). Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The discussion at WP:OUTCOMES contains no examples of AfD discussions that support the claims of the nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Twice before the start of the AfD, the nominator has removed material from the article instead of adding Template:CN tags.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The total GLA is 229,000 sqft as per www.arcturusrealty.com.  On the icsc.org categories, this appears to be a "Community Center ('Large Neighborhood Center')".  A picture from [9] and this map indicate that 15 of the 25 stores are accessible from an inside walkway.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Alternate search terms include Highland Hills Shopping Mall and Highland Hill Mall.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  Searches at Google books, Google newspaper, as well as Google web did not turn up WP:GNG coverage of this topic.  Google images revealed the leasing agent (Arcturus).  This is the kind of non-notable that goes beyond WP:N to WP:Deletion policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this but again too early, So have relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It comes down to the usual issue for shopping centers: there's nothing to say. It was built; it has an address; it has stores. The end. Indeed, more of the article is devoted to the adjacent transit center than the to shopping center. there's no notability here beyond a retail guide. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First 3 sources are directory listings and the last 2 are about transit terminals, not the mall. found nothing in google. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could find no evidence of reliable sources to establish the notability of this mall.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:15, 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. Claiming sources ought to exist is not an argument based in policy. There has been ample opportunity to put forward evidence of notability, but none has been forthcoming. No real benefit in keeping open any longer. SpinningSpark 17:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Alvarez[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable actor. The only sources are press releases, self-published sources, and closely connected sources. Fails all three criteria of WP:NACTOR. - MrX 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I disagree with MrX's evaluation of Alvarez' notability and of the available sources. Given Alvarez' role in a major program on the Nickelodeon network, I suspect better sources are available if one looks hard enough. I found a number of interviews with Alvarez in independent sources. (Admittedly, these tend to be fan sites, but this was with just 2 minutes searching.) I have communicated with the article's author about the need for better sourcing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 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 10:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a bit of coverage, mainly interviews[10][11][12] but nothing very in-depth or authoritative. Doesn't meet WP:ACTOR: he has a reasonably big supporting role in one show, but WP:ACTOR requires multiple major roles or other distinctive achievements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 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, NorthAmerica1000 05:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as no consensus but the nom disagreed so relisted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:23, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilford W. Andersen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wilford W. Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:Notability (people). Previous AfD was closed as no consensus mainly because it was a mass nomination, and there were different opinions on different articles nominated, which muddied the water. Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Vojen on another AfD discussion made a very good case for keeping articles about Second Quorum members. I understand (and even accept) what others have said about Second Quorum members having only temporary notability, but I feel that this could be compared somewhat to the notability of, say, a United States President. They serve for one or two terms and then they are out of the spotlight and no longer significant. But to those who follow US History, what former US Presidents do after leaving office is important. The same holds true for Second Quorum members. Their notability is temporary, but for those who follow Church history, what they do before and after holding office as a general authority is just as important as what they do while actively serving as a general authority. Their service as a general authority makes them prominent. I will let Vojen restate his argument if he chooses to do so. I still think that argument has relevancy in this case. If the consensus votes to delete this article, I will accept that consensus. However, for the moment, I want it clear that I am opposed to any attempt to delete any articles about any Second Quorum members. This will likely be my only comment on this issue, as I have been criticized for my comments on AfD issues in the past. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the points made by Vojen on the discussion of Randy D. Funk. That said, it is impossible to have temporary notability, once a person is notable, that does not vanish. Andersen, like Funk and others involved here, is seen as a significant doctrinal authority.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The discussion on Funk resulted in a close to keep, and the issues would seem to be the same here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a long argument, but basically I think the ecclesiastical office itself is the foundation for notability. Religious leaders hold a position of honor similar to the notability of people standard for award recipients (see [[13]]), they hold offices of influence similar to politicians, and they serve as authorities in the academic discipline of theology and sit on boards which would qualify them as academics (see [[14]]). A default standard has arisen that we derive from these rules for notability on people that holds that high ranking clergy are found to be notable (see [[15]]). The question is how high an office qualifies as the basis for notatbility. I think membership in the Second quorum of the Seventy is high enough because these officials have global authority in their church (as opposed to purely local leaders) and their higher office makes their words subject to a much higher level of adoration and scrutiny than your average person. As previous discussions of members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy frequently got bogged down in whether independent sources could be found to provide verifiability, I went ahead and pulled some sources on this guy. The purpose of these sources is not to establish notability under the GNG (this guy is rarely the primary subject of the source), but rather to demonstrate the elevated status he holds in society because of his office.
Portuguese:
Spanish:
English:
I think the strongest argument for notability deriving from his office is the fact that this guy's words form the primary source materials for later homoletic pieces, teaching resources, and creative works. I also think Andersen's relationship to his church's presence in Cuba is interesting, though it's hard to derive all the details of his specific role from the sources as it appears to be mostly behind the scenes. Vojen (talk) 17:10, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Conix[edit]

