Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 June	14 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Ridge Camp[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. No third party references. TheQ Editor (Talk) 22:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom. nothing notable about this subject. Nickmalik (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be unremarkable. Nothing notable. Wannabeeditor6 (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, and no obvious target for a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 20 June 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. The nomination does not present a guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion, no delete !votes are present, and commentary herein asserts that the topic is notable. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Náttfari[edit]

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

No sources have ever been added in the 5 years that this page has been up. Unless someone can source this, it looks bogus. Pollenatedweasel (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AFD isn't used for "clean up solutions", WP:FIXIT. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while the nominator isn't merely asking that the article be cleaned up, but is actually doubting its authenticity, WP:BEFORE applies; the legend of Náttfari appears in hundreds of source after one Google search (for an accessible source, see this 1911 book). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes notability guidelines by a long chalk. I have added one reference but there are many more out there. The nom should remember that the requirement is not that sources are cited in the article, only that they exist. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely passes WP:GNG by a long chalk per Philg88. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 14 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Windmill Factory[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable organization. I'm unable to find any sources that cover the subject in depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 20:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Seems more promotional if I'm honest, Anyway clearly no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. No reliable independent sources found via Google Search. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 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. Delete All j⚛e decker ^talk 06:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aakash Thapa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Mas y mas (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail NFOOTY and GNG:

Keep all - These players participate in a tournament (2014 AFC U-16 Championship) that serves as a qualifying route to the 2015 FIFA U-17 World Cup. There is no issue on notability. Nevertheless, the article needs expanding (hence the stub status). See Category:Under-17 association football, there seems to be clear consensus from the large number of articles that teams competing at that level in this age group are inherently notable. Ayoopdog (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - None of these players have played in a fully pro league or for the Nepalese senior national team, meaning all of them fail WP:NFOOTBALL which explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notability. Additionally, none of them have received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non notable players - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER:"Deletionists rule Wikipedia. Ironically, they're constrained by print-era thinking. What harm does it do if an online reference has a long tail of articles that are only interesting to a few people, so long as everyone can still find whatever they're looking for? There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica" - Paul Graham (computer programmer). Ayoopdog (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to say "I'm not a fucking deletionist" ... But somehow as of today I've made - Keep votes: 95 (20.1%) / Delete votes: 309 (65.3%) - So really I dont have a leg to stand on with that comment!, As for the notability thing - I vote on guidelines, Not what I like and what I dont. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember that they are just that; guidelines. Just as FIFA isn't the sole controller of all things football, all football related content shouldn't be aggressively pushed to fit Wikiproject Football's guides. They do not control all football content on Wikipedia. They are just a small community that generates guides. Many people forget this. Ayoopdog (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - youth international players are not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL, and all appear to also fail WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all They fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, as per nom., Sir Sputnik and others. --Bejnar (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - a list of players who have not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fail WP:NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garner significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either for any one of them. Fenix down (talk)

Delete all as per above. General problem is some guideline saying that if such and such a player participated in such and such a level contest, or played at such and such a level, they're automatically notable; I have problems with this type of logic, since the real underlying guideline should be the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 20 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central square Leeds[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Subject appears to fail both GNG and GEOFEAT. No sources are cited. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Not even built yet which likely explains why it fails. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The site has been a hole in the ground since 2005, so glad to see the hole is being filled, it has only taken 9 years! Used to live down the road and missus worked opposite the hole. Nothing notable about this building unless you want to count hole filling. Szzuk (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability at this time; maybe after it opens it will get some coverage. Not a good candidate for redirect; the article isn't even titled correctly (needs capital S). Better to blow it up now, and start over if it becomes notable later.--MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Angry Birds characters. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red (Angry Birds)[edit]

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

Failure to meet WP:GNG: No significant coverage by reliable, independent sources distinct from the franchise as a whole. Angry Birds Wiki and other fan sites referenced are where this article belongs, not Wikipedia. This should be merged to List of Angry Birds characters. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Angry Birds characters, fails GNG, and two refs are from wikis. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I would like to note, however, that an AfD nomination is really not the best place to propose a merge. If we get a consensus to merge, then that's fine and we can go ahead with it, but as far as I know AfD nominations are meant to argue for deletion. (I recalll reading somewhere that merges should be discussed on talk pages, but I'm not sure.) CtP (t • c) 20:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder; I'll keep that in mind. I do tend to notice, however, that some merge proposals can last for weeks or months with no action or dialogue. Maybe in such cases a bold merge is in order! --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you think a merge or redirect is uncontroversial, you can boldly do it yourself without discussion. If in doubt, discuss. And, yes, this AfD could technically be speedily closed because you have not argued explicitly for deletion. In the spirit of WP:IAR, I prefer to keep these sorts of discussions open, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I have also witnessed merge proposals go untouched for long periods of time. You're right that a bold merge would be necessary in those cases. CtP (t • c) 15:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once this AfD has run its course, I don't think anyone could object to a bold merge. Whoever does it can always refer back to this discussion, which will be templated on the talk page, should the need arise. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Angry Birds characters. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Angry Birds characters. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:57, 15 June 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) 23:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems sensible. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notable, well written. Even if its small in amount, the subject still got some importance. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Red is not notable enough; however the content can be added to the list of AB characters. The Red article can redirect to the list.Frmorrison (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: Future Cast[edit]

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

No such film with this title has been announced, much too soon for a 2018 film anyways BOVINEBOY2008 17:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF. Maybe worth mentioning in a footnote on the article about the franchise, but nothing to support this film will exist. Yet. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nomination says all there is to say. Once references emerge it can be recreated. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per policy and guidelines mentioned above. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment A duplicate entry of this article was created at Untitled X-Men: Apocalypse Sequel, and subsequently marked for AFD. Due to this page being a literal copy the comments on the other AFD may be relevant for this AFD as well. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and recreate as a redirect. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand M. Amante, Jr.[edit]

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

Delete, mior politician article highly promotional in my opinion would require a rewrite to make it encyclopeadic Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do usually allow articles about mayors of cities the size of Butuan — but those articles have to be properly sourced, which this isn't, and they have to be much better written than this fairly blatant campaign brochure. Delete, without prejudice against future recreation if somebody can write a good version. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Normally, this would pass WP:POLOUTCOMES, as he is a mayor of a city of 300,000, which is also a regional market center. However, the article needs more work than ordinary editing would suffice. My knowledge of Philippines politics is limited to what my partner tells me, or I read online, so I would not be the best candidate to rescue this one. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors and vice mayors of Butuan. This confirms that he is mayor; nothing else in the article is sufficiently verified to remain here, even if it is considered that he passes WP:POLITICIAN. The article reads like a political pamphlet and smells like a copyvio, though I couldn't find anything online. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to List of mayors and vice mayors of Butuan, without prejudice against an independent article in the future with sources. While normally, mayors of cities the size of Butuan are considered notable, there isn't enough sources about him. Note that generally, coverage on non-Manila or non-Cebu Philippine politics is rather limited, especially online, though language is not a problem since most Philippine online media is in English. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Terrinha[edit]

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

On notability grounds. Could possible pass notability if he was as claimed BJJ world champion but I can not find anything to back that up including available lists World Jiu-Jitsu Championship and World Nogi Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Championship Peter Rehse (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced world championship claims. IBJJF results are for older divisions and not world events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.212.162.5 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Claim to BJJ World Champion (2000), is not IBJJF. --Bejnar (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (Non-admin closure). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adhik Shirodkar[edit]

