Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 March 14 March >

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 Deleted by Nyttend, see comment at bottom. Simply closing discussion. StarM 01:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mach Speed Technologies[edit]

Mach Speed Technologies (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)

Defunct electronics maker. Did it ever meet WP:N? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The company was alive from 1989 until 2010, and was a popular company. It was absorbed into the new parent, and looking at other articles such as Hudson Soft absorbed companies seem to be allowed. I believe it meets the notability standards of Wikipedia. AustralianPope (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article currently has no third party sources, and I couldn't find any significant third party coverage in reliable sources. I'm open to changing if someone can prove me wrong, but in its current state, I don't understand how it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you even looking for third party sources? Because I clearly see 2 and only one first party source. The article is similar to another perfectly find article Coby Electronics. (Not to mention the above user should really have no opinion here due to conflict of interest)AustralianPope (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me elaborate. The first source is the companies website. 1st party. The second is the website of the company that bought them. That would be first party as well. The third is nothing but a brief database entry. All usuable sources for the article, but not for establishing notability. Also, I have no connection to this company, so there is no relevant WP:COI. This is, however, why I advised you to start slow on Wikipedia. You don't have a good grasp on policy or article writing yet. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've never told me to start slow what are you talking about? By conflict of interest, I am not talking about the company this article is about I am talking about something completely different. Also, it still makes no sense to delete the page, t's referenced with reliable sources, some pages are made with NO sources, and has one third-party source. I don't even get 10 minutes to see if I can find another one before it getting nominated for deletion? AustralianPope (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added another third party source for review for a user who is not going around saying a new users first pages are bad intentionally, and a being conflict of interest. AustralianPope (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted under speedy criterion G5, block-enforcement. This criterion shouldn't be used on decent articles about notable topics, since deletion hurts the encyclopedia, but it's appropriate for ambiguous content like this article. Sorry for deleting the AFD by accident; I clicked the wrong button. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 15 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Brennan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Non-notable player, who has not played in a fully professional league JMHamo (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 14 March 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 (only in my capacity as an editor, after deletion I'll be recreating as a redirect to United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence). Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Grannis[edit]

David Grannis (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 PROD, which had been seconded, was contested.) The subject has received a small amount of attention, but does not come near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are 9 references in the article. Eight of those are: two dead links; three sources that do not mention Grannis; a 54 page court document in a case between the American Civil Liberties Union and James R. Clapper, in which I can find no mention of Grannis (it is a scanned copy of a fairly long document, and is not searchable, so I may have missed a mention of him, but even if there is a mention then it must be a very minor mention, and the document certainly does not deal with Grannis to any substantial extent); a page on Dianne Feinstein's web page (so that it is not an independent source) which is not substantially about Grannis, and merely contains an announcement of Grannis's appointment as Feinstein's staff director; and a brief and utterly trivial conversation on Twitter. We are left with just one source which gives any significant mention of Grannis, namely an article in the Miami Herald, here. That is a news report on one incident, and on its own goes nowhere towards establishing notability in Wikipedia terms. A Google search produced nothing of any value in establishing notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are no independent sources about Grannis - he's a spokesman, a functionary, not a political figure of any note. Some people hate him because he delivers the words of an organisation they hate. This is not his fault, and as reasons for having an article go, it's about as bad as they get. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minimal merge or just redirect to United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. There seem to be no third party sources that discuss this person directly to any depth, and so Wikipedia should not have a stand alone article devoted to him. Wikipedia should not be writing the first biographies on living people, we cover what is already covered. The content is not offensive, it may remain in the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the talk page, you will see that some of the contents in the article's history are regarded as offensive by some editors, and at the very least it is controversial BLP content. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't appreciate some deeper contexts, but I don't see anything worthy of Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction. On the other hand, I don't see anything being particularly useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see anything qualifying for revision deletion either, or I would have revision deleted it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I am removing posts by a block-evading editor, together with replies I posted to them before I realised that the editor was evading a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sole purpose of this Article is to give supporters of Edward Snowden and opponents of the NSA a free shot at calling David Grannis a liar. Wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for such attacks. JohnValeron (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could see how an important Congressional staff member meets notability requirements, but I don't think this particular staffer does. I don't think there's any need for a re-direct either. Orser67 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This person is mentioned at United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (although without substantial content). Normally, a redirect to a page where the subject is explicitly named is welcome. Of course, there is no "need", as someone searching for the name will find the search results topped by the target page. However (particularly addressed to The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson", are we deleting so that the non-persuasive talk page objector can't simply reverse a redirect when you might not be looking anymore? Would it help the redirect option if these sorts of redirects were indefinitely protected? Some of the sources, such as this contain reasonable content, and the use of this source might reasonably be reused, and so I have a mild preference to keep the history available. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that there is no evidence of notability. The connections to Snowden seem wholly unsupported. Kerrysg (talk) 14:09, 21 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Petukhov (Kazakhstani footballer)[edit]

Aleksandr Petukhov (Kazakhstani footballer) (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested about a year-and-a-half ago on the grounds the he met WP:NFOOTBALL, having played in the Russian Second Division, which is technically true. However, given the small number of apperances, how long ago they were and that he does not appear to have received significant coverage for them, he fails WP:GNG clearly enough to fall under the part of WP:NSPORT that says: meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (Emphasis theirs) Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - if it was 1 or 2 appearances, then I'd probably !vote the other way, but 6 is a different matter, and I refuse to believe there is nothing on this player in Kazakh/Russian sources. GiantSnowman 20:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per GS, and NFOOTY pass as acknowledged in the nom. Has also had a significant career in Kazakhakstan essentially for one club, plus has junior international and european comeptition appearances as well as multiple trophy wins. Am happy to assume that there exist additional sources in Russian / Kazakh and would like to see article expanded not deleted. Fenix down (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Russian Wikipedia article uses an interview with Petukhov from Sports.kz which is more than routine coverage, and there is a very short story about a recent national team call-up from Gazeta.kz. I believe this article would pass the GNG with a little work. I can start by adding information from the interview. Jogurney (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. Nfitz (talk) 00:52, 19 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Baloyes[edit]

Jimmy Baloyes (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although it appears he made one league appearance for Cúcuta in 2009, he was ruled an ineligible player by Dimayor (see [1]). So, I think it's correct that he's never played in a fully-pro league, and I can't find anything other than routine coverage of him. Jogurney (talk) 14:46, 14 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Vitae[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Deus Vitae (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 (tagged since April 2009). Consists only of plot. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't actually listed at the anime and mange deletion sorting page, but I've listed it now. Calathan (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know if it's enough but was able to find two Anime News Network reviews ([2], [3]), an Animefringe one, and there is a Mania review on "External links" section (all of this sites are WP:A&M/RS). ANN also covered its licensing ([4], [5]). It's only the English-language cover on it... Maybe there's something in Japanese (probably, in fact), and in French since it was released there as fr.wikipedia inform us. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you accidentally linked to one of the Anime News Network reviews when you meant to link to the Animefringe review. I've linked to the review in my comment below. Calathan (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are two mini-reviews from Anime News Network (linked by Gabriel Yuji above), a full review from Animefringe [6], a full review by Mania.com [7], and a short review by Jason Thompson [8] (Jason Thompson is an expert on manga, so the review can be considered reliable per WP:SPS, even though it was posted to a livejournal page). In total, the reviews are sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. I think the notability tag has only been on the article for so long because no one has cared enough to edit it, as sources were found during the previous AFD. Calathan (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is more well-known in France because of the Panini Comics release. It is not an English mainstay and Tokyopop has been under for quite awhile. Calathan is correct, many of these books are from a decade ago and few readers remember how difficult it was to even get these releases in that day. Its sorta like SNES releases versus modern indie publishers - its completely different now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above. Notable. Cavarrone 23:45, 14 March 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 Erika Kurahashi . j⚛e deckertalk 15:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charisma Doll[edit]

