Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 18

< 17 November	19 November >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kernell[edit]

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

Minor political figure notable only because his son hacked Sarah Palin's email. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elected officials at the American state level are considered notable by default. State senators, state representatives, etc. Note that the majority of the article has nothing to do with the misbehavior of Mr. Kernell's son, and that there are many published sources. DS (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Member of a state legislature, kept per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there are issues with the content of the article, those can be flagged for cleanup — but members of state legislatures are always notable per WP:NPOL #1, and may never be deleted as "non-notable" regardless of how "minor" you think they were. WP:SNOW keep. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WTF Keep? A guy who's been in a state legislature for 38 years isn't a "minor political figure," period. There are nearly 150 countries that have smaller populations than Tennessee. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if someone removes all but one sentence about his son's conviction - this article was created solely to tie him to the scandal. Allons!, in the US a 38 year political career is not notable, it's common.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Krischke[edit]

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

Mayor of a city not large enough (pop. 24K) to confer a presumption of notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL, and not citing nearly enough reliable sourcing to claim a WP:GNG pass in its place. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This BLP not only doesn't reach notability, it appears to not have been updated since its creation, in 2011, and therefore is also out of date. We should warn authors that articles about the current activities of living people are an ongoing commitment. LaMona (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being mayor of a town with a population under 25K is not enough to show notability and he lacks the coverage to meet the GNG.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:58, 25 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Weir[edit]

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

One-sentence stub WP:BLP, relying exclusively on a single primary source with not a scrap of reliable source coverage in sight, of a person with no strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The mayoralty of this particular city is a purely ceremonial position which rotates internally among city councillors, rather than a directly elected executive position, and Wikipedia does not extend an automatic presumption of notability to that type of mayor — rather, her chance of qualifying for an article on here rests entirely on being able to pass WP:GNG by virtue of a significant volume of reliable sourcing, and that's lacking. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy? This is a brand-new article by what is possibly a brand-new WP contributor. If the originator is willing to take it back until more resources are found and it can be un-stubbed, I think that would be best. That said, I did research and was able to find some not terribly significant local news articles (Ventura Star), but nothing in the Los Angeles Times, which would demonstrate greater impact. It may not be possible for this to reach notability, but I'd really like to hear from User_talk:Shaffercds to hear what he/she had in mind LaMona (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I doubt if any amount of rewriting is going to make this subject notable. She is a member of the non-notable Ventura City Council and as such got a little newspaper coverage when she was elected.[1] She is also described as a freelance writer; as such she has co-written one non-notable book.[2] I think it would be unkind to encourage the author to rewrite the article, only to have it rejected once again because the subject simply doesn't meet any of our criteria for inclusion (WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:AUTHOR). --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet the GNG and doesn't appear to meet any subject notability criteria.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a Whittle or a Stokes"[edit]

(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)

Appears to be made up. None of the references added discuss anyone named Whittle or Stokes. Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Whittle and Stokes is also a part of this deletion nomination. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant and evident hoax, along with Whittle and Stokes, and block creator. This nonsense, which has no Google hits or other accessible support at all, represents the only contribution from a new account, which is never a good sign in these situations. I am not actioning this result myself to allow for a second admin opinion but to me the result is clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Now has five Google hits, two of which are the discussion to delete article. Patent Hoax. Ifnord (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3 hoax). Tagged. Nothing on Whittle or Stokes, nevertheless where the twain meet. czar ⨹ 02:33, 25 November 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 Social justice. There are strong arguments on all sides of this debate. On the one hand, there are reliable sources (although many of the sources brought up during this debate do not rise above blogposts, some of them are more substantial). On the other hand, this does indeed look like a dicdef. Given the sourcing, it appears that the people arguing for a merge into Social justice have the strongest case. Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Social Justice Warrior[edit]