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

This entire article is clearly a copyright violation, as it is copied and pasted from the official obituary published by the Rajya Sabha, India's upper house of parliament (language such as "Shri Adhik Shirodkar represented the State of Maharashtra in this House" is a dead giveaway). The official obituary is not available online so the article was rejected for speedy deletion. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per changes made by User:Soman. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rajya Sabha members pass WP:POLITICIAN. Would be extremely easy to rewrite to remove the copyvio. --Soman (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I have rewritten the article now, so I'd ask that the nomination be withdraw. As a general comment, I'd say that it takes about the same time to do a quick rewrite as to launch a AfD. --Soman (talk) 16:29, 13 June 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) 02:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community Network Projects[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability of this charity. The only reference is to their charity registration, which is WP:ROUTINE coverage. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources now added to the article to establish notability these include National Health Services (NHS), The Express newspaper and the Phone Co-Op part of the Co-operative Group. The charity was established with a name back in 1990 which has become words in increasingly common and in popular use. This is one of the reasons I believe they need an identify and presence on Wikipedia. I can add further relevant content and improve in time, but request this is not deleted for the above reasons. Craig Barnshaw (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: probably a bit premature. This article was created by a first-time editor at the Barclays Editathon, who is just getting to grips with what we require for notability. There is now a reference to a Sunday Express article where the CE of Community Network comments on social isolation and the article name-checks the Community Network website and phone contact at the end. Community Network gets a brief paragraph in the NHS "Loneliness in older people" article. There's also an article in charitydigitalnews.co.uk about Community Network's tie-in with The Phone Co-op. It's possibly still short of the significant coverage we ask for, but it's looking like waiting a day for the original author to add the extra references has improved the article substantially. --RexxS (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has improved and notability getting established, per RexxS and Craig Barnshaw. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The charity supports a number of other charities as a key enabler, I will continue to add sources. I was keen to publish my first entry, in retrospect more time should have been spent on draft. Have now added further source and links for Seaman's Hospital Society and Seafarers UK. I have also found links to UK Gov sites e.g. http://www.dumgal.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=9786&p=0 but need to complete research before adding. Craig Barnshaw (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are notable $AHLM13$ talk 11:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (Non-admin closure). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mystery of Dante[edit]

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

Non-notable film per WP:NFILM. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per added sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a bunch of coverage in Italian sources (under its original title Il mistero di Dante), eg. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Cavarrone 06:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cavarrone is quite correct:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep per multiple available Italian-language sources showing topic notability. I would urge the nominator to withdraw. While the article as first nominated was stubby, it need not remain so. Topic notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not upon their being used to cite a BRAND NEW ARTICLE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Sure, it's one thing for me to simply use a little RESEARCH and then declare a topic as notable, its a different animal to actually show it though regular editing. However, I do not understand how any diligent WP:BEFORE could have led to the erroneous conclusion that this topic did not meet WP:NF. The meager stub first brought to AFD as non-notable WAS improvable, and so has been markedly expanded and sourced. Yes, the sources are all in Italian, but that does not matter for where film notability is concerned. What does matter for determining topic notability, even for unsourced stubs, is WP:NRVE. Might the nominator consider withdrawing his easily dis-proven determination of non-notability? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:22, 14 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ali f awada[edit]

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

Nice 17-year-old kid who's been in self-produced short films and one commercial. Just enough significance asserted to avoid CSD, but clearly non-notable. TransporterMan (TALK) 14:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Written by Ali himself. I couldn't find any sources (reliable or otherwise) on the internet besides the self-published ones linked to in the article. Subject simply doesn't warrant an article. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent references found. Article also appears as the creator's user page, where it has already been speedied there three times per WP:CSD#U5 (blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host). --Finngall ^talk 15:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 5 times until the user page was salted and now he's taken to posting it on his talk page where it has also now been reverted several times, sans clue. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Written for self-promotion. Cowlibob (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional bollox that serves no purpose here!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can not find any independent secondary sources that discuss the subject or his work... he is not notable enough for an article at this point in his career. And the fact that the article was written by the subject himself makes it overly self-promotion. If and when independent secondary sources do start to discuss the subject and his work, I would have no objection to someone else (not the subject himself) recreating the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and as above. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:CREATIVE. --Bejnar (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 19 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Mac[edit]

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

Biography of a living person with no evidence of notability. Only provided sources are subject's own web site and IMDb listing. Prod-blp tag removed by article creator without explanation or improvement. --Finngall ^talk 14:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After some searching, I found some sources ([10][11][12][13][14][15]). However, most of them (except for #3) may not pass WP:V.

Additionally, subject doesn't seem notable per WP:FILMMAKER. Even if those sources were implemented, this would still be an issue, so I'm leaning toward delete.—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked the trade papers, Hollywood Reporter and Dramalogue and found nothing. What is there seems self-promotional. No RS. Fails WP:GNG/WP:FILMMAKER. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG fails WP:CREATIVE. I did find this page, hard to tell if it might be independent, doesn't look it, it says it's a showcase site. --Bejnar (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Calling[edit]

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

Non-nontable installment in book series, doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BOOK. I see that the article on the series is effectively unsourced, with only one self-published ref.TheLongTone (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BOOK. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German Inland Waterways Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. my search under its German name reveals listings in tourist directories etc. in gbooks just includes mentions in travel books, nothing about museum history or uniqueness etc LibStar (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The multiple listings in major travel books attest to the significance of the museum (for example, the Michelin Green Guide listing that calls it "one of the country's largest" [16]). I would think that's enough to show notability, but in this case we also have content about this landmark building and how it was converted from a public swimming facility into a museum, from multiple sources including the de:Museum für Architektur und Ingenieurkunst NRW [17] and the state-funded architecture website de:baukunst-nrw [18]. In my view, notability is conclusively established. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NGO. —Kusma (t·c) 15:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep neither history nor uniqueness are part of WP:ORG. StarM 20:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NGO/WP:GNG. It's in travel guides like Lonely Planet. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:27, 15 June 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 California Collegiate League. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conejo Oaks[edit]

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

An amateur baseball team. Unsourced, and no obvious good coverage in sources out there. I declined a CSD because the article claimed to have one notable player passed through its ranks. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Not notable in itself, but could be Redirected to California Collegiate League. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. I like to keep sports teams when possible, so I checked L.A. Times sports pages, nothing there. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scrum in Marketing Department[edit]

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

Two recent articles that take a notable topic with an existing article, Scrum (software development) and then fill it with a badly written and unsourced pile of OR blather. Neither of these justify their presence here. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom as unreferenced original research. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as minimally intelligible conslutant[sic]-speak. --Finngall ^talk 22:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:35, 15 June 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-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arsho[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for films. There is no coverage in reliable sources. The sources provided in article are blogs/forums/facebook. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Arsho

Keep Sorry nominator, but addressable article issues aside, the film HAS been released and IS getting coverage in reliable sources. WP:NF is met. What is needed is editorial attention, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing toward that. I did google search before nominating and indeed did not get any proper sources. I should have used Tito's tool. I have analyzed sources pointed out by you. Only one newspaper (the tribune) has published about 4 news items, which will be regarded as single source for the purpose of notability. One others HindustanTimes only has photos (no articles), I don't think that can be taken as sign of notability. Photos are easily published in online version of the newspaper. In case of 2 others FirstPost and Times of India word "Arsho" is used in totally other context and has no relation to the subject. So this film does not have coverage in multiple sources, and I will go with Delete.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 12:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the film was only just released, and is already gaining positive response, I believe that more coverage will be in the offing, not less. Toward addressing the addressable, poor sources have been removed from the article and it is currently being expanded and sourced with far better ones, as well as being tagged for editorial attention... I would think this a far better way to deal with new articles on arguably notable topics than is deletion. Of course, one must be careful when stating that multiple articles in the area's one major news source should be counted as only one news source. We do not expect Punjabi language film to be covered in New York Times or Variety, and while I do not have the ability to find the expected non-English coverage, I will still contend that film notability has been established. See WP:HANDLE, WP:WIP, WP:IMPROVE, WP:IMPERFECT, and WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. I could find some Punjabi sources in local newspapers. It is better I withdraw the nomination. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:02, 15 June 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 copyvio, article was tagged as such but tag was deleted by article creator. Copyvio was not removed though. Fram (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lost-n-Found Youth[edit]

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

Lacks WP:N, only source is a local newspaper article like nearly every organisation will have. Article is created as part of a promo drive, which is often a bad idea, and which is reflected in the article which is borderline advertising. Fram (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Royal Family Order. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Family Orders of Sweden[edit]

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

Unofficial order, without reliable independent sources which give it significant attention. Article claims "The order is more of a personal memento rather than a state decoration. The only way to know who has been given it is to see the recipient wear it." So, basically, this is a piece of decorative jewellery which has significance inside the royal family, but not outside of it.