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

Article happens to be in sync with its NL/FR counterparts. Only seems to serve self-promotion, unless the subject has any particular notoriety, which seems to escape me. --Midas02 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This needed updating - not only future-tense mentions of Expo 2010 but her firm merged with another in 2013 and the listed website is very dead. Also the publicity trail seems to have gone cold (although Google may be being sniffy about showing me back issues of Antwerp and Brussels newspapers). However, the three references that were there are very good, and with them plus a search for the Expo pavilion job I was able to reference the three most stellar commissions mentioned. Notability does not expire. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree the article has spam issues but the subject is clearly notable, with multiple independent reliable sources focused on her, but there is some WP:REFSPAM in there, plus WP:PRIMARY sources. If the article is kept, I'll try to fix it up when I get time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is autobiographical; Writing an article about oneself can be seen as nothing more than self-promotion. MiracleMat (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject doesn't seem to have much notability, or to be of general interest. As an architect she will obviously generate some press for her work, but hasn't worked on any landmark buildings. So she is just, with all due respect, 'an' architect. And Wikipedia isn't the yellow pages. Midas02 (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, she won the competition to renovate and add to the Atomium, which is a landmarked building, and to design the Belgium (and EU) building at Expo 2010; I take it you missed those? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:19, 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, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The self promotion is offputting but putting that aside - The notability is there and If I'm honest the article doesn't seem all that promotional anyway. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AfD is not for cleanup. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:12, 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 speedily deleted per criterion G12 (copyvio). Deor (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Femi Akinwunmi[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:Notability (people) criteria. Speedy and prod (which were applied by other editors) were removed without reason given by account whose username indicates a conflict of interests. Notability tags also removed. Boleyn (talk) 10:33, 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) 15:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Vigney[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He doesn't meet WP:KICK nor does he meet WP:GNG since all of the sources appear to be either fight results or upcoming event announcements. Papaursa (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:KICK and WP:GNG. Amateur titles don't show notability. Jakejr (talk) 00:41, 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. Deor (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim El Bouni[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 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) 14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Bring back Mike The Mighty Warrior Noriega Professional boxer Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by M21212121 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Noriega[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX and the only source is a link to his boxing record (which shows he's never beaten a fighter that has won a pro bout). Papaursa (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 00:44, 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. While more participation here would have been ideal, commentary herein has sufficiently countered the deletion rationale. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apigility[edit]

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

I originally PRODed this article in December 2013. It got dePRODed. It still nowhere meets WP:GNG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—The three best WP:RS I found are PC World,[1] Dr. Dobbs,[2] and AppDeveloper Magazine.[3] I'm also seeing plenty of "expert blogs" that might be used to flesh out the article, but probably shouldn't be used to establish notability: Soliant Consulting[4], Programmable Web[5], and PHPDeveloper.org[6] (and there are several more). I think that's sufficient for WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Jackson, Joab (7 May 2014). "Zend eases API development with Apigility". PC World. Retrieved 17 July 2014.
  2. ^ Bridgewater, Adrian (13 May 2014). "Zend Apigility 1.0 For API-Based Apps". Dr. Dobbs. Retrieved 17 July 2014.
  3. ^ Parkerson, Stuart (12 May 2014). "Zend Launches Apigility 1.0 Interface for Building and Maintaining APIs". App Developer Magazine. Retrieved 17 July 2014.
  4. ^ Anderson, Tom (30 March 2014). "Writing the Doctrine Integration for Apigility". Soliant Consulting. Retrieved 17 July 2014.
  5. ^ Wagoner, Janet (15 May 2014). "Latest Apigility Release Underscores API-First App Design". Programmable Web. Retrieved 17 July 2014.
  6. ^ Cornutt, Chris (10 October 2013). "Investigating Apigility". PHPDeveloper.org. Retrieved 17 July 2014.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:35, 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, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect both election articles to Pontypridd Urban District Council, as the merger of significant content appears to be a fait accompli. Deor (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pontypridd Urban District Council election, 1898[edit]

Pontypridd Urban District Council election, 1898 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

city (at least sub-county) level election results from 1898 are WP:NOT notable Gaijin42 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is part of a WikiProject to cover the electoral history of South Wales. The information on the page may appear limited at present but this will be expanded. If Wikipedia is to expand and become a recognised source of secondary information gleaned from various places on the web such pages as this will in time become increasingly common. Please to do not proceed with proposal. Will consider merging if this is thought appropriate. Many thanks. GlamElector (talk)
@GlamElector in what way is this level of detail on city/sub-county elections from 100 years ago of encyclopedic value? This is a meta question, since presumably you intend to create articles for every welsh election, detailing elections where the total number of votes was in the low hundreds. In my opinion such a level of detail is unsustainable and inappropriate. You would end up with hundreds of thousands or even millions of articles to give local election coverage. A good rule of thumb would be if the people being elected in general do not pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN then neither does the election that put them in place. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both after merging. No possible justification for a separate article on each election, the details of which are entirely trivial; the page on the council as a whole is a smallish stub. Do we really want a separate article for every election in every human settlement in the world? And if not, why would we want that for Wales? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:54, 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 Grumpy Pants Missvain is withdrawing her own deletion nomination.. Missvain (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santacafé[edit]

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

I wrote this article, but it was listed for having notability problems and I'm super burnt out on writing articles about restaurants that pass GNG and being told they're promotional and/or fail GNG. So, ya'll can figure it out.