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

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

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

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

Pejorative term invented by opponents of an ideology; there don't appear to be significant reliable sources discussing it, unlike Rush Limbaugh's feminazi. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep term is in very frequent use, and has received sufficient coverage in RSs. The topic will be controversial and possibly should be locked until Gamergate dies down a little but should definitely stay. Juno (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the article now has 9 more sources than it did when it was nominated for deletion and was viewed 3,000 times in the last week. Juno (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Weak keep: Direct coverage in many outlets (1 2 3 4 5, just off the top of google) and reference by name in many others. Dea db eef 22:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting magnitude of my support per the valid arguments listed below. I still stand at keep based solely on GNG but concede it is decidedly less black-and-white. Deadbeef 19:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The reliable sources that are even on the page barely mention the term, and only as a fringe pejorative. What is Wikipedia, knowyourmeme.com now? Dave Dial (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. This could get messy, we should watch out for off-site canvassing and there'll be plenty of WP:SPA involvement too I shouldn't wonder. That aside, a brief search gives these sources, though I've gotta say, they took some finding; most references to it are in blogs and other unreliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet GNG and likely WP:NEO. Whether or not the sources are currently cited doesn't matter for AfD purposes, and there appear to be a whole lot of them. Mostly related to GamerGate of course (193 hits for the term in quotes at google news), but also related to men's rights and more generally. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears notable. Google news search reveals multiple on topic hits [3]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete – We are not a dictionary. We don't provide definitions for every fad turn-of-phrase. Take this over to Wiktionary. I've never even heard of it, whatever it is. RGloucester — ☎ 03:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow this one. It's clearly not a dicdef, and strongest possible delete seems awfully charged for a dicdef even if it were. Also, although many articles about neologisms are deleted, we do also keep a lot. It just matters if there's sufficient coverage about the term (rather than just use of the term). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly is, since it has no notability as determined by reliable sources, and is a product of recentism and WP:SOAP. Once I see it in the OED, or some similar book of words and phrases, then maybe it warrants an article. It certainly does not now. It is a WP:FRINGE term. I'm not defending any of the OTHERSTUFF that ought be deleted too. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia documents fringe topics, so that would not be a reason for deletion. Diego (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia documents fringe topics if they have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. While flung in great quantity, the reliable sources about the subject are certainly not "significant", mostly simply a dic def. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant and reliable" as a whole academic paper about the concept, you mean? The "dic def" argument doesn't support itself when you read the sources and see that they provide a lot of context for how an by whom the term is used in addition to what it means. Diego (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a single source that talks about the term applying it to Gandhi and MLK does not actually address the lack of reliable sources about the term. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Social justice. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a prime example of WP:RECENT doing a poor job to allege notability. See new opinion in bold below. To quote, "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view [...]." Search results yield urban dictionary and primarily blogs. Citations are far from ideal to say the least (opinion pieces and blogs[4][5] and heavy partisan bias[6][7]) and largely just mention the term and are not articles dedicated to it[8][9]. Note: I just cited every source from the article as highly suspect and arguably not worth inclusion; That this article relies on those as primary sources speaks volumes. ~~When evaluated with source intent, recentism, and Wikipedia's wider objectives of likely historical context, the result is clear that WP:NEO or WP:WORDISSUBJECT do not apply.~~ ♪ Tstorm (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that WP:RECENT is an essay which may be in the minority view of users and should be garnered no weight for a policy based deletion rationale. WP:NEO does not apply because it's received ample coverage and WP:WORDISSUBJECT because there is encyclopedic information to be harvested from sources which just have not been reincarnated as a result. Tutelary (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with your experience level should know that essays with such large precedent behind them are perfectly valid AfD talking points. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They should take second place when confronted with actual policy like the WP:GNG, though, as policy has gained community-wide consensus, and essays have not. Diego (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also per RGloucester on WP:DICTIONARY. We aren't here to host buzzwords or memes. Moreover, just because a term is used in the media doesn't automatically grant notability. I'd also support Isaidnoway's idea to merge and let them handle the matter of inclusion over there if there is no consensus here. The regulars over there would handle it better than a largely-bureaucratic AfD. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Social Justice. If there's one thing we seem to have something close to consensus on it's that there's probably some content somewhere in here that might have some value even amongst people with delete !votes. A better discussion can be had over what's notable or not out of this over at the broader article. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Purely keeping to the sources, there has been ample coverage and discussion of the term in itself, and as such, warrant notability. The commentators seeking to devoid or delete this page based on WP:NOTDICTIONARY are missing the point. It's not so much an example of the term that that's the issue, it's entries that don't devolve onto it further than that that the policy is intending to eliminate. Feminazi is an example of such. An ample page describing the cultural aspect of the term, to who it is applied, and the like certainly doesn't run afoul of it. Even keeping past that, easily meets WP:GNG in all aspects. Tutelary (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete per WP:RECENT, the OP, and lack of notability except SPS-type stuff surrounding petty internet conflicts. Wikipedia isn't Urban Dictionary. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 05:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps use an actual policy rather than an essay? Tutelary (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. WP:GNG. Was also going to add to my original reason, that the page can/will probably be created once more has been written on it in various places. But definitely no reason to exist now. Got a good eyeroll outta me though. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 05:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the arguments at RECENT gained consensus, they would make sense for a merge and redirect rather than a delete and salt that is being proposed. Article titles should guide to relevant content instead of blanked pages, and the references show widespread use of the term, so it's a likely search term. This AfD should be decided with the interest of readers in mind rather than those of editors defending this or that cause; and readers need to know what is it that is being referred to with this name by such fringe sources like The Washington Post or The Irish Times, either at this page or at some other containing the same material. All the arguments based on "this is too important" or "this is too unimportant" should be essentially ignored. Diego (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dylanfromthenorth. The sources are there. The article does need to be watched for the usual POV warriors. --Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally edited this page to fix obvious POV issues and some (although admittedly not all) of the unreliable/discredited sources, and I'm pleased to see it's been restructured and improved since (despite the edit warring). Nonetheless I don't think this subject is worthy of a standalone article. I think it's worth considering added its content into the Gamergate article as a dedicated section though. Randomwellwisher (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt The term is fringe at best and this exact article was already deleted a month or so ago. The article itself is badly sourced and utterly redundant in terms of academic value. We already have a lengthy article on Social Justice and don't need one for this weird pejorative --109.148.127.93 (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article also gives undue weight to a games journalist called Erik Kain. There is no evidence why this man should define the topic and he doesn't seem to have written any books or such on the subject of social justice. In fact the articles sourcing in general is weak and the definition doesn't fit how the term is used --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Social justice. The subject of a "Social Justice Warrior" is simply trivial, and relates exclusively to the greater subject of social justice, which already has an article. - 64.235.72.185 (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed SPA on the grounds that I am an active contributor, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic at hand, I would prefer to not involve myself and bring attention to my main account. - 64.235.72.185 (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not an SPA. WP:AGF - 208.107.110.144 (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly uncomfortable with the idea that you are both an established user AND editing with an IP. It sounds like you may be evading a COI. Juno (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further note Does anybody have the previous AfD where it was successfully deleted? It should be linked at the top --109.148.127.93 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was as an expired proposed deletion on the 5th October [10]. (Apologies if I didn't do that link right; it's to a search of the deletion logs, should work though). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an AfD for it, I believe, although it may have been deleted before that. Is there no record of the deletion? Some people made compelling arguments for its deletion and it was thankfully successful, it should be listed here now that somebody felt the need to recreate so soon after the deletion of the first one, or this will keep happening --109.148.127.93 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further note - Initial version of the article is very similar to the article that of the same name was deleted less than a month ago: [11]. I'm unsurprised how POV it is in tone, it is likely the article itself was written to prove a WP:POINT --5.81.52.82 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for an admin to compare the initial created version to the one that was deleted? [12] --5.81.52.82 (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