The sources in the article are the website of the royal family, not an independent source. Article seems to be filled with WP:OR like "Queen Silvia's decoration may be regarded as the most prestigious,as her portrait frame has more detailing on it.", or "it might be assumed that..." Fram (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While it is true, that it is almost never officially announced that it has been given, The Royal Family only wears it to what they think is an important event. Notice that in plain, everyday photos, they don't wear it. The only Royal who has been photographed wearing hers more often than that is Queen Sonja of Norway. And it DOES have history. See the history section. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the only reason people think it is unimportant, is because it is unannounced but fashion editors often take note of whether or not they are wearing it. It is also worn on the same blue ribbon as the Royal Order of the Seraphim. It is very often worn with other orders.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That UK article is also created by you, and also completely lacks reliable independent sources. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is always a bad argument to keep articles, but especially so in this case... Fram (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge: ~~No sources available anywhere (already cited or otherwise), besides pictures of them wearing it at events, so fails notability.—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)~~ Merge with Royal Family Order. Don't know how I missed that idea earlier, but it makes a lot more sense —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge with Royal Family Order in the Sweden section. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One source is almost never enough to pass notability. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What do you mean by not notable? Can you specify? I think the history aspect of it is notable. That is exactly why the British ones are notable, because of their history: Royal Family Order of King George IV.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can specify on Davey's behalf: Compare the sources on the King George article to the sources on this one. George's article has two sources that specifically discuss the subject. This article has one source that might mention the subject (I'm not entirely sure, although it's probably shown in the pictures), another source just like it (listed 3 times), a dead link to some museum, and a pdf that, if Google translate serves me well, has nothing to do with the subject. Also, as has been said before, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an acceptable argument.—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Thoms is bang on (Cheers Lucas) - We need sources that go more in depth not just "barely mentions" and images". –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE to Royal Family Order - I have no idea how I missed that but Merging makes much more sense. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I get the feeling the there is a lot of bias here. I know why people would decide that this topic is not notable enough to deserve an article- that seems to be the case here. But because of the bias, no one has even mentioned a merge with an existing article.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hipposcrashed. The Swedish royal orders might not be as well known as the British (so fail WP:GNG), but they are a real thing, merging might be a good solution. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have you seen the Swedish version of this article? I'm not fluent in Swedish but it looks much worse than this article. There is less information and also there are unreasonable claims.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is not notable enough for it's own article does not mean it's information can't be kept as part of another article. Of course I want to keep the article, but I would rather have it merged than deleted-it's good information. In my opinion, it's not the best article but it's not exactly a bad article either-I've seen worse.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What bias do we have? —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you see is that it is not notable and you want to delete it because of that. But none of you have suggested alternatives to deleting it. Not being notable means that it can't have it's own article, but it doesn't mean it can't be kept with another existing article.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was deleted, the content could be integrated into whatever relevant article you want (and by the way, if we're asked to make a choice, and we make it, it's not "bias," it's just making a choice).—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Royal Family Order. Not sufficiently notable for standalone article.--Staberinde (talk) 17:55, 19 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Centre[edit]

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

NN 410,264 sq. ft. mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources have been added to the article to note the history of the mall and its site predating the mall's construction and Hudson Bay's arrival at the mall. Creativity-II (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Creativity-II's additions, IMHO It could do with more sources but that can be fixed any day. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... you may want to look closely at the "sources". There are two primary sources (which don't count towards notability), and three non-RSs (a blog and another non-RS). Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only as you see them. You discount them as sources because you don't think they matter (based on dubious claims of "non-notability"), but the sources listed are relevant toward documenting the Bay Centre's history. Creativity-II (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically:

ref 1) The website of the mall. Primary sources that are not independent of the subject do not count at all towards notability. The topic has to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Sources" should be secondary sources. This is quite clear in wp:GNG, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article.... "Sources" ... should be secondary sources."

ref 2) A blog, in victoriavision.blogspot.ca. Blogs are non-RSs, that do not count at all towards notability.

ref 3) A blog non-RS, vibrantvictoria.ca/forum, and one that has no substance in it. Non-RSs do not count towards notability.

ref 4) The blog non-RS Vibrant Victoria again.

ref 5) "Our History," a primary source rather than a third-party independent RS. "Sources" should be secondary sources. And look what it says about the mall -- nothing but one sentence mentioning a store in the mall. Certainly not GNG "significant coverage".

Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete (see below): ~~PRODed for lack of sources; sources have been added. Looks like it's on its way to being fixed. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

After spending an hour (literally) looking for valid sources for this article, I am deciding to change my recommendation. There is maybe one source available, although it doesn't cover most of the material in the article. It appears that, while the subject appears to actually be very important, it is not important enough for independent sources, which means it is not important enough for Wikipedia. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Withdrawing my opinion; I'm not familiar enough with notability guidelines to have a valuable opinion on this issue. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please take a look at the above, and consider that "on it's way to being fixed" is short of being there. Which is what we need to demonstrate notability -- the test at AfD. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One can look at the size of this mall, over 400,000 sq ft, and know that it is a regional mall, which based on the U.S. standards of icsc.org [19], mark it in the top 2% of centers. Regional malls impact a wide area and also tend to be venues, so wp:notability won't be a policy-based criteria for deletion...as indicated by WP:ATD, a non-notable but wp:prominent topic should be a redirect, in this case with the template "R with possibilities". In this case, I didn't quickly find a source when I looked at Google books for "Bay Centre", but I found sources on the first page of a Google books search for "Victoria Eaton Centre". Sources do not have to be listed in the article to support WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus, as reflected in the recent discussion here, is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below (at least) 500K square feet, which this is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a post on your talk page earlier today, and you whisked it away without a comment, and now you want to reply to me? Since I did not say anything about WP:OUTCOMES, your reply is a non-sequitur. And your theory of "consensus" at that discussion is not metrics based. But the zinger is that there is no difference between the concept of redirecting non-notable topics and not "retain[ing] stand-alone articles" in certain circumstances. However, the implied theory that we should redirect this topic because it is smaller than 500,000 sq ft is not policy-based. Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment began with a discussion of the size of the mall, and your view of its import vis-a-vis AfD. My comment replied to that, pointing to a consensus discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls" on the subject of malls of this size. Editors and the closer can all read that discussion for themselves. I recognize that your view differed from that of a number of editors. Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, you want to deflect attention from my operationally defined !vote to a fractured discussion; where you now allege to have found a "consensus"; in which, as best I can tell, the only 3 "outcomes" reported there showed the keeping of malls smaller than 500k. But you don't want to talk about the source at Columbia Mall, where you stated that the source "is non-substantial and run-of-the-mill. Dramatically so.", diff. Unscintillating (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can read the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", and make their own conclusions as to the consensus there ... and how it bears on your assertions. Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are back for some more, but you haven't said anything new. My !vote stands. Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Yes, it has been verified as extant. --Bejnar (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is plenty of coverage in reliable third-party sources, in particular (not surprisingly, I would think) in the Times Colonist. "Passport office secures mall space", "Bay Centre to offer top-floor office space", "Bay Centre exterior getting major upgrade" and off-line sources such as "Victoria retail sales showing strong rise: Bay Centre businesses experienced double-digit growth for most of 2007", Wilson, Carla. Times - Colonist, 27 May 2008: B1; "Victoria's Bay Centre unveils electric car chargers in parkade", Denton, Don. Victoria News, 4 July 2013; "Bay Centre sold to U.S. company: City landmark estimated to have fetched at least $90 million", Kloster, Darron. Times - Colonist, 14 May 2010: A1; "Eatons: cross-country renovation (Toronto Eaton Centre; Pacific Centre; Calgary Eaton Centre; Polo Park; Victoria Eaton Centre; Rideau Centre; Yorkdale Shopping Centre)", Brunet, Robin. Award Magazine: Architecture, Construction, Interior Design 15.1 (Feb 2001): 59. And so on. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this all run-of-the mill stuff you would see in regard to any non-notable mall? City paper says the passport office is in the mall, that space is available for rent, that its outside is getting a fix-up, and the like? Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are looking for, then. This is the kind of stuff that gets written about malls. Non-notable malls, per Wikipedia guidelines, don't get multiple newspaper and magazine articles written about them. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't they? I don't tend to think that a mall well below the wp:outlines 500K mark is notable simply because local city papers say the mall got the passport office to rent space, is fixing up its outside, and has space available for rent. That's not substantial coverage, but rather trivial coverage. The sort of coverage that would qualify a mall as notable would be coverage that indicates that it is a large mall (e.g., the largest mall in the province, or over 800K sq ft), or the oldest mall in the province, or the mall is unique in some fashion. And the coverage should be substantial coverage by media outside the local city (The source's audience must also be considered. Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability).