I have never been to this restaurant. My father went there back in the 90's and I scanned a bunch of his matchbooks and wrote articles about the restaurants. I don't know anyone who works there, so the closest conflict of interest is that my dad ate there once.

thanks! Missvain (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I'm confused here. While you believe it passes WP:GNG, your deletion rationale is you're upset that somebody "listed" this article because they believed it was not notable? --Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I had a bad last night and acted a bit emo on Wikipedia. I'm revoking my nomination. Ha ha. I'll close it myself. Missvain (talk) 19:39, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Farms[edit]

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

Non-notable company, no significant result available for company on google search. Ireneshih (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I disagree, plenty of full features used in the article, and a google search is not a good source for anything's notability. Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 05:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 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 - withdrawn at nominator's request (non-admin closure). St★lwart111 14:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of theaters in Hyderabad, India[edit]

List of theaters in Hyderabad, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

as per WP:NOTDIR Vin09 (talk) 04:25, 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) 14:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doll Killer[edit]

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

Unremarkable film. Lacks significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page has not been created at all. It's unacceptable and inappropriate to leave the pages uncreated and blank like this. Everyone should know that. ~D3323 9:33am, July 30, 2014.

Subjects need to be notable. The fact that a page does not exist is not a reason to create it. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm very seriously doubting the claims that the film was created in 1987 as the article originally stated. If you look at the director's IMDb page ([20]) you'll see that he was born in 1982... and I doubt very seriously that he was directing horror films at the tender age of 5. It very openly states that he's "Jesus Satan". The 1987 date is made even more of a hoax by the fact that the press release stated that it began as an idea created on the website Retro Slashers. Now I don't remember the 80s all that clearly, but I'm fairly certain that the website wasn't around back then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that blogs aren't exactly RS, but what little I am finding about its 1980s claims shows that very, very few people are actually buying into the idea that the movie was made in the 1980s. ([21]) I don't hate viral marketing, but I do dislike it when people try to use Wikipedia as a part of that marketing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find absolutely no in-depth coverage of the film other than some trivial mentions based on the press release. ([22], [23]) On a side note for the director and his crew (if they read this), trying to claim that a film is a "lost movie" usually works better when you don't openly link the pseudonym to a director too young to have directed in the 80s and when you don't create a press release that links the movie's origins to a website that the director works with (especially considering that the film's writer also works for the same website). It doesn't seem like anyone is really taking this seriously, but at the same time missing stuff like that is probably why the response is fairly lukewarm from a lot of sites. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I get a little frustrated when viral marketing falls flat like this. In any case, the film exists but existing doesn't mean that the movie automatically merits an article on Wikipedia and given that it's been out since April, it's unlikely that this will pass notability guidelines anytime soon. I wish the director well and hope that future viral marketing is done a little more tightly, but this film just fails notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ALTS
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ALT:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
MEXICO:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Distributor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Distributor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Just goes to show that even otherwise reliable sites can make errors, and seemingly corrected since the Dread Central article was published, retrosploitation.com now tells us that the PLOT takes place in 1987, and NOT that the film was created then. Methinks a claim that it was a re-surfaced "lost" film is being done as a publicity stunt. Interestingly, an article HERE tells us that Dustin Ferguson supposedly made contact with the widow of the original filmmaker, and gained the rights to distribute... and this would mean he did not direct the film. That said, I doubt that this is actually a found film, and no matter when or where it was filmed, it simply does not have the independent sources to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep- I think that they were initially trying to do it for a publicity stunt and when it fizzled flat (because nobody believed it and just sort of shrugged their shoulders and moved on), they decided to go with the set in the 80s angle. It's kind of an example as to how viral marketing can really, really work against you if you don't do it just right. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:45, 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. Deor (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle on Yellow Turf[edit]

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

No significant coverage of this low level, local, amateur sporting event in independent reliable sources The-Pope (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial, carries no significance. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete a game between 2 amateur clubs with no media coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke article about a game between amateur clubs. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't know that I'd call it a joke, but clearly inappropriate for a standalone article, per WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Delete, if it were so notable I'm sure it would of been covered at length in mainstream media. AlanS (talk) 13:01, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Additionally, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VJM Media Group[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 02:34, 31 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) 03:40, 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. Secret account 03:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2007 national Grands Prix[edit]

List of 2007 national Grands Prix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't see the need for this article - most of the information is already at 2007 Formula One season#Season calendar.

I suggest deletion rather than redirecting Gbawden (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly it is not a list of Formula One races. Pay attention and re-read.
  • Secondly - no it should not be redirected because as a collection of disparate races there is no one redirect target that is appropriate.
  • Thirdly - the concept of national grand prix as a concept is not well established and probably fails Notability. However you "Don't see the need for this article" is not a valid reason for deletion. When you have a valid reason for deleting it, re-list and I will support. Yes I am the originating author, but I will not lose sleep over its deletion. However I do not want WP:IDONTLIKEIT established as a valid reason to delete articles.
  • So call this a KEEP. --Falcadore (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Listing a selection of events that all happen to be called "grand prix" doesn't seem to match Wikipedia policies about lists or disambiguation pages. Why not include other types of grand prix, e.g. British Grand Prix (athletics)? Or other 2007 races that aren't called Grand Prix if the subject is "not well established and probably fails Notability"? But there is the possibility that it could be improved: it could be moved to a more descriptive title like 2007 in motor sports if there isn't already a similar article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply The intent was to specify those Grand Prix named for their nation - thus excluding events like the European Grand Prix or the Detriot Grand Prix and including non-Formula One races like the New Zealand Grand Prix and the Danish Grand Prix. But as I said, the nominating editor has not provided a reason for the article to be deleted. --Falcadore (talk) 10:23, 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, NorthAmerica1000 07:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the only additional GP listed was the NZ GP. People associate GP with F1, not with open wheel car racing. If this article is so important link to it - as it stands its an orphan and nothing reaches there so no-one is likely to know about it anyway Gbawden (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Isn't it Wikipedia's role to inform when that perception is in error? My primary objection is that you have not offered ANY reason to delete the article. You don't see the need for this article. That's essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT which has never been an acceptable reason for deleting an article. --Falcadore (talk) 08:05, 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) 03:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary fork of relevant race series Seasider91 (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really not needed and odd. Results can be found on their articles/mainarticles/season articles. Kante4 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Suburban Faith Based Peace Coalition[edit]