an expired PROD deletion doesnt matter for anything. it just means that at one time a version has minimal to no sourcing - it was flagged - no one provided better sourcing or objected before a week had passed it was deleted. only in the case of a community consensus through an AfD would a previous version matter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Try Wiktionary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The most relevant category for this term is Category:Political metaphors referring to people. See other articles in there for a reference. I think this word has been covered in quite a lot of media recently, such as being explained several times in the Guardian for example. On the other hand, it's not as notable as angry white male for example as that one is even found in dictionaries, so I'll mark this as weak keep --Pudeo ' 12:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Social justice. Not notable enough to warrant a separate article per WP:IMPORTANCE. gbrading (ταlκ) 13:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or transwiki: per above. Never mind recentism, this is a dicdef at best. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a relavant term but it is probably going to cause headaches. Also the filing party submitted it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT Retartist (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete i dont see any reliable sources about the subject that are not merely WP:DICDEF. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- if Pejorative were better built out, it might be a possible merge target. Would there be another place to send it? either merge or redirect? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was easily able to find secondary sources discussion among multiple references. — Cirt (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should post them here, I haven't seen the term used in serious news coverage or academic texts on social justice but if you can find good sources then we should keep it --109.148.127.93 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge because no one ever says that and because it would be easy enough to create a section on the social justice article for online social justice movements where this term can be noted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- except that it is not ever actually about "social justice", its primarily "anti feminist" and more generally "anti-something-that- we -think/claim- is-feminist- but- there- is- never- any- actual- examples- of"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We're not a dictionary, and there's no indication in sources that the pejorative itself is notable. News articles that mention the term do so to define the epithet for the reader, when they quote some gamergater who uses it. That's not an establisher of notability. Tarc (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN pejorative. Take it to Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary --Guerillero | My Talk 21:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without !voting at this time. The frequent use of SJW in Gamergate controversy is incomprehensible without an acronym link. The acronym should be included somehow. Robert McClenon (talk)

This exists: [13] --5.81.52.82 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's one article, an iffy article at that. Also, the acronym "SJW" is referred to once in the article, the full description two other times. At the very most, a section can be added on the Social justice article. But that is not my !vote. Dave Dial (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep : this term is now often used. --Vspaceg (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)|[reply]