Offering up an article on the fact that the mall's exterior is being painted, and its washrooms are being spruced up, as indicia of notability seems like somewhat of a stretch. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per Paul Erik's commentary.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:34, 19 June 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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasnain Hyderabadwala[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable per filmaker guidelines. No sources found outside of Facebook, IMDB etc - none of them reliable. Philg88 ^♦talk 11:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 5 June 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 05:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:FILMMAKER. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:45, 15 June 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 Holbeach#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Stukeley Church of England Primary School[edit]

William Stukeley Church of England Primary School (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, of students ages 4-11. I cannot see any special indicia of notability; in such circumstances, we generally do not keep such articles as stand-alone articles. Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Holbeach#Education, where the school is already mentioned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Holbeach#Education per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable school. We generally do not delete such articles, per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how is it notable school? WP:PRESERVE gives no inherent notability to primary schools. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What LibStar says -- Andrew, at these primary schools you have repeatedly just made a statement that appears to be wrong. Epeefleche (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My position is supported by both policy and evidence. Your position seems to rest upon nothing so substantial. Andrew (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? What evidence? Contra, see wp:outlines. As well as the other editors' comments here. And the other editors disagreeing with your bald assertion at the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clementi Primary School (2nd nomination). And at the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicorn Primary School. Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. And evidence of WP:SIGCOV such as the BBC and Ofsted. And you've got what? wp:outlines !? That doesn't make any sense. Andrew (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the complete weakness of these sources has been discussed here User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#Primary_school_AfDs. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, if you are so correct in applying guidelines why has no one else voted keep here? LibStar (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, please read the posts by all the other editors at this AfD and the other primary schools AfDs that are ongoing where you have participated. And what they refer to. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew - Please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Each and every keep you make is generally a waste of time in regards to school afds. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay which has no particular force at AFD. It purports to track the outcomes and so, by definition, it follows the debate rather than leading it. In any case, it does not suggest we delete schools and so the repeated bringing of such pages here for deletion is the waste of time. If people think that such pages should be merged or redirected then they can do this by means of ordinary editing and spare us these vexatious discussions. But if discussions are started then you must expect me to contribute to them - this is the point of having them - they are not rubber stamps. Andrew (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree there I'd say it does lead it, I totally agree everyone should just merge/redirect - Problem is and It's happened to me - Anyone that does a merge/redirect is reverted by a trigger-happy editor and so a discussion is just an easier process in that respect, Again I totally understand we all have our own opinions (It would be bloody boring if we were the same!) but I suppose some aren't necessary if you like ...., What I'm saying is you should vote Keep for those honestly worth keeping :), –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew -- We can expect you not to contribute continually with what appears to be an unsupported falsehood at these AfDs, saying "Keep ... [on the basis that] We generally do not delete such articles". We don't generally keep such articles; please see all editor reactions to your comments at this and other AfDs, and what they point to.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posed reference to this and other parallel discussions at the Outlines talk page here, asking for comment. Epeefleche (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no inherent notability to primary schools, the one does not meet WP:ORG, LibStar (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Holbeach#Education per nom and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge and Redirect to Holbeach#Education - the current single paragraph that makes up the article is a perfect addition for the locality article. Non-notable. school outcomes etc Atlas-maker (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Holbeach#Education. School isn't notable on its own, (and likely won't ever be unless Prince George goes there), but at least this way we can keep it in some form. I don't like deleting schools if we can avoid it. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is nothing merge-able, as it is all uncited (and challenged). If someone wants to create proper content at a target, and redirect, I have no problem with that however. Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD for all but the most exceptionally noteworthy elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruu Campbell[edit]

Ruu Campbell (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)

Created while there was a duplicated AfC submission waiting review, I've been unable to find multiple, independent, reliable sources which provide signficant coverage as needed to evidence notability under WP:BASIC, nor is there evidence of notability under WP:NMUSIC. Additional sources welcomed as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Musician with no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:59, 15 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katariina Pantila[edit]

Katariina Pantila (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)

A rank-and-file criminal. No evidence of particular notability beyond some naturally expected splsh in the news. Otherwise no lasting impact on civilization, culture, or law. -No.Altenmann >t 05:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PERP. Run of the mill killer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:CRIME. It is a rare crime in Scandinavia. and therefor not a run of the mill killer.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 13 June 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 Buchla Electronic Musical Instruments. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buchla 200e[edit]

Buchla 200e (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)

Individual product out of the larger line is not notable enough to have its own page, I don't think. At most it should be merged with Buchla Electronic Musical Instruments or Buchla 200 series Electric Music Box (which itself probably needs some cleanup, since it too is a laundry list of modules) rahaeli (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Buchla is one of the oldest modular synthesizer family (older than Moog synthesizer), and its sound synthesis mechanism is rather different than these on typical analog synthesizer. Buchla mainly takes an approach to modulate sound generators using a forerunner of FM synthesis technique and world first music sequencer products, etc., instead of subtractive synthesis-centric approach seen on typical analog synthesizers.

Especially Buchla 200e article have a worth to keep, because it is a most advanced form of Buchla's idea so that many sound synthesis ideas are seen on its modules (i.e. highly educational), and also it is current product so many electronic musicians play it. Sadly since 2012, most part of article seems continuously deleted by new users with relatively short contributions. I think these removed part should be recovered in several appropriate form. --Clusternote (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage in reliable, independent sources can be furnished which back up the claims of notability made by Clusternote. The article is now unreferenced, and those claims need to be verifiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Buchla Electronic Musical Instruments per nom. One article can carry the topic just fine, and individual products are not independently notable. --Bejnar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 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) 02:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira Woodruff[edit]

Elvira Woodruff (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 only reference given in this article is a link to a public library site that provides such information on countless authors simply because they are authors. An additional search of Internet databases indicates that she has indeed published several children's books, but none of them have received any professional accolades. A search on her name results in hits having to do with book sales and with promoting her work, not with discussing it secondarily or critically (i.e., they fail independence). From what I have been able to determine, she does not meet the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. KDS4444^Talk 07:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination, fails WP:AUTHOR.TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Reconsidered.TheLongTone (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Woodruff has ten Kirkus Reviews spanning 1991 to 2006, the first 10 of 12 listings at search results, page one. (The last two and all of page two are other Woodruffs.) She has one starred review of The Christmas Doll (2000).[20] --P64 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the Kirkus Reviews she has a dozen or so reviews at Publishers Weekly[21] and other reviews from places like Library Journal and Booklist [22] - the sheer number is enough for AUTHOR which requires "reviews", not "professional accolades" or "critical" (ie. negative) reviews. -- GreenC 19:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous reviews at Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews suggest she exceeds Wikipedia's guideline for authors. Her book about Washington's socks sold over 1 million copies. Several newspaper articles solely about her. Revamped article. Meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her works are featured in several books about children's books. I've added two more citations to the article. --Bejnar (talk) 00:39, 18 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nascot Wood[edit]

Nascot Wood (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 a specific place, but is just Estate Agents' jargon. The information is written as an essay and the useful content is taken from Watford's article, and is therefore redundant. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- The content is not in the Watford article. I am not convinced that some of the content is correct: there probably once was a wood. However the area exists and is appratnetly adequately defined, as well as being a ward. My concern is whether the area is big enough to justify haveing an article, and I do not know enough to be able to tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a named geographical feature and human habitation. As Wikipedia includes a gazeteer, we don't delete such. Andrew (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rename it to Nascot. Nascot was a separate village, and now a designated conservation area. user:Tamas Jasko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.171.234 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 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. This is unconventional, but I will close this as a soft deletion. The PROD was contested as the first and only edit of a new user, and although I do not wish to dismiss them entirely, I am willing to believe they may have been unfamiliar with our notability policies. Since there are no other arguments to keep after a reasonable period of time at AfD, I use my discretion to judge that the deletion rationale (in the PROD+AfD) is sound and valid. No prejudice against speedy undeletion and relisting. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Chaos[edit]

Silver Chaos (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 video game lacking reliable sources since page creation in 2004. Proposed deletion was declined. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 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. Apparent test page? Wily D 09:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avishkar khadka[edit]

Avishkar khadka (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)

Wikipedia is not wikimedia Mr. Guye (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A3 and tagged as such. Not a notable person anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:49, 13 June 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 Deleted by Mike Rosoft - "deleted page Azhar Sabri (Link to Wikiquote page (actually a misplaced article), itself nominated for deletion)" (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that there was a real article in the page history. But it was solely sourced to a press release, and to the author's poems themselves; it fails to establish notability, and is a nearly identical re-creation after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azhar Sabri. I have also indefinitely protected this page, and every other title under which the page was created in the past that I could locate. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Sabri[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Azhar Sabri

Articles for deletion/Azhar Sabri.