Charisma Doll (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)

Single line stub with no source. Tagged since October 2010 for not meeting notability guideline. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Erika Kurahashi notable mangaka artist but not so for this work of hers, redirect as a possible search term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect, or keep if sourcing exists. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:07, 24 March 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 Khatme Nubuwwat Academy. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 15:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akber Choudhry[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. No secondary sources exist which studies the life of Akber Choudhry --Peaceworld 19:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Khatme Nubuwwat Academy, whose press officer he appears to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Several of the sources here simply aren't reliable like Youtube; others don't verify the text or don't reliably do so, like the home page of an organization; still others are used as primary sources which is improper. After cutting away all that, we're left with what is basically a scavenging of sources from Khatme Nubuwwat Academy for a stub on the organization' spokesman. There's no reason for a separate article to exist but a redirect wouldn't hurt. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted at the author's request (G7). Xoloz (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veritalifasm[edit]

Veritalifasm (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)

Contested PROD. No Ghits at all apart from this Wikipedia page, and the article's creator has indicated that it is not notable, [9]. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. bonadea contributions talk 18:58, 13 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thai & Kickbox SuperLeague[edit]

Thai & Kickbox SuperLeague (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)

Kickboxing organization which fails to meet WP:GNG. The article's sources are either primary or promotional or simply fight results. None of them show significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 14 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud Abrahamson[edit]

Ehud Abrahamson (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)

Promotional article on totally non notable physician. Previous version deleted as copyvio from his website DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Needs a lot of self-improvement, I'm afraid. --Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from brief mention in Haaretz (where he is called "Ehud Abramson"), the rest of the sources are web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amtech Systems[edit]

Amtech Systems (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)

Promotional article on minor company. Essentially advertising, and no reliable sources. Previously prodded. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I searched factiva and google books but could only find brief mentions, press releases and routine financial information. That isn't sufficient to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional dross. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete The sources in the article as it is now are all nothing but press releases and finance site blurbs. Searching online gives more of the same. Doesn't pass WP:CORP. Novusuna talk 21:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WVS Financial[edit]

WVS Financial (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)

nonnotable financial company. in NASDAQ not NYSE. No reliable sources On of a group created by class, recreated after move to user space, despite advice that it was not likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agree with the nom. I've searched for sources but couldn't find anything suitable, so WP:CORP is not met. SmartSE (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unable to establish notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. For what it's worth, I've given this editor and several of his classmates the same advice, but for the most part, it's all be disregarded. Cindy(talk) 10:54, 15 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edway Group[edit]

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

Purely promotional article non- notable firm No signifcant accomplishments or references. Recreated after speedy G11, brig here for more definitive result. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete fails WP:CORP. sources merely confirm it exists, nothing in depth. Promotional. LibStar (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and per LibStar: there seems no reason to think that this firm is notable. Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 16 March 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.

Vanna Bonta[edit]

The result of this discussion was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. → Call me Hahc21 02:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyun Jin Moon[edit]

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

no individual notability Involvement in one of the family enterprises is not enough DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question He was a member of the South Korean Olympic equestrian team, I thought Olympic participants were always considered to be notable, or is it not that broad for Olympians?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could no verification that he ever competed. The Fox news story attribtes it to a "church website". Now that it is sourced, I withdraw the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David O. Marley[edit]

David O. Marley (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)

Political staffer and unsuccessful election candidate without a claim of notability sufficient to actually pass WP:POLITICIAN; nearly all of the sourcing here pertains to either his unsuccessful candidacy or his management of a campaign for a municipal council candidate (municipal councils not normally being an office that confers notability on the councillors themselves, let alone their campaign staff.) And although I cannot confirm this outright, there's an extremely high prospect of conflict of interest editing here as well — the article was created by User:Paladin1205, and the article topic is on the board of directors of an organization, "Civil Rights Now", which was known as, guess what, "Paladin Advocacy League" at the time the article was first created. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 14 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later Sui Empire[edit]

Later Sui Empire (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)

Given the single source (see under external links) and the inconsistency of dates with other articles, I strongly suspect this is a hoax. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Article is fact. Uni-Eropean also counted the diplomat from Hou Sui, the prove is Marcopolo(?), and Sir Edmund Halley (?), and the most prominent is Zheng He visit to Barcelona and Rome with stated at the Treaty that Mongol defeated. —ADHZ07111989 (talk · contribs), 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Not Hoax. When the actual time line is Song->Nan Song->Hou Sui. When it is hidden and secret build by the founder to avoid coup, it's has legacy. This also prevented the false Mandate of Heaven of Chinese Hua Xia, since another is only peoples community that the Yuan still war again the Nan-Song and later the Hou Sui. Historical record of World said that this Empire existed (according to the Arabian, African, Indochine, Indonesia, Mongol, Russia and probably Japan and Korea. And when the Shun is actually a kingship under Hou Sui which conducted screet policy again the Ming community.· — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADHZ07111989 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't ever Delete. The time line of another version hegemony can not be simply uses, please appreciate the traditional history, since another faction historian have the some record.· — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.77.208.110 (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC) — 36.77.208.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. The source makes it clear that the information in this article isn't true. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A11: "Obviously invented". Unreliable medium (a wiki) and unreliable source (a site about alternate history), thus completely failing WP:RS.174.3.125.23 (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let this dynasty collapse - I read about Chinese history in school, and I can safely say this is a hoax (the Sui Dynasty was pretty short lived and only had, if I recall correctly, two emperors). Alternate history is not notable. Anyone can make alternate history (for example, I could write an alternate history where Dewey defeated Truman and that the Soviet Union never collapse but instead embraced full-blown capitalism). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A quick check on History of China indicates that the period dealt with here was during the Ming Dynasty. The article has one citation apparetnly to another Wiki-type source. I do not know Chinese hisotry in detail, but this is either grossly overstated or pure rubbish. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Non-notable alternative history. The empire is described as ruling Serica, which seems to be semi-mythical. Orser67 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hooping Life[edit]

The Hooping Life (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)

Wholly unremarkable and un-notable documentary film. Refs are just trailers, so we can be certain it exists but little more. Nothing that establishes any notability. Fails WP:MOVIE.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage, much less significant, from any reliable source at all. I was not able to find any reviews or interviews. If these surface, then we can reassess this film's notability. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comment - is this academic ref the same film? The date shown is 2007 yet this film has yet the film had its premier in 2010. Confused.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I also took the liberty to salt it, since Obamaism has also been salted for the same purpose. → Call me Hahc21 02:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obama-ism[edit]

Obama-ism (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)

List of trivia. Maybe transwiki to Wikiquote.