There aren't really many good sources for this being notable. The first google results are Urban Dictionary, a Tumblr blog and Roosh V's personal blog --5.81.52.82 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: This phrase is an obvious Neologism. How many articles does WP have on neologisms? Cla68 (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - Yes, we do: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The few sources actually about this term - rather than just discussing or mentioning it while covering another topic - do not rise above the spirit of DICDEF enough to justify a stand-alone article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to social justice. I see numerous hits on Google News, but I don't think that this could be expanded much beyond a dictionary definition. I don't think this subject is as of yet independently notable beyond the concept of social justice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Anyone who even infrequently uses social media should have come across the term. I will agree that the article in it's current form definitely is not brilliant, but there should be something on the topic. —Frosty ☃ 07:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are very few sources and as such it is difficult to cover the topic properly, that is if it deserves an article on the project at all --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, though I'm not sure of the best target. It is a WP:NEO, and in light of being a negative-connotation word, should not be used in isolation without being able to fully give it context. As such it should be at the part of a larger article. I don't think that's social justice because while loosely related to the concept, it's not really connected. It seems the best current location is Gamergate controversy where the term got more light, though I'm aware there's other non-VG areas picking this up; however, other suggestions are possible. Deletion (or at least deletion without redirection) is inappropriate as the term is a valid search term and WP is not censored. --MASEM (t)
Obvious keep per the numerous sources listed above. No idea whatsoever why this would be nominated. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- @Thargor Orlando: please identify which of the sources are not merely uses of the term or go beyond WP:DICDEF and are actually about the phrase itself? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest merging it along with feminazi and any others into an article about something along the lines of pejoratives associated with radical feminism. Half Hat 15:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the largely ill-informed "keep because it's used a lot" votes confuse usage of the term with coverage of the term itself, as a pejorative word. Feminazi has received significant coverage in sources on the nature of the word itself, which is why an article there is justified. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are still even lacking in a basic definition of the term. The current one gives WP:UNDUE weight to a games journalist called Erik Kain --5.81.52.82 (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd considering we got one for the GamerGate article. Half Hat 20:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you talking about GamerGate? --5.81.52.82 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because that has or at least had a definition of the term. Half Hat 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We had to scramble to the dregs of potentially usable sources because there we no actually reliable sources" speaks volumes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? Half Hat 21:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the fact that for us to even have a "definition" for this article we need to stoop to a blogger, from a finance magazine none the less, because no actual reliable linguistic-based sources have covered the term - ie the "source" in the GG article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term has also been used in academic contexts outside of the GamerGate, by the American Society for Public Administration where it refers to "new warriors of our times" that "fight with words instead of weapons and wage war within our society instead of on other shores", and by The Stringer here, where it's applied to someone fighting an unjust legal system. Diego (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem to be about the pejorative "SJW" but rather about people who are actually known for working for social justice - it cites Ghandi and King as examples. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So? It shows notability for the concept of social justice warrior in general. Diego (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that there is no sourcing about "the concept of social justice warrior in general" connecting Social justice warrior (slur) and Social justice warrior (activist) means that we cannot lump them together either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Social justice warrior (slur) and Social justice warrior (activist) are separate things? To me they pretty much look like both have the same meaning. I have seen no reliable source in linguistics establishing Social justice warrior (slur) as a separate concept, unrelated to the idea of an activist fighting for social justice; in fact that's the very thing that is being critizised or ridiculed. The usage as slur is not about a separate concept, all references cover the same topic. Articles in Wikipedia are defined by what reliable sources say about a topic, so that distinction you make is OR unless a RS makes it. Diego (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And if you read the academic reference I provided, it does establish criticism of SJWs by the general public as part of their defining characteristics, so yes we have a RS connecting both ideas. Diego (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a quotation of this please? I can't find anything in the article that connects the two ideas --5.81.52.82 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this sentence, right in the introduction: "In advocating for unwelcome changes, these warriors are often accused of violating the social contract and being “Un-American”". It would have been nice if you asked without labeling my claims as possibly false. Diego (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So from the "un-American" we can presume that this is an americentric term? At least in that singular recorded usage of it --5.81.52.82 (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about a mere synonym for social justice advocacy, there is no basis for a separate article. If we are talking about the slur, there is insufficient evidence to establish notability. Which is the topic being proposed for this article?