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

no evidence of any notability outside of Chicagoland, so it fails WP:ORG John from Idegon (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is some evidence of notability outside of Chicago. For instance, this particular NGO has been recently noted in the US Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r113:E18AP3-0011:/) and an engine-search for this particular NGO reveals some 17,000 entries, many of which are peace NGOs, which are organized on a national and international basis. The name for this NGO is perhaps unfortunate, as it suggests a parochial organization, with limited reach. But I would suggest the reach and notability of the WSFBPC does indeed go well beyond its local Chicago base. I should mention in passing that I am in Australia, and not a member of the WSFBPC. I suggest we hasten slowly on any deletion action. J.S.Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamessmithpage (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link you posted has a mention of the organization, but no details so it does not speak at all to notability. The subject of the politician's pontification was not even the organization. I have a question for Jamessmithpage. What is your relationship with the subject of this article? John from Idegon (talk) 09:28, 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, NorthAmerica1000 06:35, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:37, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Herbalists Guild[edit]

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

This is too bad. I really wanted to spend some time improving this article, but all I was able to find was brief mentions, self-bylined articles, press releases, etc. The current sources are just the guild's website and a newsletter. Currently my university website is down and I cannot check for academic sources. CorporateM (Talk) 07:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funny, I was just commenting at the Michael Tierra discussion that I didn't think this organization looked notable either. My search results are similar to nominator's. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:33, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: AFAICT a Google search throws up only blogs, press releases and routine local coverage. Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore not notable. BethNaught (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no WP:RS found. Fails WP:NGO. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:09, 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. Relisted twice, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Punggol Waterway Sundew[edit]

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

WP: Too soon - they haven't started building the place yet - how can it be notable enough before its built? Gbawden (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too early. It should be held off until it's finished. EMachine03 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 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, NorthAmerica1000 06:09, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Without prejudice to a later redirect: if someone has an article where the topic is mentioned, verified, and editorially appropriate j⚛e deckertalk 17:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Primary Shan[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient page content to justify even a redirect. School also no longer exists as it was merged to another establishment 15 years ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:00, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After two relistings, the article's only defender has been its creator. The consensus appers to be that the place for information about this character is The Young and the Restless characters (2013)#Courtney Sloane. Deor (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Sloan[edit]

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

Character article already exists at Courtney Sloan; character's main page fails to follow fictional notability in a soap opera article, and real-world context, as required from the Soap Opera Project. Page is essentially a Copy/Paste job from the article linked above. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Meets WP:A10 criterion for speedy deletion because it's a duplicate of this. 32.218.152.175 (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is not a duplicate of the page, it has more information as well as more sections. The character has be more involved with bigger storylines as of late. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 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, NorthAmerica1000 05:59, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very little information that is independent of the show. Seen a Mike (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Courtney is not notable enough to warrant an article. Appears on the series unfrequently and very little information on lead, casting, reception etc... — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:04, 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. 1'm closing this as dishonestly sourced and unverifiable. Ref 1 is the deliberate misquotation of a title about another company. Ref 3 likewise, and in this case used without even looking at it because the very title says the organization is bankrupt. The other refs are not about the company at all, but about an eye disease & do not mention the company. Further discussion of this is superfluous. Inesperience here is no excuse for this sort of delierate falsehoods. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eyetrust vision[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY; self-published sources; no reliable sources found; makes false statements (125 stores in Canada, the United States, Puerto Rico); the reference to the New York Times doesn't mention this company. Moreover, the only truly "notable" item about this one-store optician--that they offer "free valet for all patients"--was left out of the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the monster photo of their "head office" is misleading; they occupy one suite on the third floor. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am a newcomer and in learning phase. I found that people are saying that we have used some false statements. I am ready to make the removal edits for the false statements. I am looking for more online stuff which can establish the notability. I will update them as soon as possible. I would request that the admins should give a chance so that I can improve the article as per wikipedia standards.Drchrycy (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is plainly no consensus on whether Eisenkop meets the GNG based on what is in the article. Unfortunately a great many of these comments are of the "just notable/just not notable" variety, and with the discussion plainly swamped by so many persons unfamiliar with our policies it's hard to tell if there is a consensus. No prejudice to another discussion in a few weeks, once the situation on Reddit has cooled a bit, to see if agreement can be reached one way or the other. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Eisenkop[edit]