The sources, esp. the WSJ one, actually contain some more detailed analysis, which would be fitting for the Barack Obama article, but the rest of this is just a list of mistakes by a single person. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I don't consider about.com a reliable source. There is very little real content here (under Discussion), which can be merged into Barack Obama. The rest is a list of quotes and trivia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why? This is a discussion, not a vote. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that my opionion was too subtle. Keep since we have allowed a Bushism to exist then so should this as long as the entries are valid.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a discussion that's in a format more suitable for a vote. Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
great point. --143.215.75.183 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — 143.215.75.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Bushism or something like that. It isn't notable by itself, based on the length of the article. Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets all criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. It's about a subject that has received significant media coverage during the last few years. I can see why some people might not like it, but that's not a reason to delete it. --143.215.75.183 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there was substantial content about background of Obama-isms in the article, it can be kept. As of now, it is a stub, notwithstanding the unencyclopedic list of such gaffes. Epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
what would you like to see included? --143.215.75.183 (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably coverage of the subject by reliable news sources and comments about Obama-isms by notable people, as well as a brief history of the term. The list can still be kept, but it shouldn't be so long that the entire article consists of a list of such linguistic errors. Epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
then let's do that instead of deleting! Some of what you are asking for is already there (coverage of the subject by reliable news sources and comments about Obama-isms by notable people). I agree that we need to work on the history of the term. --143.215.75.183 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly a speedy delete as a recreation of the article once deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obamaism (2nd nomination). There is a Bushism article because the term itself has come into use by reliable sources over the years; "Obamaisms" is a only a jeering neologism used by generally fringe, non-WP:RS sources. What this becomes then is a List of Obama gaffes, something which is a redlink because it would be little more than a POV-slanted hit-piece, not an encyclopedia article. It doesn't help much that the article was created by a single-issue account, along with an IP user and voter here. This topic area is ripe with hijinks over the years, and this ones doesn't smell any different. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
are you dismissing all of the WP:RS used in the article and that the term has been used since at least 2008 in your decision? --143.215.75.183 (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TheBlaze, Media Matters, Fox News, and about.com? Yea, I think I'll take a pass on those, thanks. Gossipy, taboid-ish "HURR DURR look at the funny thing the president just said!" coverage of disparate events does not add up to an "Obamaism". It is a concocted neologism much like the old "TOTUS" was. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but those are reliable sources. Ditto for the 7-8 others you didn't list. ABC News, Time Magazine, Mumbai Mirror, etc etc etc. --HansBarack (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources that mention gaffes and verbal miscues on occasion, sure, but you're trying to stitch them together into a grand theme of "Obamaisms" that simply does not exist. i.e. making the source say something different from what they actually say. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several of them use the term explicitly and directly compare it to Bushisms. --HansBarack (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 3 more reliable sources using the term that aren't referenced in the article: Toronto Sun / Hindustan Times / Holland Sentinel / Obamaism likely won't reach the degree of Bushism but it has arrived nonetheless. --HansBarack (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The project does not judge notability by the headline, but by the body of the article. Nice try. Tarc (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the headlines are indicative of what's in the bodies of the articles. Not sure what your point is here. --HansBarack (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no usage of the term beyond the headline; "Obamaism" is not actually a thing discussed by the sources. Again, articles here and there of misstatements do not add up to the neologism that you are trying to concoct. Read up on WP:SYNTH sometime, and this will be the last moment of time I waste on a one-trick pony. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you missed that the articles were actually about "Obamaisms." Generally, reliable sources don't use titles that aren't related to the content of the articles as you are suggesting. For example one of the articles states in the body (not the title): "While outgoing US President George W Bush’s famous quotes, better known as 'Bushisms', kept political humorists busy through his two terms, President-elect Barack Obama too has opened an account in the humour dictionary with his gaffes being compiled as Obamaisms." --HansBarack (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't create the term or contribute to its current popularity. It is used extensively on the internet and in other media as we have established. Please do not insult others who have different opinions from you. I have backed my opinion up with research. I would appreciate it if you did the same. --HansBarack (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Having a certain number of sources, alone, do not dictate notability. It's the relative coverage of it, as well as how well known the subject is, that does. Many reliable newspapers and news outlets report about trivial and insignificant things. Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's an outstanding AFD delete on it. Although a small number of journalists have used the term 'Obamaism' the topic has very low numbers of not very high quality references. This kind of thing should be deleted in all but the most extreme examples, it's just not truly encyclopedically notable. It's not like any of these mistakes have caused diplomatic incidents, they're just trivia. It's just not notable. Wikipedia isn't WIKIQUOTE, and we don't collect information indiscriminately.Teapeat (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Tarc suggests, this is a POV magnet - it is trivia and has had no impact other than to fuel the fringe. (And fwiw, the piece is full of typos - not a reason for deletion per se, but perhaps an indication of a rush to create an attack piece rather than a reasoned article.) Tvoz/talk 18:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
unconstructive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • DELETE NOW GET RID OF THIS RACIST TRASH!!!!!! TEAPARTY FACISTS NEED TO STOP DISRESPECTING OUR PRESIDENT AND LEADER!! PERSERVE WIKIPEDIA FROM THESE EVIL PEOPLE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomJones41 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article may be premature, but I can see the possibility that the term is beginning to take off and could someday pass WP:NEO as a notable phrase / concept. Perhaps it will even become a family of articles about famous people's linguistic pecadillos. Although not inherently encyclopedic, it becomes encyclopedic if people's having fun with it offwiki becomes a notable thing in the world. Someday we may have an article [[List of famous people's malapropisms with "-ism" suffix]] to complement our List of scandals with "-gate" suffix article. What I'm saying is that it's not inherently notable or non-notable, just a question of strength of sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may be on to something with a List. Do you know if there are more articles out there about politicians? Juno (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is in progress, the term (without variants) has 40,000 ghits and they have some decent RSs. Bushisms stands as an article, so too will this. Juno (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article is clearly a repost of Obamaism and does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is conceivable that this might become a thing in the future, but it's something of a stretch right now. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't a real thing, nor backed up by reliable sourcing. Obvious attempt to circumvent 3rd nomination and timing. Perhaps in the future something along the lines of this might be feasible, but it is definitely not now. Dave Dial (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main criticism so far is that it's not reliably sourced. I guess that's true if you don't consider the Wall Street Journal, About, Time Magazine, the Washington Times, and Media Matters reliable sources. The next criticism is that it's been deleted before. If it wasn't notable a few years ago does not make it not notable today. The concept is used extensively on the net and elsewhere. It would be nice if the delete votes did more than using vague generalities to declare it not notable. I don't know why we need a double standard to keep this article out. --HansBarack (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course it's funny when the POTUS stuffs up, and that's a great space-filler. But there is no credible suggestion that Obama is known for using unconventional phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, or semantic and linguistic errors. In fact, all observers know that Obama is an under-performer in those areas, compared with many other public figures. The problem for this article is that there is no notability of the topic—the attention is just ephemeral joke-of-the-day combined with attacks from opponents who are still upset about the attention drawn to Obama's predecessor in a manner that was notable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "But there is no credible suggestion that Obama is known for using unconventional phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, or semantic and linguistic errors." The references show otherwise. --HansBarack (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In fact, all observers know that Obama is an under-performer in those areas, compared with many other public figures." What you or I think we 'know' is irrelevant. This point is also irrelevant. The point is that the Obamaism phenomenon has received extensive media coverage. --HansBarack (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The problem for this article is that there is no notability of the topic" The references show otherwise. --HansBarack (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The attention is just ephemeral joke-of-the-day combined--" The references show otherwise. The term goes back at least to 2008. --HansBarack (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "-with attacks from opponents who are still upset about the attention drawn to Obama's predecessor in a manner that was notable." Please assume good faith. Bush didn't make any more verbal gaffs that one would expect for the amount of public speaking he did, but that doesn't matter. It's notable because it received extensive media coverage. It's the same with Obamaism. He probably doesn't make more gaffs than would be expected, but it still has received extensive coverage. --HansBarack (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tarc. Edison (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There just isn't enough secondary coverage regarding the notability of an Obama-ism, and personally I've never heard the term used before. Orser67 (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tarc. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am labeling myself as a single purpose user despite the fact that I contribute extensively under my IP address. If I don't label myself as such, someone else will. Given the unfair criticism this article seems to be receiving I don't feel comfortable commenting with my regular IP. Now for my opinion…. I don't recall seeing such a high bar set at an AfD. The article is well sourced and easily meets notability guidelines. Having voted for Obama twice myself, I have to wonder why this article is facing so much unqualified resistance? OpenMind14 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC) — OpenMind14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 01:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Gertler[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nat Gertler (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: The article contains links to the author's webpages and his books to generate sales. Does not meet WP notability guidelines. COI suspected. Wikipedia's guidelines specifically state winners of notable awards. Unfortunately, nomination for an award and not winning does not make one notable. Making a living off of someone else's notability--Charles Schulz wannabe. ANIMOCITY (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable subject, Eisner award winner, numerous reliable references meet notability requirements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to correct Tom here: I am not an Eisner Award winner. I am, however, a multiple Eisner Award nominee, and despite what SPA ANIMOCITY claims, Wikipedia's guidelines actually specifically include award nominations for establishing notability. Including a link to the subject's web page is not only not a violation, it's a standard practice, supported by infobox templates, Template:official, and so forth, and it's hardly surprising that an author's webpage includes some links to his work (generally put forth much more aggressively than mine, I'd say.) If anyone wants to understand what's going on here, please realize that I edit Wikipedia regularly, and that this at times makes me the target of revenge edits. In this case, we can see that the original poster's remarks were adjusted by an IP user whose only other edits have been to oppose an AFD that I supported. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, as I said, you won the award nomination. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have done a history split to seperate this nomination from the one that was recently closed as a speedy keep. The nominator had blanked the nomination page and started over. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:03, 13 March 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 March 13. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 14:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:GNG criteria clearly met; pointy/sour grapes nomination by now-blocked sock. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ohnoitsjamie about probably sourgrapes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Leader in his field. I think the current interpretation of the nominations clause of Notability is to limit it as proof of notability to the short lists for the very most important prizes, but the notability of the subject here does not primarily rest on this. It's just an extra. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG: Which sources demonstrate he is a "Leader in his field"? I've looked at all the sources cited and searched for more but I don't see anything to support this. SmartSE (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Smartse: Leadership => Establishing a daylong 24-hour Comics Day, with clear references here, here, and here and it becomes a big event in the industry; in my view, that is leadership.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eisner noms = notable, not seeing any evidence this person is some kind of exception. Also, prior AFD was a speedy keep--while no policy totally forbids renominating after a speedy keep, it's likely to be pretty pointless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The majority of his credentials come from his own site, which is clearly a self promotion site. It is just publicity mongering. His being nominated is nice, but not noteworthy. It is like saying, I was a candidate for winning miss California. Well you didn't win. Sorry. No cigar for you. Maybe he should read the complete idiots guide to making oneself notable for wikipedia ali-sama (talk) — ali-sama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I'm not clear which of the sites used as references I'm being accused of owning - the Los Angeles Times, Wizard World Conventions, Sequential Tart, The Comics Reporter, The Boston Globe, the Chicago Sun Times, USA Today, the Christian Science Monitor, WBOC TV, The Deseret News, Digital Spy, The Lincoln Star Journal, or NJ.com... because if I own most of those, I'm surely notable as a media mogul! The truth is that I own none of them; two sites I own were listed as External Links. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm quite surprised by all the keeps so far and I can only conclude that people haven't looked closely at the references cited. It is true that his book was mentioned in several high quality sources, but they are all extremely brief reviews, which in my opinion aren't sufficient to pass the substantial coverage requirement. As an example, the Boston Globe only mentions that it exists and the coverage in the LA Times is very similar. I've searched google books and factiva but couldn't find anything which would be good enough to meet the substantial coverage requirement. The other references cited aren't his own site (not sure why people think that?!) but they are all very brief mentions. Notability shouldn't be automatic, so being nominated for an award isn't sufficient to be included - should we have an article on every person listed here? SmartSE (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just out of curiosity, I checked all of the 22 creators named in the first three categories on that page. Every one of them but Khang Le has a page here. That isn't an argument that they all should, mind you, but it does give a sense of what is common here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Added By the way, if you want some sources that go more in depth, here's Publisher's Weekly on me and my work as a publisher, you can find a longer review of The Peanuts Collection (still just six paragraphs, admittedly) in The Art Book, Volume 17 Issue 4, pages 100-101. Here's a Jewish Journal piece on me and one of my projects. The two-page piece you'll find in this issue of Oh Comely magazine was actually an interview, but it was edited to look like something I wrote about one of my projects; admittedly, Oh Comely isn't Newsweek. I'm not saying any of that makes me notable enough, but it does go beyond what you'll find on the sources here. And the same blocked editor who proposed this AFD deleted some external links to other interviews as part of the attack on the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Starblind that multiple Eisner nominations are a strong indicator of notability, and there's enough sourcing here to establish at least that he's a notable Peanuts expert. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind - Eisner nominations are indeed notable, Also passes GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominees are not notable, only winners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominees are notable. Here is Wikipedia's general notability guideline:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