--Trystan (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A person who engages in social justice advocacy, and is critizised because of it" (which is how the academic paper describes the concept). This is not about the abstract idea of "social justice", but about the people who pursue it, and what media are saying about them; i.e. a WP:SPINOUT of social justice as a related subtopic. Academic sources and presence in the media don't establish notability in your book? Diego (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You used the plural for "academic sources", what we have is one academic source and some blog entries, we have to be careful of WP:FRINGE --5.81.52.82 (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Cúchullain. It's not enough to have sources that merely use or define the term; we need reliable sources that are about the term itself. The current state of the article is simply a definition followed by a tangent regarding one instance of its use, and I see no evidence that a reliably-sourced article is possible on this topic at this time.--Trystan (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of articles is not decided on the current state of articles, but on the existence of significant coverage of the topic at the reliable sources that describe it. We have plenty of reliable sources giving common characteristics of what a social justice warrior is. Diego (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources are blog posts. I'm not saying that there are none at all but saying "plenty of reliable sources" is exaggerating the amount of and quality of material that we do have access to --5.81.52.82 (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep per WP:GNG or merge as a section at social justice per WP:PAGEDECIDE. In-depth coverage of the concept at an academic source and multiple high-profile news media establish this as a worthy topic, although placing it in context of the larger SJ article may provide a better structure. Also, irrespective of the policies that would justify this result or the other, definitely those readers wanting to learn what "SJW" refers to should be given access to these high quality compiled references that talk about it, rather than a deleted page. Diego (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bunch more of references that define, use and provide context for the concept: [14] [15] (in both cases used as a synonim of "civil rights champion"), [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Those saying that sources don't exist beyond a dictionary definition may want to revisit their arguments. Diego (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you are actually putting forth ACLU blog as a source we can and should use? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it is most appropriate to merge then I would say that is the way to go. This isn't notable enough by itself and if is can be tied to the real concept of social justice (rather than as a byword for anti-homophobia/anti-racism/anti-sexism as I generally see it used) then it should go there and be appropriately written and sourced --5.81.52.82 (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care either way. There's clear usage of the term in multiple sources with the meaning of someone who fights for social causes (which is seen as a good or bad thing depending on who you ask), it has been defined as such in an academic paper, and reliable newspapers are documenting how the Internet is using that meaning as a pejorative against people involved in the GamerGate. To me that qualifies as a topic, but if people think that information fits better at social justice, I'm fine with it. Diego (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first two of your sources use the phrase only once, in the headline. That's not the sort of source that is relevant for establishing notability. Other that, I see a handful of blog posts that don't for me collectively meet the test set out in WP:N in terms of quality or depth of coverage.--Trystan (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTABLOG and WP:RSOPINION: "otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format." The links above are by ACLU, The Stringer, Boing Boing, Spectator.co.uk or The Nation, and there are plenty more where these came from; the whole space of online media are writing about SJWs, and many of them devote whole articles to the topic. (And BTW, how does it matter that the words "social justice warrior" are only uttered once? The whole ACLU and Stringer articles are about persons fitting the concept and defined by the writers with those words). Diego (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and neither forbes nor kain (nor the vast majority of footnotes used) are linguistics sources - reliable opinions for business, sure, but the topic is not business related. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, being non-linguistic, they can't establish Social justice warrior (slur) as an independent topic. They're acceptable sources to establish notability about online social phenomena though. Diego (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was just getting ready to nominate this for deletion myself and saw it was already up. (1) Not an encyclopedic topic, simple pejorative. (2) Non-notable neologism — recent creation which fails GNG. That the Gamergaters have made this a sort of slogan is neither here nor there — merge a line or two into that piece if necessary. Carrite (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTIONARY, User:Trystan, and User:Carrite. Furthermore, the definition supplied here applies exclusively to its use by RSs surrounding the Gamergate controversy. Outside of that, last I checked, its only use by non-extremist sites has been to refer to someone who co-opts social justice concepts and uses them as an excuse to harass others and/or justify their own bigotry (though I could be wrong). So, failing a delete, merge with Social justice if a significant number of RSs discuss the term outside the context of Gamergate, or Gamergate controversy otherwise. Random th e Scrambled ^(?) 22:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as section at social justice, there are a variety of sources that do talk about it, but I think it is be notable in the context of social justice. --Obsidi (talk) 17:00, 27 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Aniko[edit]