Articles for deletion/Azhar Sabri (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Azhar Sabri (3rd nomination)

Azhar Sabri (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)

Advertisement with little coverage. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, recreation of Azhar Sabri (writer) and Azhar Sabri(poet). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure)--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guangdong Xinyi Middle School[edit]

Guangdong Xinyi Middle School (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 notable middle school. Middle schools are generally not notable, and the article already sounds like an advertisement Novato 123chess456 (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1) If you look at Category:Middle schools and its subcats, you will see that there are many middle schools that have been found notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. 2) Any school with a 115 acre campus and 100 classrooms is probably notable. By Western standards, this is probably more like a small college. 3) Note also that "middle school" in this case may not mean exactly the same thing we mean in the West, since the school includes "kindergarten, primary school, middle school and high school". 4) I found nothing here that struck me as purely promotional or as advertising. I doubt the Chinese educational authorities are seeking additional students via the creation of Wikipedia articles. 5) The article needs work (mainly due to language and MOS issues) and better refs, but it is encyclopedic and has significant potential. It should be given time to develop. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Despite the school's name, the article claims it teaches K through high school. We keep high schools, but I can't read Chinese-langage references to verify. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as the first middle school in Guangdong and a national-level model high school. Has adequate coverage in reliable sources: e.g. Xinyi Education Bureau (i.e. has government oversight) and China Higher Education Student Information and Career Center, which is part of the central Ministry of Education. I've translated a couple of the references for clarity and cleaned up the lede a bit. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the western connotations of its name, this is a degree-awarding secondary school, and consensus is to keep articles about secondary schools. Especially those as massive and historic as this one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as secondary/high schools are notable, Also there's nothing promotional about it... –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw After noticing that this is effectively a high school, even though the name states that it is a Middle School (plus the text was confusing when originally made), I rescind my nomination. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 20:13, 13 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go Bongo[edit]

Go Bongo (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-verifiable, and not notable television program. I can't find any references to it. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find any coverage for - or even verify the existence of - this program. Gongshow talk 04:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a probable hoax. I can find no trace of this series in my usually comprehensive sources. - Dravecky (talk) 07:35, 16 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2001 White House shooting[edit]

2001 White House shooting (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 was a minor shooting with no fatalities or serious injuries and the suspect was quickly apprehended, served only three years in prison without a major trial, and has not been heard from since his release. I removed this template from the article because there was no evidence that this was actually an assassination attempt on then President George W. Bush. This incident does not meet our WP:EVENTS criteria since it did not receive persistent, long-term coverage or caused any lasting effects or reforms to White House security, gun control, etc. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:EVENT does seem to leave a little room to argue for this article based on coverage, but in the end I am inclined to agree with the nom. The subject just doesn't seem to have had any long term impact and there is not any evidence this was an assassination attempt. Only the fact that the incident occurred in the vicinity of the White House seems to account for the short term, though significant, news coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:31, 25 May 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, Go Phightins! 18:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no lasting significance or ongoing coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing significant resulted from this shooting. No one was killed or even seriously injured, no laws were passed, no improvement in security were made, no statements were released by top level officials, ect. The entire event was a run-of-the-mill arrest for illegal discharge of a firearm somewhat complicated by the non-fatal shooting of the subject, which got a day or two of media coverage because it occurred near the White House. This is a pretty classic case of not news. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find SoE's WP:NOTNEWS argument above to be compelling. Carrite (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Eagle. Nothing to see here, move on folks. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Keep per Anarchangel's better argument. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Proposed summary of the LA Times article: "The incident came at a time when officials were considering the reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue north of the White House.-Man fires gun, LA Times- The initial closure had been in 1995, after the Oklahoma City bombing, and was made permanent after the World Trade Center bombing." Obviously the general public and in particular newspapers thought it was a big deal. No one should really have glossed over that, and the Delete votes are wrong on the strength of the newspaper coverage alone. But additionally, legislators had to consider the incident's ramifications in terms of security. This directly addresses SoE's claim of lack of significance, and in particular, the statement, "no improvements in security were made". It therefore affects both Carrite and Bearian's votes also. Anarchangel (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article simply states that "[the shooting] came at the same time officials are studying plans to reopen Pennsylvania Avenue north of the White House". Nowhere in this article nor in any other sources released during the two days of news coverage does it actually state that the shooting had an impact on the plans, only that they both occurred concurrently. Perhaps a merge somewhere would be justified, but this does not deserve its own article. Also, of course the media made a big deal out of this. They always do that when someone does something illegal near the White House. This doesn't mean that every illegal event near the White House deserves an article though. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Most of such shooting incidents get a lot of attention just after they happened, then perhaps a mention a few months later, and then it peters out. No evidence of any lasting encyclopedic notability. --Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced and neutral coverage of an event that was overshadowed by larger events later that year. This type of criminal activity adjacent to the White House is rare and should be documented.--MONGO 19:04, 10 June 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, slakr^\ talk / 02:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anarchangel & Mongo, It is somewhat minor but as noted above It is rare and we should document rare things IMHO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Wikipedia is not a newspaper and as a minor event of no lasting historical significance. Arrests for illegal weapon discharges are arguably run-of-the-mill in the US. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:42, 13 June 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. Delate all, largely via WP:NOTSTATS. Note: WT:ATA, while an essay, contains useful advice relevant to some of the arguments on which I've assigned lower weight. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 AFC Challenge Cup Group A[edit]

2014 AFC Challenge Cup Group A (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 AFC Challenge Cup is just only a minor tournament. I believe there should be no main article covering each stage except the finals and squads page. Fairy Tail Rocks 02:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am also nominating the following related pages and the past revisions of the tournament because of the reason above:

2014 AFC Challenge Cup Group B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2014 AFC Challenge Cup knockout stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012 AFC Challenge Cup Group A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012 AFC Challenge Cup Group B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012 AFC Challenge Cup Knockout stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2010 AFC Challenge Cup Group A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2010 AFC Challenge Cup Group B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2010 AFC Challenge Cup Knockout phase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fairy Tail Rocks 03:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The information is already there, it's useful information for those with an interest. There's no need for it to be merged. TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then if we do that the AFC President's Cup should have an article about the group and knockout stages. The President's Cup and Challenge Cup are just the same when it comes to the "emerging countries" in Asia, the only difference is that the President's cup is competed under clubs while the Challenge Cup is under national teams. Major tourneys like the Asian Cup, AFC Cup and AFC Champions League are qualified to deserve an article about its stages. Fairy Tail Rocks 12:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The Challenge Cup serves as part of the Asian Cup qualification. Qualification tournaments (or same level tournaments) do not deserve such detailed record. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided on the issue, but we do have separate articles for each "stage" of qualification, and if the qualification stage features a "group stage", separate articles for groups are also created. If we're using this argument, it's actually an argument for keeping the article. –H T D 13:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what's the point of having AfD? If you are talking about the FIFA World Cup qualification, of course each qualifying stage has its own article because it is very large and they are competing in one of the most prestigious tournaments in the world. I'm here to raise the issue so that the others know if they agree with me or not. Also those articles I've proposed originally were never created, one user published all of it in May 2014. Fairy Tail Rocks 14:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point was if anyone's making this "Qualification tournaments (or same level tournaments) do not deserve such detailed record" argument, it could be an argument for retention, not deletion. If you're looking at this competition solely as a qualification tournament instead of a "championship", then the best analogy would be looking if other continental cup qualification stages have their own articles. Do they? European championship qualification each have pages for each group in the first "group" round, and another for the qualifying playoffs; Asian and African championship qualification have their matches all in one page, and not split in many daughter articles. World Cup qualifying already has each stage and each group on a separate articles for all continents. –H T D 21:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because European qualifying stages like UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying are very large with nine groups playing ten times before going to the main tournament. In this case, the tournament has only two groups and a knockout stage, merging the results is the best option here. If they want more statistics of each games there is a match report under the results. Fairy Tail Rocks 08:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I need to clarify myself. I am not against a page for a group, what I am against is the details level of this page. As a qualifying-level tournament, line-ups for each match is probably excessive. If one removes the line-ups, then everything is already covered in the main article. Thus this article should be deleted. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing your reasoning, but I figured the fact that there hasn't been a separate article per group in "regular qualifying" was that this wasn't yet the norm back in 2010, at least as far as football tournament articles outside Europe are concerned. With that said, a per-match line-up truly is excessive; if the articles gonna be kept, perhaps discipline could be figured in to the match boxes, and prose, while the main articles could stick only to the scores so the reader can expect something "more" if he'd go here. –H T D 22:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as the one who started most of these articles I just want to give my opinion of why I feel these articles should be kept on Wikipedia. Correct me if I am wrong but User:FairyTailRocks, User:ArsenalFan700, and User talk:128.189.191.60's main objections are that the AFC Challenge Cup is a minor tournament that doesn't require all the detail to go into the individual stages of the tournament. My counter-argument would be that sure the AFC Challenge Cup might not be the most noticeable tournament, but it still revives plenty of attention, especially this year's edition which was the last ever edition of the tournament. Just because a few wikipedians do not find it interesting does not establish grounds to delete these articles. Sure most people haven't heard of the IRB Pacific Nations Cup, but one wikipedian took the initiative to elaborate and add more detail and line ups because there was significant sources. Secondly the fact that the AFC Challenge Cup serves as qualification for the AFC Asian Cup does not mean that the AFC Challenge Cup is not a tournament that has to meet FIFA tournament requirements and deserves the same attention tournaments deserve on Wikipedia. If you want to get REALLY technically about this detail than by the same logic we shouldn't go into detail about the AFC Asian Cup, CONCACAF Gold Cup, Copa América, OFC Nations Cup, UEFA European Championship and the FIFA World Cup just serve as qualification for the FIFA Confederations Cup. Lastly there were many websites and blogs that followed this tournament and I tried to include as many of these as sources in these articles. The match reports came from AFC's own web site and are both detailed and credible. This establishes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, which are the two main standpoints when seeing if an article pertaining to football should be deleted. I will be the first to acknowledge the fact that the AFC Challenge Cup isn't the most followed tournament on the planet, but in its five editions it has had an enormous impact in developing Asian football and thoroughly deserves the extra detail and articles that are now being nominated for deletion.Inter&anthro (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The AFC Challenge Cup is a small tournament which serves as the final and only path for qualification to the AFC Asian Cup for development countries. All this tournament deserves/needs is the page for whatever edition it is, the final match page, squad page, and a qualification page... nothing more. Squads for each match can be found in the AFC reports. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - massive WP:NOTSTATS violations. These articles detail only squad lists and results. Claims above that references to AFC website establish notability are incorrect as these are primary sources. Absolutely no sourced prose whatsoever and no indication that any of these groups garnered significant reliable coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE match reporting to warrant such a fork. Bar the squad lists, there is nothing in any of these articles that is not already covered word for word in the main 2014 AFC Challenge Cup article. Essentially WP:CRUFT. Fenix down (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that different form another type of group stage in another type of tournament? I don't see anything wrong with the sources having the lineups and stats and the page having the lineups and stats. As long as the sources are properly referenced(which they are in these articles). Are we just suppose to make this information up? If one were to look at the group stage of any of the FIFA World Cup tournaments they would find the same set of circumstances. According to this logic then the group stage of ever tournament should be deleted. While the match reports are secondary sources all the articles from the 2014 AFC Challenge Cup also include secondary sources, primarily from Maldives Soccer.com.Inter&anthro (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 18:55, 3 June 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, slakr^\ talk / 02:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all - If the stats from each match were removed, I believe there would be no reason to delete. However, there would be no reason to keep them either if the same information is already provided. Therefore, redirecting all of these articles would seem like a better idea. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

move content of player lists of each match to 2014 AFC Challenge Cup. Its a moderately sized article and if drop down boxes can be installed then if could would work well. Having previously been religious and having spent a lot of time in the "Holy land" I was pleased to find this page ... but had no interest in player lists. Gregkaye (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would still violate WP:NOTSTATS. To the above, redirecting makes no sense since the whole of these article titles will never a search term, and the "parent" article is already the shorter form that is most likely to be used. No value in it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:12, 22 June 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 Light-emitting diode#Quantum dot LEDs (experimental). The impression I get from this discussion is that this is a potentially notable technology, but that the particular discovery that is now the subject of the article is not notable. The title is therefore redirected to where the technology is already covered, without prejudice to a later recreation in a form that is about the technology as a whole. Sandstein 10:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tunable White-Light-Emitting Nanocrystals[edit]

Tunable White-Light-Emitting Nanocrystals (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 is a notable discovery - searches turn up this article and a couple of user pages Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree, this can be found with a bit differing search terms on several scientific sources. "Notable" is a very relative adjective. Must it be that "notable" to have an article?Akocsg (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you find sources that show it meets WP:GNG? Because it does have to be notable by our criteria to have an article.Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are some: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6 I'm sure there are more, but these should be enough I think.Akocsg (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' As you say, different search terms find sources which if they had been in the article would have made it look clearly notable. 2 didn't work (we wouldn't use Softpedia anyway) abut the New Scientist source and the Cambridge link I think make this AfD no longer necessary. ~~Too tired to close this properly now though, in the morning if no one beats me to it.~~ Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few secondary sources are old or dead. No evidence that the "discovery" has had any impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Ok, won't shut the AfD. Let's see how it plays out. Dougweller (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly redirect to light-emitting diode. No content worth merging - the only content in it is one sentence about a single paper. The article seems to exist just to push the "Turkish invention" angle, and a quick Google Scholar search suggests that people have been at this before Demir et al. Kolbasz (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a ridiculously notable technology for which hundreds of scholarly citations could be listed. However, it's a very deficient article, and the subject is already better covered in Light-emitting diode#Quantum dot LEDs (experimental). While WP:BEFORE says atrociousness isn't a valid basis for deletion, in this case I think common sense trumps the guidelines. Keeping a bad article, when it's likely to remain this bad for a while, when there's already good coverage elsewhere, doesn't make sense. Merging doesn't make sense because there's nothing to salvage. Redirecting doesn't make sense because the title is an arbitrary description of the technology (there is no succinct name for it), and google shows no external links to the page.

Demir's 2008 paper, the basis of some of the pop media coverage (e.g., New Scientist) cited above, shows 122 other papers cited it in Google Scholar, and a similar 2006 paper from other researchers on the same idea but with CdSe/CdS (rather than CdSe/Zn S) wavelength-upconverting nanocrystalline LED coatings shows 300 cites in Google Scholar, and that in turn was based on a breakthrough 2002 paper in Nature on narrow-band (presumably non-tunable) nanocrystal wide-spectrum QD-LEDs, which is cited by 1,837 other papers in Google Scholar. Demir's 2008 innovation was achieving higher efficiency, but built on past tunable quantum dot LED (QD-LED) research, and naturally influenced subsequent research.

Some significant references, if someone thinks the article should be kept:
Coe, Seth; Woo, Wing-Keung; Bawendi, Moungi; Bulović, Vladimir (2002). "Electroluminescence from single monolayers of nanocrystals in molecular organic devices". Nature. 420 (6917): 800–803. doi:10.1038/nature01217. ISSN 0028-0836.

Zhao, Jialong; Bardecker, Julie A.; Munro, Andrea M.; Liu, Michelle S.; Niu, Yuhua; Ding, I-Kang; Luo, Jingdong; Chen, Baoquan; Jen, Alex K.-Y.; Ginger, David S. (2006). "Efficient CdSe/CdS Quantum Dot Light-Emitting Diodes Using a Thermally Polymerized Hole Transport Layer". Nano Letters. 6 (3): 463–467. doi:10.1021/nl052417e. ISSN 1530-6984.

Nizamoglu, Sedat; Zengin, Gulis; Demir, Hilmi Volkan (2008). "Color-converting combinations of nanocrystal emitters for warm-white light generation with high color rendering index" (PDF). Applied Physics Letters. 92 (3): 031102. doi:10.1063/1.2833693. ISSN 0003-6951.

Caruge, J. M.; Halpert, J. E.; Wood, V.; Bulović, V.; Bawendi, M. G. (2008). "Colloidal quantum-dot light-emitting diodes with metal-oxide charge transport layers" (PDF). Nature Photonics. 2 (4): 247–250. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2008.34. ISSN 1749-4885.

Anikeeva, Polina O.; Halpert, Jonathan E.; Bawendi, Moungi G.; Bulović, Vladimir (2009). "Quantum Dot Light-Emitting Devices with Electroluminescence Tunable over the Entire Visible Spectrum" (PDF). Nano Letters. 9 (7): 2532–2536. doi:10.1021/nl9002969. ISSN 1530-6984.