— Wikipedia rule, see WP:BASIC
There are reliable references in mainstream newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Boston Globe, Publishers Weekly, Newark Star-Ledger, San Francisco Examiner, Chicago Sun-Times, Christian Science Monitor; these sources are multiple, secondary, independent of the subject, reliable, and coverage is significant. In addition, there are reliable references in comics-related media. Clearly this test is met.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Wikipedia's rule about notability for a person:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

— Wikipedia rule, see WP:ANYBIO (bold added by tomwsulcer)
He was nominated several times for the Eisner award – a prestigious award within the industry. This is well-established by sources. So the subject is clearly notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. (Again.) Bad faith nomination by a now-blocked sockpuppet. (Again.) But ignoring the problems with the nominator, Tomwsulcer has stated above how this article meets the notability requirement. If you want want to do away with making nominees notable, then you'll need to change WP:ANYBIO. And this is not the place to do that. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 11:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR with book reviews (LA Times, USA Today, etc). -- GreenC 23:18, 16 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SGMS methodology[edit]

SGMS methodology (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 indication of notability. An earlier PROD was deleted by WP:SPA without resolving the issue. I re-PROD, which was endorsed, then removed on a technicality. Derek Andrews (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:05, 13 March 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 soft delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo Edwards[edit]

Rodolfo Edwards (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)

Looks like a talented young architect, that is not yet notable. There is no clear claim of notability and none of the references proves notability. ELEKHHT 11:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHHT 11:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 13 March 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. As a copyright violation. No consensus about notability.  Sandstein  11:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers[edit]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (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)

Bringing this following a declined PROD. I cannot find any evidence in the article or online that establishes notability per WP:CORP