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

WP:NTEMP states: "...that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." I believe that in light of recent events, following his shadowban from Reddit, that "Unidan's" notability will proceed no further from it's already questionable state. Joobah (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's best to keep. The sources in the article are all fine. Heck. The Daily Dot even covered his banning: [24]. Ryan Nohomersryan (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no rush. We don't have to guess how an event may impact the subject's long-term notability the very next day after said event. Give it a few months; see what happens. Melchoir (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (By the way, on the merits, I also think the article should be kept, as its references pass the general notability guideline. This is the reason the article was kept the first time around.) Melchoir (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what Oreo Priest said in the previous nomination: "Mashable, Fox News, Time Warner Cable News, the Binghamton University Pipe Dream newspaper, the Daily Dot and the University of Melbourne have all decided that he's notable enough to devote an article specifically to him. That's significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of each other and the subject. That's a clear pass of WP:BIO." Trinitresque (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated by Joobah. Low notability and unlikely to grow as popularity of himself and reddit wane. --OKNoah (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. If we covered every minor Internet celebrity with insignificant news coverage, Wikipedia would run out of server space. 70.36.222.87 (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I don't think his being banned from Reddit should play any part in deciding whether the page should be kept (if anything, that makes him slightly more notable, not less). I just think Reddit celebrities aren't the sort of things we should be keeping track of on Wikipedia. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He passes WP:BIO quite clearly. We cannot cherry pick which subjects to allow and disallow on Wikipedia - most of the deletes seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEITs. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: And why exactly would we delete the article now? Wait until things die down, and then, if he loses his notability, delete. The first AFD resulted in a keep, why try this again? --Rockstonetalk to me! 13:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete*: We don't have pages for other Reddit celebrities, such as karmanaut or Apostolate, why should we have one for Unidan? Swamp85 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there are sources about those two, then they can have an article. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They've never done anything notable, and neither has Unidan. That's my point. Swamp85 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is his TEDx talk, the book he's working on, and the fact that he writes for "Mental Floss" not "anything notable"? --Sauronjim (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The fact someone has written a book or made a video does not warrant an article. If we used these standards, anyone who'd ever written for any college newspaper would have one and our servers would crash. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does warrant a standalone article is significant coverage from numerous reliable, independent sources, and Unidan meets this criteria. Breadblade (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per reasons stated above. LaserWraith (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mr Eisenkop has not only become a major piece of news in the online community, but has been talked about in a number of mainstream news sources (as discussed above). He's also done TEDx talks, writes for a major publication, and is working on publishing a book. He's easily notable enough to have an article about him. --Sauronjim (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unidan is a notable Reddit celebrity, and the article has several sources, spanning more than a year, so WP:NTEMP doesn't hold. AlmostGrad (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The original article was not notable, given that there was very little biographical information, and the lack of actual notability. Now there is even less so.Screen317 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being "popular" on reddit doesn't make someone noteworthy, or notable. All articles are on the same topic, him being popular on reddit, and now about him being unpopular, seems a bit tautological. WP:1E and WP:NOTWHOSWHO also seem to justify flagging this for deletion. Esoxidtalk•contribs 20:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His article already clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP does not apply, as he has both actively sought out public attention through venues such as TEDx and has received significant media coverage for multiple independent events. His shadowban has only attracted more media coverage, and hasn't kept him off reddit in the first place. I will echo the sentiment that many of the articles against this article seem to come from the standpoint of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Breadblade (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable for all reasons stated [above]. Just another sad notch in the history of small time Internet celebrities. Michael S., 21:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.82.2 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof. Too thin for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, for all the reasons already given. Also, I propose sanctions on the user Joobah, who seems to be a sockpuppet created solely for the purposes of deleting this page. Sorry, dude, an event making a subject more notable is not an excuse for you again to try and delete pages you don't like. Stroller (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete*: For all reasons above. He accomplishments are not significant to deem a Wikipedia article. 73.177.162.97 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable yet. He is a writer for a minor publication, a grad student, and has been using a popular internet site to share his ideas. None of this comes even close to passing notability guidelines, and having it just makes us presentist and cluttered with people of no permanent note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There's articles from three sources he's not affiliated with, so it's something. However, most of the stuff in his entry is cruft. Specific classes he teaches? A fan on improv? None of those have anything to do with why he's mildly famous. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 03:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This person is pretty much completely non-notable outside of his own internet community as far as I can see, and now he is banned even from there. - Rathersilly (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG, for reasons stated above. Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough!Tbecknv (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Tbecknv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - I think it's odd how there was no concern about this individual's notability before a few days ago since there was coverage to meet WP:GNG, but then one more event happens and that is the one even that warrants citing (ironically enough) WP:NTEMP? The first sentence of WP:NTEMP refutes the nominator's rationale; "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Saying that he was banned from Reddit and therefore will gain no additional ongoing coverage from that is ignoring the fact that notability is already established. That the nominator thinks that no additional notability will be shown is irrelevant to that. - Aoidh (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We had this discussion 6 months ago - it's inappropriate to revisit it the week Eisenkop did something unpopular. Personally, I'm happy to review this article sometime next year, but not as part of an ongoing witch-hunt by the users of a large social media site. Stroller (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just to clarify, the article definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC; it is the subject of multiple reliable third-party sources and the new accounts being created and infrequent editors coming back just to comment on this AfD are not taking that into account, that sources dictate notability, not subjective opinions on the content of the work. - Aoidh (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see significant coverage in reliable sources for at least two events. Meets WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated in 1st AfD. Once again, many of the "keeps" are simply assertion. The extremely weak sources resulted in no consensus last time and it's no surprise at all that the article is back again. Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This is yet another case of reddit trying to act like things they find important are notable from an encyclopaedic perspective. Aoidh's argument that "there was no concern about this individual's notability before a few days ago" is, in my view, a non-sequitur. People will notice mistakes at different points in time. Saying "this mistake hasn't been noticed before" is pointless. It's been noticed now, and it's being discussed now. Besides, there clearly has been concern before, and a consensus was never reached. Long story short, this boils down to whether or not Eisenkop meets WP:GNG. Is there significant coverage? No. There is coverage, but it's a "slow news day" kind of thing. Are there reliable secondary sources? Sure, a handful. So, if you squint your eyes really hard, you might claim that there might be a case for a possible assumption (not guarantee) of notability, maybe. That's where WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS come into play. Apples grow on pines (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. It's not "this mistake hasn't been noticed before", because there was a previous AfD. Your argument is based on the assumption that this non-notable article just wasn't noticed before, when that is demonstratably not the case. It's "being noticed now" under the assumption that no more notability will be given for the subject, and that this somehow renders the previous notability moot; it does not. That is the point I was making. In addition, there are many more sources now than there was at the previous AfD when there was a "no consensus" bordering on keep, an AfD that just happened in April. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS don't "come into play" as they aren't even relevant here. - Aoidh (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. I think it would be most prudent to give this a week or two to settle down, then proceed with the AfD process. There's no reason we have to decide forever right this minute whether or not the article can stay. It's not as if the article is permanently sullying Wikipedia or anything by sitting there for a little bit, right? --Roman à clef (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete checking the article I see barely anything that comes anywhere near establishing notability. None of the keeps have been very persuading. This is not a debate as to weather or not a reddit celeb can be notable, it's about this one person and this one person falls short of the GNG in my eyes. Ridernyc (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's subject has been the subject of multiple reliable third-party sources. That is the criteria of WP:GNG, and your rationale fails to explain how that doesn't meet WP:GNG; what is it you think "establishing notability" means? The sources establish notability, not an opinion on whether he "looks" notable "in your eyes". - Aoidh (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Internet celebrities are barely notable as is, and Unidan would be a D-list if there was a scale; the only thing of note he has done outside of Reddit is a singular TED Talk, which (in itself) owes a great deal to his Reddit fame. Save for being a vandalism risk from Reddit users, all the page will do is remain a stub indefinitely. TinyTedDanson (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems to meet the WP:GNG, with sufficient secondary coverage in reliable sources such as Daily Dot, Mashable, FoxNews, and other such things. Additionally, seeing that he was interviewed by an educational institution is also somewhat telling. Additionally, Vice covering this ban of this specific user is also very specific and telling. Tutelary (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very little notability, even on the internet (there are Facebook pages, with no Wikipedia articles, with hundreds of thousands of likes per post and comment; Unidan receives a tiny, tiny fraction of that). It fails WP:PROF outright, and the entire article is a result of a small number fans using Wikipedia to make the subject look universally famous. The only reason this discussion appears to have survived a Delete vote last time was because someone posted a link to it on a reddit post about the article, leading to a vote brigade. Ithinkicahn (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is based on reliable sources, of which this subject has sufficient coverage in. Vague relation to the number of likes on Facebook is irrelevant to notability, and WP:PROF is not the only criteria for notability; the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC and then some. There's also very little in the previous AfD that isn't from established, frequent editors, but that's ultimately irrelevant as there are even more sources now than there were at the previous AfD, which was only a few months ago. Citing WP:CRUFT falls apart when you look at the sources; Wikipedia editors aren't the ones writing Fox News and Vice articles about the individual. - Aoidh (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject has done a fairly popular TEDx talk, is a very well known (and now controversial) user on a large social media website (reddit), and has been covered by a number of news websites. I'd say that he meets the notability requirements. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 03:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable entirely. Has made no contributions other than briefly having a lot of karma on Reddit once. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The person does not need to have made any contributions. As long as they meet the requirements for the general notability guideline, the person is notable. We have multiple reliable sources dictating this, including Vice, Fox News, Mashable, Daily Dot, and other high quality sources. Tutelary (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how he meets any of those. Significant coverage is the main issue, and he has none. Beyond one or two brief mentions of the fact he was a popular Reddit user, there's nothing. This can be found for all sorts of internet celebrities. For example, Frank Neal Garrett is mentioned relatively often for being a prank call victim. But he has no page because that alone doesn't make him notable, despite the popularity of the calls and his voice on YouTube. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles which cover Unidan directly and in detail: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. In other words, WP:SIGCOV is achieved very easily in this article's sources, what the heck are you talking about? Breadblade (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An impressive looking list until you see that these sources include things like personal student blogs. Many of them are also from his university, so they fail to be independent of the subject. Most of them are also just about his ban, a one-off event that, if anything, reduces his notability as he is now less likely to ever be notable.