Jang, Eunjoo; Jun, Shinae; Jang, Hyosook; Lim, Jungeun; Kim, Byungki; Kim, Younghwan (2010). "White-Light-Emitting Diodes with Quantum Dot Color Converters for Display Backlights". Advanced Materials. 22 (28): 3076–3080. doi:10.1002/adma.201000525. ISSN 0935-9648.

Lin, Chun Che; Liu, Ru-Shi (2011). "Advances in Phosphors for Light-emitting Diodes". The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. 2 (11): 1268–1277. doi:10.1021/jz2002452. ISSN 1948-7185.

--Agyle (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as reliable sources were found. Passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Mr. Guye (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Mr. Guye and others, this is about something recently discovered (Publication Date (Web): February 6, 2014) by a Professor Demir. All the sources above are surely about something else, right? Are you saying you read them and they are about "a type of nanocrystals that were first developed by a group of Turkish scientists led by Hilmi Volkan Demir at Bilkent University,"So maybe there should be an article, but not this one. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right; I made the mistake of assessing whether Tunable White-Light-Emitting Nanocrystals (the article title) was a notable topic, which it certainly is; it includes many variations published in studies by Demir and hundreds of other researchers over the past decade. However, the Wikipedia author clarifies in the opening sentence that the term is used here to refer only to a single variant, manufactured in a precise way, written about in February 2014, not tunable white-light-emitting nanocrystals in general. This article would be better titled Tunable white-light-emitting Mn-doped ZnSe nanocrystals created with Sharma, Guzelturk, Erdem, Kelestemur, and Demir's 2014-published modified nucleation doping strategy. Demir's paper was titled "Tunable White-Light-Emitting Mn-Doped ZnSe Nanocrystals", but Mn-doped ZnSe crystals have been around since at least 1990, they've been used in tunable white LEDs since at least 2007, and other nucleation doping strategies have been devised in the past; the distinction here is simply Demir's precise fabrication technique. My "delete" vote remains unchanged, but for a different reason: there is no evidence that Demir's technique is notable; no other research papers in Google Scholar cite the paper, nor does it seem to have attracted mainstream press coverage. The subject is too narrowly focused to warrant an article, and probably too obscure and unnotable to warrant even a mention in a related article. Agyle (talk) 22:51, 12 June 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, slakr^\ talk / 02:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being too new, subject t later re-creation. Turkish science and medicine is advanced; for example, their surgeons have been on the cutting edge (pardon the pun) of work on watermelon stomach. However, in this case, we need to let the scientific method do its job. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now. The New Scientist source is a good start, but it's yet to be seen if this particular technology will find wide commercial application. If these devices become important and continue to garner coverage, the article can be restored at a later date. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I am not as convinced as some about the reliability of New Scientist as a source for scientific matters. They often hype articles to make them more sensational. In the article referred to the claims of the paper seem to have been swallowed whole with little critical investigation. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 22 June 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. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charmaine (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Charmaine (musician)

Articles for deletion/Charmaine (musician) (2nd nomination)

Charmaine (musician) (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)

Previously deleted following AFD discussion. No support to keep then. Non notable singer. Article was recreated by a new user with no substantial change from the deleted article. I listed for db-repost but this was denied for reasons I don't quite understand. Same user has also recreated the articles on the singers two albums, both of which had also been deleted. Dmol (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Meets WP:GNG if not WP:MUSICBIO #1. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantic Speedy Keep - If this gets deleted, then GNG is an utter pile of rubbish because it meets all of the criteria. Her music has been significantly reviewed in reliable publications and they are independent from her as well so that means no collusion has occurred.HotHat (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Though there isn't much about the singer's life, article easily passes notability guidelines due to the coverage she has through reviews of her albums.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she definitely has enough reliable third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 15:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:MUSICBIO + WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to request a WP:SPEEDYCLOSE or a WP:SNOWCLOSE since nom has not edited since the nomination and this should really WP:WITHDRAWN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I'm not sure where these claims of plenty of coverage in reliable publications are coming from; all I see in the article is a lot of blog posts, Geocities, and something called Jesus Freak Hideout that doesn't exactly scream "reliable" to me after poking around on it for a bit. I'm not sure that all that much has changed since the last discussion resulted in a clear delete result, except that she's got a new record to promote this month. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Reviews in recognized RSes: Jesus Freak Hideout, Indie Vision Music and New Release Tuesday. I don't see a single blog post or geocities. Are you sure you're looking at the right article? As for the last delete discussion, I can't comment on it since I don't know what the sources were like then, but clearly this one has RSes. The coverage of the new record this month helps push the subject over the top in relation to GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite sure, this is used as a source to support biographical details, for instance. Are you sure you're looking at the right one? I don't see anything that I would consider a reliable source, and I think the article ought to be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Don't know how I missed that. One reference doesn't preclude the others. I've removed the Geocities link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good call Walter Görlitz, it was just some meaningless biographical information that was already confirmed by other sources.HotHat (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Like Lankiveil, I'm more than a little bemused at all these super-strong-speedy-keep votes above, since I don't see anything to warrant that kind of certainty. We only have citations of any worth from Jesus Freak Hideout, Indie Vision Music and New Release Tuesday; Walter Gorlitz above indicates that these are "recognised" RSes, but looking at them I find that a bit of a stretch. I freely admit I have no particular expertise in this area, which is why I am not !voting delete right now, but I'd appreciate a bit of clarification regarding why we're considering what seem like fairly minor, niche sites reliable. Frickeg (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian contemporary music tends to be a niche genre in terms of the overall music scene, though it sells quite well. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian music/Sources for explanations as to these and other sources.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm impressed by the depth of that source list, I am a little taken aback at the apparently very lenient criteria being used to establish a reliable source. Editorial oversight is far from the only thing necessary, especially for a BLP. For a BLP I would generally assume at least some coverage in reliable, mainstream sources. Charmaine has precisely zero coverage outside of niche Christian music websites, and for that reason I'm going to have to go with ~~delete~~ on this one. Frickeg (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frickeg There is a review of her latest album in Christianity Today, which is a "mainstream" source (unless by "mainstream" you mean "non-Christian" which is irrelevant and also unfair). Although this does not inherently infer notability for her but rather for the album, the article does talk about Charmaine herself, which can be used to support this article. Also, the same album was reviewed by HM, which I would not call mainstream but would completely satisfy reliability requirements (a print magazine until a few years ago, editorial oversight, cited in other reliable sources, etc.).--¿3family6 _contribs 18:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen the Christianity Today source. I certainly wouldn't call CT "mainstream", but it's better than the others definitely. (I'm assuming the article is longer than the "preview" I'm seeing.) It should certainly be added to the article as a source. I'd still like to see something in a more general source (a review in a non-Christian publication, for example), but there's probably enough doubt for me at least to switch to neutral, especially since there does seem to be an argument that she meets WP:MUSICBIO (another of those guidelines one inevitably finds outside one's own area of expertise that seems to have an absurdly low threshold for notability, but presumably people find the same about my areas of interest, so). Frickeg (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found some additional sources. One is a review by Christianity Today, and the other is a reprinting by Crosswalk.com of a CT review.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From reviewing the above sources and those in the article, it's clear that the subject of this article has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Given that this article falls firmly within the scope of WP:BLP, it is essential that it be referenced to high quality sources, and not amateur and niche websites. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No amateur sites listed though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sites in question have official staff and editorial oversight, and are frequently quoted or referenced in other publications such as CCM Magazine, Crosswalk.com, and HM.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Niche websites referenced by other niche websites are not the high quality sources required by WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Mainstream sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy are needed. Nick-D (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you called them "Niche", I will take that as you don't know what sources to utilized in Christian music nor probably country music. If those source knew they had no reputation for fact checking nor accuracy, then they would take it as a slap-in-the-face, yet turn-the-other-check. See here for "Our Review & Interview Policy" section, and read it.HotHat (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources:

Per Indie Vision Music, Charmaine went on a national tour in Australia with Jonathan Thulin: [23], [24]. HM mentioned that she also went on a national tour with Ryan Stevenson in the United States: [25]. There's also coverage in HM about how her single "Run" was included in Rock Band ([26]), as well as a mention that she performed at Creation Festival Northwest ([27]).