I believe some of the history section is actually a copyvio, but haven't found the source. It's not too promotional so I haven't wiped it on that grounds since I think the creator is editing in good faith. I'm just not sure it's notable. StarM 03:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and cleanup. The organization appears to be the trade association/lobbying group for the refinery industry. It's president is routinely cited in the press[16]. As such it is probably notable. The content is overly promotional. The second paragraph is closely paraphrased from here. GabrielF (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Rewrite. In the context of notability, this article is actually notable because I looked them up on Google and it finds WAY too many websites on this for it to be not notable. However, where the real problem lies is in the major advertisement them theme on the page. This article ought to be rewritten, but not destroyed. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC) (Edited --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, their President might be regularly cited, but that's not an indication of notability, an indication of notability would be independent and reliable sources that covered the organisation in depth. I haven't been able to find anything like this (lots of little throwaway mentions, but nothing substantial). I don't think this meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no clear consensus to either keep or delete this article. The fact that, as some commenters outlined, this is a school that will very likely exist and become notable in a not-too-distant future is valid, as is the argument that it might be worth keeping and adding information from the two schools that are being merged. Some of the delete rationales are strong too. However, I'd like to point out that WP:CRYSTAL mostly applies to events and subjects where scarce information is the only available, which is not the case here. → Call me Hahc21 01:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsview Academy[edit]

Hillsview Academy (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)

Too soon. While this may be able to meet notability guidelines once open, insufficient reliable sources are available to create a notable article at this time. RadioFan (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: In Sept 2014 this will become an important. Two schools will be closed and merged becoming this one- their histories will become sections of this article. In the complex political jungle to which UK education has descended it has become difficult to represent opening schools in a Wiki way. This stub seems a fair way to do it. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Your statement that when things merge their articles have to become subsections of a new article is incorrect. If something was once notable, then it remains notable even if it ceases to exist or becomes part of some new entity. It would be appropriate to have articles about predecessor entities as well as an entity they were merged into. Edison (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - important high school being formed by the merger of two existing high schools. Consensus is that where there is a definite opening date such articles can be created within 12 months of that date. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is this important? Who is saying it's important? References would certainly help clear this up but as of now, there are no references in the article and I'm not finding any. The commonness of the name is making it difficult to locate references.--RadioFan (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:FUTURE says ...speculation about it must be well documented.... - this stubs needs lots of references to satisfy that. Atlas-maker (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Schools are generally deemed notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Removed !vote as misread schooloutcomes. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - sorry but this is not a valid deletion ground. WP:CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." and this is the case here. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Strictly this is premature, but I assume that this a definite proposal, not a will of the wisp. Accoridngly the article will be needed soon. I do not therefore see why we should not keep it, probably merging in some of the content of the two preceding schools (which should also ul;timately be kept). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have added sources to show that this merger will happen in the summer. A merger between two notable entitles to produce a high school with a sixth form will produce a clearly notable school. It makes no sense to delete the article only to recreate it in five months time. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 19:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Pereira[edit]

Vivek Pereira (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)

Amateur author who has published two books with no sign of critical review or commentary or anything at all in reliable sources; failing WP:AUTHOR. Also, its created by WP:SPA. I am also nominating the article about his one book for deletion over here as it also does not qualify WP:NBOOK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Gardens and Minefields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with nom. There's no there there. The one source cited is a review on what amounts to a wiki site that will publish anything. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:53, 13 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin Gani[edit]

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

I do not see the basis for notability here. Everything depends on unsupported assertions that he is a particularly notable journalist, but the material actually proves only that he is a sports journalist, and not all journalists are notable DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google gives me no sources to prove nobility under WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Lenin Gani was not just an ordinary journalist. He was a well known and highly respected journalist of Bangladesh who was also the Sports Editor of BDNEWS24.
In the early part of his career he has had many articles published by leading newspapers of Bangladesh regarding a wide variety of social topics. These were back in the early 90s when digital media was not prevalent in Bangladesh and hence why there is no electronic version of these.
He has mostly contributed to the development of sports journalism in Bangladesh and has written many articles which have won him wide recognition in Bangladesh as one of the finest sports journalist in the country. He gained much fame from being one of the first journalists from Bangladesh to have his articles appear on CricInfo.com, which was one of the first international online publications for Cricket. Some of the articles I’ve managed to find are
Article 1,
Article 2
His articles were also used by other writers as references in their own publications e.g. ::Cricket and the Law
He rose to fame in Bangladesh when he was awarded by the Dhaka Reporters Unity for the best sports report in 2001. This is a prestigious award that is given to exceptional journalists by their peers.
Furthermore, most of the major newspapers in Bangladesh recognised his death as a notable event for journalism in Bangladesh. Some of these papers even published tributes to Lenin Gani.
Here are a few of the major publications that I was able to dig up through Google search
thedailystar.net,bdnews24.com,dhakatribune.com,newagebd.com,daily-sun.com,natunbarta.com,dhakamirror.com
If these publications that circulate to over 150m people thought he was notable enough to mention his death, I would think that would be a strong enough argument to prove notability.12:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Jasim Gani
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources found by Jasim Gani above are pretty good. I've added them to the article. -- GreenC 16:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep I'm always (I hope, understandably hesitant to make too much use of obituaries as a primary ground for establishing notability, but I think there's probably enough here to at least show it, particularly after adjusting for systemic bias. I remain slightly concerned that I'm finding little under লেনিন গনি, however. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fatstone.TV[edit]

Fatstone.TV (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)

Dubious notability, less than a year old. Text is promotional in tone, just talking about the company's ambitions, nothing about staffing, profits or anything else factual Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not an expert at broadcasting and entertainment, but the channel is new and relative uknkown (I do live in the region where the channel, according to the article, is broadcasting from, and I don't have heard about the channel outside wikipedia). I have seen no proof of mentioning by national or international media. The article is also written in an advertising tone. In lack of comments, I do support a deletion of this article, until it reach a break through, or do achieve coverage at a broader level. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:40, 22 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 00:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saibanisa Ravada[edit]

Saibanisa Ravada (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 person. Lots of links to writings by Ravada, but nothing to independent sources about him, nor could any be found in my searches. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-Fails: WP:Notability, this article seems to be self/ 2nd person promotion which is full of unreliable references. WOWIndian Talk 12:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Notability not shown. JNW (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Revisiting this, I'm tending to agree with Randykitty's assessment below; this is an exercise in idolatry, and may be ripe for speedy deletion as spam. JNW (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comes close to CSD G11 (spam). No indication of meeting any notability guideline. --Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional, with no evidence of passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 13 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 01:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Chalek[edit]