So of these, arguably only the Fox News one is a significant, independent source that goes any way towards establishing notability. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are also just about his ban, which is perfectly adequate, because it gives us even more reliable sources about the individual, cementing the notion that this person is notable. if anything, reduces his notability as he is now less likely to ever be notable. Nope, notability is not temporary. If he meets the general notability guideline, he is notable. Also, saying that 'Fox News' is the only source which is reliable that demonstrates notability is misleading, there are many, many that do so. Just look at Breadblade's reply. He is notable. Tutelary (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the pages about the ban, are we going to make a page for everyone who gets articles written for them because they get caught doing something shocking? By that logic every upstanding citizen who went streaking or every normal-seeming sex offender would have their own article. As it stands Eisenkop was not notable before and the ban only makes it less likely that he will achieve notability. And I was specifically replying to his reply - note that it included personal blogs and sources that were not independent of the subject. Beyond that Fox was the only source not discussing his ban. I'm sorry but getting banned from a website does not make someone notable. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If his ban weren't notable, it wouldn't have received coverage from multiple independent news sources such as the Daily Dot, Vice and Mashable. But it has, and it is. Breadblade (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Dot is a very small, obscure source who's purpose is to report on internet events. The ban is only notable to a small subculture - its like a local paper reporting that a man was caught streaking. We're not going to make a page for someone because of that. Otherwise Wikipedia would be filled with "X was a popular user on Y who was banned", or "X was an upstanding citizen who ran around naked after a bender". Heck most of the people on the Florida Man Twitter would get a page, since they did something outrageous that was reported by a wide variety of news outlets. Do you think the man who robbed a house and left his cell phone, then later called to ask for it back warrants a page? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can sense a lot of goalpost-moving happening here. Wikipedia sources don't have to be New York Times articles for purposes of notability. I don't think the Florida Man analogy makes any sense so I'm not going to comment on it. Breadblade (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The goalposts aren't being moved - sources like personal student blogs and sources that are not independent of the subject matter have never been counted. Also, to be honest, I think there might be a conflict of interest here. You talk on your userpage about being listed on DailyDot as the 7th most influential user of the site Reddit. You stand to benefit a lot from the result of this decision, as the argument you're using is essentially that if sources like DailyDot speak about a Reddit user, they should have a page. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there had been nothing but "personal student blogs" that would be a valid point, but unless Vice and Fox News are "personal student blogs", that's completely irrelevant. WP:GNG has been mopre than met for this article, "personal student blogs" have nothing to do with that. - Aoidh (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, let's stay on topic here. I don't want a Wikipedia page so don't try and assign me motivations that I don't have. Breadblade (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have no way of seeing a person's motivations so we can't use their word about them to evaluate these things. Like WP:COI says, "A judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator would be undermined by her secondary role as the defendant's wife". Its a matter of relation to the subject matter that causes the conflict of interest. Even if the judge intended to be as impartial as possible, their relation to the matter at hand creates the COI. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are ridiculous insinuations about Breadblade's motivations, and constitute speculation at best. Do you really think they want a Wikipedia article declaring them the moderator of /r/circlejerk? And even if they did, that they have decided that getting Unidan into Wikipedia is the way to get there? AlmostGrad (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source list reported above by Breadblade is representative of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE "keep" position: it consists mostly of student newspaper/university PR and social media and blogs. I thought perhaps the Cornell Sun article (#3 in that last) might count, but that has only trivial mention. Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • He's been covered by the Daily Dot, Mashable, Vice, Fox News and Time Warner Cable News in addition to the student publications. Eisenkop was brought up three separate times in the Cornell Sun article, as he was a guest speaker at that event. That is more than trivial coverage. Breadblade (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fox piece is probably OK, but the others (university pubs, social news, etc) aren't. The Cornell article, "Cornellians Gather to Watch and Discuss Cosmos", was not about Eisenkop. It only mentioned him incidentally. That is indeed what is meant by "trivial mention". Agricola44 (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • A subject need not be the main topic of the source material for a mention to be non-trivial. I also don't think that you've made a case as to why the Daily Dot, Vice Motherboard, Time Warner Cable News and other sources I've mentioned should be considered unreliable sources. Breadblade (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not need to meet WP:PROF requirements, only the general notability guideline, which they easy meet. Tutelary (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - literally dozens of news articles over the span of several years, combined with being the most well-known user of one of the largest websites in the world, as well as notable coverage of his offline work and research meets GNG easily. The previous AfD was answered with a keep and he has unarguably only become more notable as a result of the banning. It seems that a lot of people seem to have a conception of social media as being "non-notable" or "unimportant" - even when subjects meet the same guidelines that everything else are held to. Remember that the internet is still part of real life and isn't somehow inherently less valuable. SellymeTalk 18:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No different from any other grad student with a blog. Not that there's anything bad about such people or they can't advance anything, but that alone doesn't make for article material. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like it or not, he is a well known biologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.211.12.111 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — 107.211.12.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Not outside of the site Reddit. We cannot have a page for him based off of direct biological work since there really isn't any, and he fails WP:PROF. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...Which has already been stated that he is not required to meet WP:PROF standards. Tutelary (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is another argument on the basis of WP:FAME alone. Agricola44 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Eisenkop has gained minor popularity-status on Reddit, and nowhere else. He has become recently popular outside of the particular niche, solely because of the drama generated from his ban from the site. He fails WP:BIO, and is questionable on WP:Notability. To keep his page on Wikipedia would mean to add all other Reddit users of similar small-spanned popularity, such as karmanaut, Stickleyman, Apostolate, and _vargas_. Following his ban from Reddit, Eisenkop a.k.a. Unidan is unlikely to have any already-questionable significance and notability since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.82.116 (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, those other users would only warrant articles if they gained significant media coverage from independent, reliable sources. Breadblade (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: His notability was already established. The article survived a previous AfD. I'm pretty sure the primary reason for this second AfD is because he was shadowbanned from the site (for vote-cheating, and he did deserve it) and now people feel angry and are lashing out at him. However, deleting an article about a notable figure does not really have anything to do with how people feel about the person himself. (And no, his shadowbanning – which may or may not affect his future notability, so "he might not be notable in the future" is not a compelling reason to delete an article – does not change his previously established notability.) --V2Blast (talk) 22:28, 8 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 02:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Gooden[edit]