There also is an admittedly niche Christian teen girl print magazine that gave a brief biography of Charmaine back in 2002 ([28]).--¿3family6 _contribs 01:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED), and being the support act for another music act certainly doesn't confer notability (quite the opposite in fact). Notability is established by the availability of high quality sources which provided substantive coverage of the topic of the article, and the bar is set at a high level for BLPs. Nick-D (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its quite sad that some editors don't know a darn thing about Christian music and the sourcing publications in our genre. Yes, NOTINHERITED is a policy and she has Notability per the reviews of her music in Cross Rhythms that was the only United Kingdom Christian music magazine and is still their leading online publication see Cross Rhythms. Also, Christianity Today is the most preeminent publication in all of Christian media, and they reviewed both of her albums. Christian Broadcasting Network is a leading Christian television outlet that has reviewed her second album. John DiBiase the founder of Jesus Freak Hideout reviewed both of her albums, and to the second one awarded a five star rating, which they even chronicle them here. So, it is because two of her albums got significant reviews by reliable publications that she is in fact notable to be included in this encyclopedia. By the way, JFH has been nominated for deletion twice and was kept so they are a reputable source and noteworthy publication to utilize in determining GNG, MUSICBIO and NALBUMS.HotHat (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being notable has nothing at all to do with being reliable; I also notice that one of the sources used to establish notability was an actual RS, the Guardian, impugning JFH's reliability. I am sympathetic to the idea that certain WikiProjects have their own practices and standards, but in this case I am afraid I find those standards too far from the general requirements for a BLP and notability generally. Frickeg (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Passing No. 1 on MUSICBIO means nothing to you I see, and I am afraid Wikipedia does not care about Christian music nor its sources. Unless, I or a couple of other editors (3family6, Walter Gorlitz and Toa_Nidhiki05) have done work on articles pertaining to Christian music then this project would have virtually nothing worthwhile of Christian music. I have tried and utterly failed to get Christian music, whether it be bands, artist, albums or songs to be accepted here. By virtue of saying that sources such as Christianity Today, Cross Rhythms, HM Magazine, Christian Broadcasting Network, Jesus Freak Hideout, New Release Tuesday and Indie Vision Music are not acceptable sources to prove and satisfy Notability requirements is beyond me. Since, it is the case, I must admit that I have done nothing worthwhile and failed this encyclopedia.HotHat (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am amused by your interpretation of what constitutes a reliable source. May I suggest that rather than convince us that they're not RSes that you instead take the list of sources used in the article to WP:RSN. You already assume we have a bias or some sort of vested interest in this subject and will go to any lengths to keep the article on Wikipedia, but RSN is more likely to be neutral on the subject. If they determine that the sources are not reliable, I'll personally remove them and strike my keep vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going any further down the road of whether particular sources are notable or not, as I agree with Walter that that is a discussion for the RSN. I'm responding to Nick-D's comment on notability not being inherited. I did not mean to assert that Charmaine is notable because of these other acts, I was merely supplying sources that talk about her, however briefly. The first two sources about her going on tour I supplied in order to demonstrate that she satisfies criterion #4 of WP:MUSICBIO, receiving non-trivial coverage of "a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." While her tour with Ryan Stevenson might be too brief to warrant notability (though I would ask how we determine if coverage is merely brief rather than trivial), the coverage of her tour in Australia with Jonathan Thulin is certainly not brief or trivial, and so that means that she satisfies criterion #4.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Freak Hideout reviewed her newest EP, so three highly reviewed albums 100-percent satisfies MUSICBIO's No. 1 criterion.HotHat (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have said, and will continue to espouse that if an artists' music is reviewed, as much as, her music has been then it meets with the first criteria per MUSICBIO. Also, it is probably the case that OTHERSOURCESEXIST to confirm notability by another criteria like the editor 3family6 proves with his extensive research. She should have had an article on here three years ago, if other capable editors besides myself, 3family6 and Mr. Walter Gorlitz, would have done their due diligence to research her background more fully. So, my question is if two LP's are notable and one EP then that is not enough evidence, which gives rise to her biographical article should be created because of notability?HotHat (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source directly about Charmaine. For those worried about reliability, BREATHEcast is an affiliate of The Christian Post, has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking, and is one of the top publications dealing with Christian music in the US.

This source notes that she guested on a Jonathan Thulin song that went No. 1 on Billboard's Christian Rock chart. I don't know if a guest appearance alone satisfies criterion #2 on WP:MUSICBIO, but if it does, than Charmaine is supported by that criterion.

This source verifies that Charmaine went on a national tour with Rebecca St. James, which further strengthens her support by criterion #4 of WP:MUSICBIO.

I wish to comment here that, yes, Charmaine is supported by exclusively Christian oriented sources. But there are lots of notable artists supported only by rock genre or indie genre or country genre or heavy metal genre oriented sources, so I don't see why genre-specific sources are a problem.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bona fide notability now exist via a charting at No. 1 on the Christian AC/CHR, which can be found right oh so here. I just want to think Mr. Jonathan Thulin and his song "Dead Come to Life" because it brought Charmaine's Wikipedia biography back to existence.HotHat (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be deleted now that I put two charts on her page. See, she is notable.HotHat (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Interview in Espanola interview.HotHat (talk) 09:18, 17 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy Chen[edit]

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

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

Delete: tragic death but utterly non-notable subject.Quis separabit? 02:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tragic death indeed (my prayers are with the article subject's family), but pre-death the subject simply wasn't covered in enough reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Cullen328. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi D'Amico[edit]

Gigi D'Amico (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)

very promotional article that does not appear to show notability in any of his various careers. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any article that describes its subject as a "polyhedric creative mind" in its first sentence deserves intense scrutiny. The nominator is correct; this person is not yet notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Polyhedric creative mind" sent his case plummeting down the toilet. The lack of search results to demonstrate convincing notability dumped a load of cement after that. Mabalu (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims to have worked for Dented Records, but that label's site does not list him as a recording artist. Claim that he worked as a sound engineer for better known musicians cannot be substantiated, and wouldn't confer notability anyway. Claim of working in clubs in Portorosa is "sourced" to the Italian Wikipedia article on the town, which of course doesn't mention him at all. The shoe company claim is sourced to the company site itself...which is actually a Tumblr. WP:COI issues too (the "polyhedric creative mind" nonsense was added by User:Gigidamico). Google just brings up the usual Soundcloud & social networking stuff. Absolutely unsupported puffery. — Gwalla | Talk 22:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely anyone with a polyhedric mind is automatically notable? ... Nah, I'm kidding. Absence of independent references makes this a clear Delete. What I really want to know is his Euler characteristic... :-) RomanSpa (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to stir up anything counting towards fulfillment of GNG in a cursory Google search by running the subject's name. He does seem to be the only "Polyhedric creative mind" on the internet, however, with WP and 20 other mirrors showing. That has to count for something... Carrite (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Carrite.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israela Margalit[edit]

Israela Margalit (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)

Advert Mr. Guye (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment promotional, but it's rewritable. The more important problem is that it reads asif it had been copied somewhere, in which case it should be deleted as a copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the copyvio, this article's text is roughly identical to Israela's description on [29].

It is not obvious which was the original. The WP version of the text was written around May 24, 2013. The article was written sometime (date unknown) after January 2013, according to Wayback Machine (the last cached revision without Israela was that time).

There are things leading me to believe either way: the WP version evolved(see "She appeared...") into its current form, which copyvios usually don't do. On the other hand, none of the other bios on the external page are copied from WP. Something's not right here, I'm just not sure if it's them or us.—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 4 February 2013 version of the article would probably be the best starting point for a rewrite, before the current over-promotional text was added. Clearly notable as a pianist and maybe as a playwright too. The quickest of Google searches reveals plenty of potential sources. --Deskford (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Deskford: notable subject, just needs a better article.—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Formerly sloppy article, since revamped, numerous reliable sources suggest subject easily passes the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources now showing in the piece. Note to @Mr. Guye:: Be sure to search for sources per WP:BEFORE. Being written in a promotional tone is generally not regarded as a legitimate reason for deletion; it is something that should be fixed through the normal editing process or alternatively flagged for its flaws. Carrite (talk) 03:48, 18 June 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. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vice City Multiplayer[edit]

Vice City Multiplayer (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 mod of a notable game. No sources to speak of. Likely original research. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure it's OR, but there's no justification for this article. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Surprisingly, it does get some hits on a WP:VG/RS custom Google search, but I don't think there's really enough coverage to call it "significant". People might want to take a look at that before they vote based on this atrocious article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 13 June 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) 03:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The search is complicated by the fact that the similarly named game, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories, did have an official multiplayer mode when initially released for PSP, but I found no significant RS coverage of this (PS2 version) mod.Dialectric (talk) 01:11, 19 June 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.