Myriam Chalek (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 person. Chalek has started a business, and managed somehow to get her name mentioned in the Wikipedia article about Fashion design. That article has been mirrored and translated repetively, resulting in the slew of external links available. The one quote in Fashion design is attributed to an unspecified Vogue interview, but a search of that website does not reveal any content related to Chalek. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly sourced article on a person who has not done anything notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Myriam Chalek is well known for having organised the first prom party in France. Thanks to her, high school students from all over France can now celebrate their graduation through this new tradition that has never been done in France.There is a significant coverage on Myriam's charity work evidenced in major media sources as 'le Parisien", Le Geant des Beaux Arts, Psy 4 De La Rime...She is also notable by every new fashion designers all over the United States as she established a company that has no competition and which has done over a million dollars in sales the first year while the US was in recession. The well known north african magazine Dziriya has recently published an article on Myriam Chalek honoring her notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.117.111 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The organization of the prom, which was the 2013 charity-event for Donnors (Chalek is the VP of the charity... and her company CreativeBusinessHouse seems to have some financial relationship with the event-organizing-aspect of the WhiteTieAffair stuff that the charity does every year or two) seems to have some coverage: RespectMag, for instances, might be WP:RS. However, this coverage was not about Chalek, and often didn't mention her name. WP:NOTINHERITED says that to have an article about Chalek, as opposed to an article about the charity, we need sources which specifically cover Chalek, by name. If they mention her, they are WP:NOTEWORTHY, which is useful to improve an article (on charity for instance), but not enough to satisfy WP:N. Furthermore, see WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL; the first prom in France was only last year, and we don't know if it is a tradition, until it becomes a tradition.
"Also, Dziriya.net gives the opportunity to its members to contribute to its content." (Bing-transmanglization of the French terms of service for Drizirya.) See WP:USERGENERATED (and maybe WP:CIRCULAR), this ref is not acceptable for achieving WP:42, sorry. Do you have a source (magazine/newspaper/magazine/governmental/similar) for the claim of the company having six-digit revenue? Can you provide URLs for the editorial departments of Le Geant des Beaux Arts, as well as Psy 4 De La Rime? See WP:RS. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have just noticed an eventual notice of removal of the wikipedia article of Miss Chalek after some changes have been made few days after the article was posted I have also read your comment according to which Chalek has supposedly "managed somehow to get her name mentioned in the Wikipedia article about Fashion design" Do you really think a millionaire individual with certainly a hectically insane schedule has time to waste worrying about her name being mentioned in a fashion design article? would you? I don't think so Last but not least, I have removed what I think has provoked the notice of removal as I have the firm conviction that lady deserves to be on wikipedia based on her notability in France, Dubai and US. Finally I strongly believe you shouldn't be making unfounded accusations towards a meritorious lady who has been giving back so much to the community. FYI she has been rewarded by the mayor of Dushanbe for her charitable work and donations she has made in favor of the poor over the past 2 years! Not everything is advertised through the media.Without people like her, many of my people wouldn't be alive.This message is from someone who knows about individuals that have made a good change in people's life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judith321 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did not intend to imply that Chalek had anything to do with the placement of her name in the Fashion design article, only that her name did end up there, and hence, has spread across the internet. I did intend to imply that the echoes of this Wikipedia article across the internet appear to form a large part of the available sourcing for this article. This is not intended as a slur against Ms Malek; it only shows that the article is poorly sourced. If better sourcing is available, I haven't been able to find it. If Judith and IP:108... are such fervent fans, perhaps they are able to find better sourcing for the article. As Judith says, not everything is "advertised through the media" (not that we want advertising anyway), but the media are the only way we at Wikipedia have of verifying the information in the article, so if the media haven't taken note of Ms Malek's accomplishments, neither can we. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Although it is not clear that Ms Chalek was at all involved in adding her name to the Fashion design article, her name was added by 207.38.241.45 (talk · contribs) (on 27 March 2011), whose sole contributions to Wikipedia seemed to revolve around placing Ms Chalek's name in various articles, so one might reasonably suspect a case of either promotion or self-promotion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep@Dan who seems like having some kind of vendetta against the publishing of the article: Your are right media is the only to verify the notability of someone.In this case I wonder how the article on Moulay Yacoubi hasn't been deleted as none of the reference on his page exist. When you click on it, you are redirected you inexistent pages: References[edit]

1.Jump up ^ Sasoon, Vidal (1984). Cutting Hair the Vidal Sassoon Way. Butterworth-Heinemann. 2.Jump up ^ "Biography". Velarri. Retrieved 1 December 2011. 3.Jump up ^ Price, James. "Artistic Director". How is that justified that a hair stylist who worked in a hair salon remains on Wikipedia and a lady who participates actively to humanitarian work through her non profit and helps the American economy to grow via her multiple businesses is being targeted for deletion. I am eager to hear an answer. Emily Cohen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.122.178 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I work as an orientation consultant in a private french fashion school in Paris and all the kids that come to me have mentioned at least once the name of Myriam Chalek and how easy she has made things for young graduate fashion designers aspiring to start their own fashion line! Madam Chalek has innovated the way of starting a fashion business giving the opportunity to whoever wants to be a fashion designers to do it without going through the logistics of a start up. I don't know much about her other businesses but all my fashion students know about the opportunity that Chalek gives to the artistic youth.

Oh! and she is also the one to thank for the new prom party trend that she has actively helped established in France. Before 2013, no high school had a prom party. Regarding the references issues I think some of the external links that talk about her work shall be put in the references section. Have a nice day everyone! Marie De Guillendshmidt

  • Comment That's a touching testimonial, and if we built Wikipedia on word of mouth it would be a nice addition, but we build Wikipedia on reliable sources, and so far, we have none. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDan, you should keep your irrelevant comment for yourself as they are not making the debate advance in any direction.Sarcastically saying that mary's comment is touching is subjective and irrelevant.As a representative of Wikipedia guidelines you are not setting a good example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.117.111 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My apologies for being a bit snarky, but my comment was not irrelevant. My point was that this discussion needs to be based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, not on personal reflections about Ms Chalek. Based on the existing guidelines and policies, I do not see that Ms Chalek merits inclusion. I have not yet seen any keep argument here that gives a policy-based reason why this article should not be deleted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Myriam Chalek is an icon for fashion designers in United States. She has done a tremendous notable work as she has opened new horizons to anyone looking to start a clothing line without having to hire several organizations. Before Myriam Chalek/Creative Business House, 99% of aspiring fashion designers were discouraged by the logistics of starting a business and were reluctant to financially invest. Myriam Chalek has made entrepreneurship among fashion designers much simpler. I am actually surprised the article is being up for deletion as one would think that such prominent lady would have been in wikipedia after her first or 2 years in business based on the remarkable profit of her company.

Robert Schmidt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.0.56 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please provide the direct URL to the piece about Chalek in Vogue-Paris?
The URL for the Vogue-Paris piece is the only kind of thing that will help keep the wikipedia article. Similarly, we need URLs for the other sources. See WP:V, the sources must have a title, date, publisher, page number, that sort of thing. The outcome of KEEP or the outcome of DELETE depends 100% on showing coverage of Myriam Chalek in reliable sources, which means URLs of fashion magazines, newspapers, books, and similar. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:This is clearly self promotion. Remove it. She also included herself in the Entrepreneurs page as a prominent entrepreneur of the 21st century! Come on, stop self-promotion Myriam and focus on your business...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.36.196 (talk • contribs)
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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beetroot Design Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG - references are either from company itself or have trivial mentions of company. mikeman67 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With 9 references from various sources, including greek and international ones, including digital and print sources, I fail to see how this is even CONSIDERED to have "trivial mentions" of the studio. Could you please be more specific?
Danielpogur (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Danielpogur[reply]
Comment. Hi there. Wikipedia policy, per WP:CORP, requires that a company to have "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The number of sources alone do not establish significant coverage. Take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH for more examples. The only source that could in any way be considered significant is from red-dot.org. Generally industry award sites aren't considered significant or independent. If you have sources that indicate substantial coverage, such as a company profile in a national newspaper, please share them here or add them to the article. mikeman67 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Thank you for taking the time to provide me with an answer, I do disagree though with several points. The European Design Awards is as significant as the Red Dot (if not even more). The Novum (german magazine) is being published since 1924, one of the oldest communication design magazines in the world. If this is not a "respectful" and significant source, then I don't know what is. Further more, we're having a discussion on whether a studio is significant or not, when Beetroot have won two of the most important accolades any communication design studio would kill for: European Design Agency of the year 2008 and Red Dot Agency of the year 2011... (!) With all due respect, I really don't see the point in this discussion. Danielpogur (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 March 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, kelapstick(bainuu) 11:45, 13 March 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 soft delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parkville Middle and Center of Technology[edit]

Parkville Middle and Center of Technology (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)

Hopeless personal essay, no encyclopediac content. Tagged as such for over a year. Subject itself also does not appear notable (schools below high-school level default to not). DMacks (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:41, 13 March 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 SigmaXL. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DiscoverSim[edit]

DiscoverSim (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)

Notability not established. Article has a source that purports to establish the use of this product for training (but doesn't mention the product, at least not the page referenced). GScholar turns up exactly one mention, so the scientific literature doesn't help much either. All other sources are affiliated. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Quality Magazine article was not promoting any specific product but note that DiscoverSim is mentioned in a graphic caption. The Motorola Solutions brochure explicitly mentions the use of DiscoverSim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.139.96 (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I didn't see the caption (nor can I load the source right now, but I'll check again later. The Motorola source is a passing mention, not significant coverage, and probably affiliated. That's not enough to meet the notability guidelines. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that notability is established given that DiscoverSim is a new product (less than 2 years), is referenced in an independent published paper, an industry magazine interview/reference, and a major corporation (Motorola Solutions) uses the product in training.