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

Article is about Mario Gooden, an architect who own's his own firm. Seems to fail WP:BIO. scope_creep talk 218:01 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Xxanthippe (talk, it's usually Comment which you put for this type of query. Yip, I think he passes WP:Prof#C5, but I also think he fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG in general, as the article stands. The reason I think is that the article has all the hallmarks of a corporate puff piece. At the moment it completely subverts the Letter and Spirit of WP. It mentions Huff 12 times. scope_creep talk 16:20 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Passed Academic Criteria 5. The way to fix puff pieces for notable people is not deletion, but editing away the puffiness with good, solid content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 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, §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must be getting cynical about the fate of WP. It's curious that everybody seems to be voting for Keep, since Wikipedia is undergoing a major effort, even as wee speak, to remove corporate paid articles, and here we have one. It's been created by the Huff and Gooden architectural agency on the single instance edit account, talk (Huff + Gooden user page not created yet) with most of the article written as an advertising. Even the opening lead created the article context around the fact it's an agency article, not even about the professor at all. scope_creep talk 00:24 05 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Your point is?, Millions of SPA's & PR firms create articles and millions are improved to Wikipedia standards, We're an encyclopedia and so should cover anything and everyting within reason. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it's subverting the idea of Wikipedia. I think if that article was compressed down to the sum of Mario Gooden's content, within 4-6 months, the article would be back to what it is now. scope_creep talk 00:49 05 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the Best and for the Onion[edit]

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

Not seeing any evidence that this meets notability. The sources really don't do much to establish notability. United States Man (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Africa Movie Academy Awards are stated to be Africa's highest film honour, If so, this film would seem to meet WP:NFILMS#Other_evidence_of_notability criterion "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." I should also point out, as stated at Wikipedia:WikiAfrica, that the continent is woefully under-represented here on Wikipedia and if there is any leeway at all, I believe we should be improving African content, rather than deleting it. I have been trying to do so with other African doc stub articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shawn in Montreal's reasoning. Also, the original title is "Pour le meilleur et pour l'oignon" suggesting that a more thorough search of french language sources may help. See, e.g. Les cinémas d'Afrique des années 2000: Perspectives critiques, page 305 [25]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good find. I've also added a French WP:RS, from a Nigerien magazine called Fofo Magazine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Original French:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S.Alam Group of Industries[edit]

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

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 companies and organizations, and qualifies for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia deletion policy for failing notability. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concern has been addressed. Withdrawing nomination and closing afd as speedy keep. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:51, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Anthony Archuleta Case[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP is not a news broadcaster Mr. Guye (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. There is no indication of long term notability either Gbawden (talk) 10:27, 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 deckertalk 02:03, 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 oposed 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 per WP:SNOW. This is a hoax, and/or a non-notable compound, possibly fictional compound. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclomethane[edit]

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

There is no such thing as cyclomethane. The cited reference containing the word "cyclomethane" is just a typo or mistake, and obviously not a reliable source. ChemNerd (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is a mistake, a hoax, or WP:OR. (I was the one who put the hoax tag on the article).--gdfusion (talk|contrib) 02:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following is a response to a question that has since been removed:
The sentence about quantum effects is nonsense as written. ChemNerd (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speedily as possible Nothing but a HOAX. Carbene?--180.172.239.231 (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nomenclature is used in at least a few noteworthy cases: [31], [32] Don't be so quick to declare hoax. Fryedk (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of those uses of the term are clearly simple mistakes. One refers to cyclomethane as a chlorinated solvent, which contradicts the content of the article (and contradicts the chemical name). The other example is in a list that also contains other chemical name errors (the patent is from a non-English speaking country and contains lots of language errors). ChemNerd (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either hoax or error. Cyclomethane simply does not exist. -- 101.117.110.81 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Validity of the article aside, Are there Single Purpose Accounts going on here? Two IP's with AFD as most of their vote history? Bobcats2b (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - Seems to be a hoax. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a joke. Maproom (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't think it's entirely a hoax, in that it shows up in passing in a few patents and two book hits, with nothing that explains what this is supposed to be. I get the impression that it's a mistaken name for something else; two of the book hits specifically deny that it can exist. At any rate there's no source for the claims made in the article, and frankly they sound like chemical double-talk to me. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No way, Jose. Chipka (talk) 14:48, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_July_31&oldid=1142628668"