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

This afd failed to reach consensus, but the underlying notability issues remain. Beach soccer is not covered by WP:NSPORT and he has not received significant coverage for his involvement in this sport meaning the article fails WP:GNG. Beyond that, he has not played regular football in a fully professional league or for the Estonian national team, meaning the article also fails WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as it was already nominated and kept in 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrus Mitt. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't. That afd, as I mentioned in the nomination, was closed no consensus. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm willing to reconsider if caps for national beach football teams are deemed notable. IJA (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. His beach soccer achievements have been minor at best. Whilst NSPORT does not cover beach soccer, we must look to GNG. I see no significant non-routine coverage of this player for any achievements. Fenix down (talk) 19:26, 24 November 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 Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Boys[edit]

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

WP:BIO. I have searched for reliable sources and could not find a single reliable source for this user on Youtube. All I find are statistic sites for Youtube which don't demonstrate notability. Tutelary (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:31, 18 November 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. Renaming can be addressed through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cho[edit]

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

I don't mean to come off as being insensitive, but from all appearances, it seems like the only remarkable thing about this individual was the manner of his death. I could not find a thing to show that he was in the least bit notable before this. And while it did eventually prompt his family to sue, there is nothing to indicate that his death and the subsequent lawsuit had any sort of lasting implications that would give him any kind of notability. All of the sources are only news articles pertaining specifically to the shooting and trials, with nothing to indicate that the incident and individual had any lasting notability. In short, while tragic, I can find no sources to keep this article from being anything more than a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Rorshacma (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Shooting of Michael Cho. The event of Michael Cho's death received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, therefore passing WP:GNG, both when it occurred, and the related lawsuit that was finalized in 2010. However, the subject Michael Cho does not appear to have received significant other than the event that is his shooting and death, therefore this appears to fall under WP:BIO1E and should be redirected to the event. As an event, due to the persistent coverage that occurred after the event itself in 2010, it can be said to meet WP:EVENT. That being said this article should be edited to be about the event and not the individual killed (as it is the event that received the significant coverage, and not the person killed).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename and refocus as suggested by RightCowLeftCoast. The shooting is notable and has received sustained coverage. Making the article be about the shooting rather than the victim is consistent with WP:CRIME, as shown in many of our articles titled "Murder of...", "Death of...", "Kidnapping of..." etc. --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets GNG because of extensive news coverage. But move toShooting of Michael Cho, or something similar.ShulMaven (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was coverage by the LA Times and OC News Register and subject should meet WP:GNG but the article ought to be renamed Shooting of Michael Cho --Artene50 (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hakka Kuen[edit]

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

I was unable to find significant independent coverage to support the claim that this is a significant martial arts style. All I found was some passing mentions, so it fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had the same results as nom. I didn't find any coverage that I would call "significant and independent". It may be out there, but I didn't see it with my Google search. Papaursa (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No supporting evidence for the claim that this is an important martial arts style.131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raining Men (Rihanna song)[edit]

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

Song fails the GNG as it does not have significant coverage in third-party sources. NSONG also notes, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label... This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work."

Let's take a quick look through the article:

- The "Recording and production" section is merely a prose rendering of the "Credits and personnel" section, which cites the parent album's liner notes. (Primary source.)
- "Conception and development" mostly cites interviews of the artists, Rihanna and Nicki Minaj (see bolded part of NSONG above). The other two sources merely verify that it was released to radio. A single release does not establish notability.
- "Composition" mostly cites reviews of the parent album Loud and the song's sheet music.
- All reviews in "Critical reception" are for the album. Nothing about the song individually.
- "Chart performance" is a prose rendering of the "Charts" section. NSONG states while charting "may" (emphasis not mine) make a song notable, "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" detailed above.
- The "Live performances" section is based on one review of the Loud Tour.