  • Redirect to SigmaXL. Notability is judged by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and that requires multiple examples of in-depth realiable, arm's-length sourcing, (please see; WP:GNG) and the sources I've come across so far do not reach that standard. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:24, 24 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron McKerlie[edit]

Ron McKerlie (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)

Ornge is notable, mainly for events before he joined them., He is not. The references are incidental, or press releases. The ed. has written a number of similar articles, such as my immediately adjacent nominations. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to the usual searches, I also investigated what Highbeam could find--that netted me a single republished press release. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:08, 21 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Left Alone (Left Alone album)[edit]

Left Alone (Left Alone album) (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 album, only source listed is a myspace blog -- JamesMoose (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient material to support a standalone article.  Gong show 01:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Engine Co[edit]

Yellow Engine Co (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)

Looks non-notable. No independent sources in article. A quick google doesn't find much either. The article and the talk page used to be User:Mfeglf's user/talk page, and (as can be seen on the talk page) similar articles seem to have been deleted before. That account seems to only have edited this specific topic. Facing the Sky (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article provides only two links, both to company's own website. I found no reliable sourcing at all to suggest notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reviews or any other notice that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indy Selvarajah[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability criteria and lacks sufficient sources. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a few things about him but nothing substantial. Seems to be called an "up and coming" artist in number of sources which is sort of the definition of "non-notable but almost". -- GreenC 16:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cant find anything for advertising on google related to him. Also he seems to have only made some pilot shows which only one has aired and never been followed up, the press praise is for the channel4 comedy lab series and not the one off segment. Misleading. he has no awards as I can find and the "aint it funny" website mentioned seems to no longer exist. Not notible at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.164.203 (talk) 13:30, 13 March 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 has gotten only minimal participation, but I'm going to resist the urge to relist this, because as far as I can tell, it really does qualify for G4. In the 2-1/2 weeks this has been on AfD, I don't see any substantial changes to the article to reflect any new-found notability from a recent film release. If you have new information (i.e. reliable sources) that shows he's now notable, please don't bother dragging this to deletion review, just be WP:BOLD and recreate the article with the new information. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lamb (actor)[edit]

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

While this could technically be deleted as a re-creation of deleted material, it's been over a year and the actor is still in his career. I'm sending this to AFD to get a quick (1-week) discussion on whether this person's notability has risen enough for him to qualify for a stand-alone article and if so, quickly bring the article up to date. The last AFD closed as "delete" with little discussion. One editor recommended "delete - WP:TOOSOON. If the actor is not notable, the page should be re-deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm on the fence. I don't think his roles are quite big enough. The roles in The White Queen and Divergent are supporting parts. But there is now some press.[20][21][22][23][24][25] although it might be a bit "fluffy" (lacking depth and serious analysis) to establish much notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It was removed previously because he was less notable at the time, but clearly he is more well known now after appearing in The White Queen and upcoming roles in blockbuster films Divergent and Insurgent. davidwr, can you give me a valid reason why you keep deciding to delete this article?Atotalstranger (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I sent it here rather than ask for it to be "speedily deleted" under the criteria G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion because I thought there was a good chance that, with the attention articles tend to get during AFD, other editors might improve the article if in fact the person's notability has increased enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I didn't "leave it alone" because it was basically the same article as it was a year ago at the time of the last deletion discussion. Had I done nothing AND had other editors not improved the article anyways, sooner or later another editor would have marked it for speedy deletion and we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the article would deleted shortly after being marked for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding upcoming roles: 1) Don't assume any future film will be a blockbuster, and 2) don't assume any "upcoming" film will actually make it to the theaters. Beware of the WP:CRYSTAL ball, it can break. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominators comment In light of a major career event (the release of Divergent) scheduled for March 21, 2014 if this looks like a "weak delete" or "no consensus" close any time on or after the initial 7-day period I have no objection to delaying the close until up to 7 days after the film releases to see if this person's notability changes. No point deleting an article or closing the discussion as "no consensus" if there's a good chance that by the end of the month the person will be obviously notable. Off-topic opinion: This very situation is why it's best to wait until after such major events before creating articles unless it's blatantly obvious that notability won't be an issue. Likewise, editors should also postpone starting notability-based AFDs right before such a major event: Had I realized the looming release date, I would've deferred this AFD until April. But it's pointless and WP:POINTY to withdraw it only to possibly re-do it in a few weeks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:31, 13 March 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 withdrawn. SmartSE (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dwight[edit]

Mark Dwight (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 reliable sources cited are about Rickshaw Bagworks (which might be notable) but I can't find anything where this person is the subject, so WP:BIO is not met. SmartSE (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article 1 was published yesterday in the SF Chronicle about him. Also able to find at least one patent 2 tying him to the company mentioned above. Definitely horrendously sourced, but he appears to be notable, possibly on several fronts. And those were found with a cursory google search. C1776MTalk 19:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That source definitely changes things - it didn't exist when I prodded it. I'll withdraw this nomination and trim the article of crappy sources. SmartSE (talk) 19:57, 13 March 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 Article moved. Didn't need an Afd - original article should just have been moved to new title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amirul Haj[edit]

Amirul Haj (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 Site is redirected to Amirul Hajj Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:49, 13 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 00:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaya vs Indonesia (1977 Pre-World Cup)[edit]

Malaya vs Indonesia (1977 Pre-World Cup) (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)

Contested PROD. Non-notable football match, which fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing notable about this football match which warrants retaining the article. I am not sure that an unexplained edit by an IP makes this a contested PROD, but hey ho. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Run-of-the-mill world cup qualifying game. No indication of why this is notable, and doesn't seem to have lasting coverage (you need more than contemporary match reports to show the notability of the game, you need to show it was considered historically important in footballing terms). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable match. GiantSnowman 12:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, non-notable match, no indication of wider coverage bar WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unremarkable world cup qualifier -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm getting sick of PRODs getting turned down because some anonyn00b decides they don't want their pet articles getting deleted. Too bad, this article clearly doesn't meet the notability threshold. – PeeJay 01:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - World Cup qualifying matches are dime-a-dozen and they usually don't have notability; besides, any coverage for them would only be routine coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:13, 16 March 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 Redirected to List of cricket grounds in Bangladesh. Actually, this page applies for speedy deletion, but since some content can be merged to the other article, I am going to only redirect it to leave the history available to anyone. → Call me Hahc21 00:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket grounds in Bangladesh[edit]

List of international cricket grounds in Bangladesh (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)

Duplicates the content of List of cricket grounds in Bangladesh Rubaisport (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by admin Billinghurst, G11. (Non-admin closure.) Stalwart111 06:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ExtremlymTorrents[edit]

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

There being no corresponding article in Romanian WP, this article does not seem to qualify for CSD criterion A2. However, it is not in English, and it seems to have been created by someone with a connection to the product that the article describes. Peter Chastain (talk) 04:47, 13 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 00:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Illest[edit]

Alex Illest (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)

BLP on a panelist in a reality TV show. Currently only referenced with sources from the TV station and it seems hard to find more. Sam Sailor Sing 02:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Sing 02:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Sing 02:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Sing 02:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability on Wikipedia is a question of coverage in reliable sources, not of simply asserting that he's the most notable person on the show without any verifiable evidence to support the claim. He may be the one you like the best, but that's not what gets a person onto Wikipedia — independent coverage in real secondary sources is. Bearcat (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search showed a complete lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Coverage by MTV itself doesn't count, not does discussion on a plethora of social media sites. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the record I previously prodded this, although the creator then disputed the prod nomination with more or less the same unsourced claim that he's the "breakout star of the show" that I took issue with above; the only new source the creator has added at all is a Livejournal post (which is still not a valid source, obviously), and I had the same lack of success as the nominator and Cullen328 in tracking down any substantive reliable source coverage at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1 Girl 5 Gays. WP:TOOSOON. There's a reasonable chance Alex will ascend in WP:Reliable sources so that it becomes possible to write a decent article on him, but we're not there yet. He needs to be in interviews in reputable publications, and covered a bit in depth, like a full profile article. But he's on his way.

    Meanwhile there's no reason the 1 Girl 5 Gays show article he's notable for can't be where this is redirected. In fact a short cast list would probably help that article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:18, 24 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 00:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Saldaña[edit]

James Saldaña (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)

For the simply staggering 28 references provided for this 3-line biography, few (if any) actually provide significant coverage of the subject. Those that do were published by his university. The vast majority are press-packet repeats from various small film festivals that showed his student film. Many are in the first person and were clearly provided by the subject. I don't think his being a (other) cameraman for an Emmy-nominated project is sufficient to confer notability which is the only real claim to notability against the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. Stalwart111 01:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Road To Kosovo (the subject's student film) includes some related discussion, as does my user talk page. I originally suggested waiting until that AFD had been dealt with to allow the article's supporters the chance to contribute. But the article creator has suggested my view of notability is "extreme" so I'm bringing it to the community for consideration. Stalwart111 01:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Your view of notability is not at all "extreme", Stalwart111. It is well grounded in policy, guidelines and precedent. When such a brief article has 28 references, my suspicions immediately kick into high gear, especially when one simple statement has fourteen references. Far better for an article of this length to have three or four rock solid references than 28 weak ones. None of these references are from reliable, independent sources giving significant coverage to this person. Every single one is mediocre. This is a beginning filmmaker who may possibly be notable some day, but not yet. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per dubious notability and suspected WP:COS violation. Number 57 07:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you're a scientist "notability" is conferred by having your research published under peer review at an industry conference or in a professional journal. Same goes in the film world, having your film screened at a film festival or receive an award at film festival is how "notability" is conferred; all film festivals use some form of jury review. I viewed Stalwart opinion as "extreme" because newspaper or magazine articles citing a filmmakers accomplishments are not how notability is established amongst filmmakers. Sure articles about a filmmakers accomplishments are great publicity but it's not the standard of "notability" for filmmakers. A film festival in of itself is "significant coverage" - even if the film festival is not so well known in the circles of popular culture. Saldana's accomplishments are all factual but don't seem to be notable to non-filmmakers, such as journalists. The fact that he was a student at the time, in a non-filmmaking graduate degree program (his resume is online), doesn't depreciate the accomplishment of having his Kosovo film shown in several "non-student" film festivals in "non-student" categories, such as, the Temecula Valley International Film Festival and the Sacramento Film and Music Festival. The Both are international film festivals, maybe not Sundance, but reputable all the same for filmmakers. Who sets the standard for filmmaker's notability, Wikipedia or the film industry? Film Blog 101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Blog 101 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this is the article creator and probably also the subject. Number 57 11:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to answer your question - Wikipedia's community of editors sets the standard for a filmaker's notability with reference to long-standing consensus and established guidelines and policy. Stalwart111 13:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stalwart said, "Wikipedia's community of editors sets the standard for a filmmaker's notability", yes on Wikipedia but that's not the standard in the film world or public consensus and that's my point. Notability in film like academia is defined by peer review, not notoriety in a news article. Film Blog 101 (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Stalwart thanks for taking my "extreme" comment out of context, making this personal and realiating against against my article. Film Blog 101 (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment is available in all its original contextual glory on my talk page (which I did link to above). Stalwart111 13:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stalwart Note that the the Oscars - Academy_Awards like many other film festivals and festivals awards is a process of peer review, "(i.e. only directors vote for directors, writers for writers, actors for actors, etc.). In all major categories" [1] so what I said about establishing "notability" in film is factually correct. This practice is common throughout the film festival circuit and accepted by the public in general for the "notability" of a filmmakers accomplishments. News and magazine articles about filmmakers are generally considered good publicity, criticism and look really good on DVD covers or Amazon product pages, but filmmakers generally look to peers in their field as do academic researchers in order to establish "notability". Film Blog 101 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Stalwart said, "I don't think his being a (other) cameraman for an Emmy-nominated project". That Emmy-nominated project To Die In Jerusalem originated from the Angelus Award winner Daughter's of Abraham; same producer and same plot as noted by the producer in the NY Times article. HBO picked up the Daughter's of Abraham film and expanded it as noted in the NY Times article, in The Southern Illinoisan ( a major regional newspaper not a local newspaper) and in the university newspaper.[2][3][4] The university article also notes that her crew for who went into the Palestinian West-Bank to film Daughter's of Abraham only consisted of two people, one of which was Saldana who already had a BFA degree in film and an undergraduate student with no degree. So Saldana as one of three contributors created Daughters of Abraham and To Die in Jerusalem is clearly a derivative work of that film. The producer confirms the relationship and the origin of the work that can only be attributed to three people; the producer never entered the Palestinian West-Bank for that initial version of the project. Film Blog 101 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Awards#Nomination
  2. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/arts/television/24die.html?pagewanted=print&_r=1&
  3. ^ http://thesouthern.com/entertainment/feature/trying-to-find-common-ground/article_936f032d-8629-5ecd-acb2-dbcbe2004a4f.html
  4. ^ http://archives.dailyegyptian.com/imported-20111018204122/2003/3/3/student-filmmaker-creates-documentary-confronting-israeli-pa.html
  • Delete Afrter slogging through the article it does not appear this guy meets the general notability guidelines. If this was a film wiki, we might want him, but he does not meet general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 14 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brontosaurus Chorus[edit]

Brontosaurus Chorus (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. Reviews from music magazines do not notability confer Guardiancats (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reviews can count towards notability, but only if they're done through a RS. None of the links on the page counts as a reliable source and I can't find any coverage to really show that this band is notable enough for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reviews from music magazines are just as good as any other coverage. The band has received reviews from NME ([26]), ArtRocker ([27]), and The Skinny ([28]), and digging further may well find more coverage. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There does not appear to be an overwhelming amount of coverage but, in addition to the above sources, there is an album review at musicOMH [29] and a (brief) song review at Clash [30].  Gong show 22:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by Gongshow, articles appears to have addressed the notability issue in question. Valoem talk 20:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_March_13&oldid=1142628332"