With no non-trivial sources discussing the work outside of the context of an album or tour, this song fails notability guidelines and should not have an article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song is a SINGLE. It received enough coverage from the reviews of the album, which is fine to use when reviewing a song in an article, it's used in nearly all of the singles, since as I have said before third, fourth, fifth etc singles don't get separate reviews apart from the album ones. It also have been performed over 90 times on Rihanna's concerts and charted. Also WP:GNG policy applies here. And stop being ridiculous, there was a discussion like this before. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how this song meets the GNG when I explained clearly in the nomination how it doesn't (since it lacks significant coverage, which is defined as sources that include more than a passing mention of the subject). Also, not all singles are notable nor warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not seeing the point to this nomination since the it's not a stub, It's actually well sourced and has even been played live more than once ... If this was a stub with 1 or even no sources then perhaps I'd understand ... but it's not.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the sources are either (a) about the album/tour/other things with the song only given passing mention, or (b) are self-interested parties (the artists) discussing the song in interviews, which NSONG says is excluded from the "non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" criteria. Furthermore, stubs are not the only articles that need to be deleted (nor should all stubs be deleted, necessarily). The concern here is notability. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see any problems with the sources, I'll admit some could be better (ALOT better!) but on the whole well atleast IMHO they look fine. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have moved the article to Raining Men (song). Anyone who wishes to do so is quite welcome to create a dab page at "Raining Men (song)" after moving it back to the previous title (I can do that if admin buttons are needed), but the situation we previously had (of "Raining Men (song)" redirecting to "Raining Men (Rihanna song)") was just silly. J Milburn (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That move was contrary to an RM discussion that just completed a few days ago – please see Talk:Raining Men (Rihanna song). I have reverted it. Moving an article around while it is being discussed for deletion is also a problem. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I appreciate the fact that you did something towards dealing with the redirect/dab problem, there are now a large number of incoming links to a dabpage. I have changed the Rihanna songs template which will sort out most of them, but could you please do the rest, seeing as you create the dab? J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think they are mostly fixed now. Some were indirect links due to another template, and it may take a bit of time for the template change to be reflected in the database. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Strong Keep I'm going with keep on this one, first of all it was released and promoted as a single and I do see enough third party notability to warrant a separate article and on its own merits. Is it perfect? Certainly not, but it is not something that cannot stand on its own. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while being a single does not in itself indicate notability, I did find some decent coverage outside of album reviews at Idolator, Spin, and Complex. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seriously @Chasewc91:, what is wrong with you? Why are you being like this. This is a single release with third party sources throughout, this nomination goes against everything you have been saying over the notability talk page. This background section is third party explaining the concept and production process of the song between Rihanna and Minaj. How else are we supposed to know this unless Rihanna, Minaj, or other members of the team who made the song speak about it? It's idiotic. There is third party for live performances and for the numerous chartings. ALL song articles have a prose chart section, and then a table, so that point is irrelevant. Not all singles get 1000 single reviews, some singles get none; single reviews are becoming a thing of the past now because of the rise of the digital era and any song can garner critical or chart attention, so that point is irrelevant. Compositional info 9 times out of ten ALWAYS comes from the album reviews, for music articles on Wikipedia, and the music sheet is perfectly acceptable too. There is no rule saying you can't use just one source for live performances, either. Plus, there are 27 sources. Can't help that there isn't as much info as "S&M (song)" for example. You're on a raging vendetta and I have absolutely no idea why. You are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH by nominating such a vast amount of articles which pass GNG for deletion. I think senior editors and administrators need to assess your actions because you are getting out of control now. I'm actually lost for words. The whole "being a single does not necessarily establish notability" rule needs to be changed too. Being a single in itself asserts notability, because it has clearly been selected as being better than anything else on the album. — ₳aron 09:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the information was merged back into the album, we would have problems with WP:SIZE, now wouldn't we? BTW being a "single" does NOT infer notability. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The composition, conception, and bits of the reception section that aren't already in the album article could easily be condensed and kept there. The rest isn't necessary. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:35, 19 November 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 Paul Hyde. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love and the Great Depression[edit]

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

The article should be merged with the bands article as it is little more than a track listing. Also, appears to fail WP:NALBUMS on its own. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and redirect to Paul Hyde. The nominator hasn't advanced any argument for deletion, instead suggesting merge. No sources found in my searches; redirecting to the artistes album satisfies the guidelines at WP:NALBUM. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 19 November 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 Paul Hyde. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Living off the Radar[edit]

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

The article should be merged with the bands article as it is little more than a track listing. Also, appears to fail WP:NALBUMS on its own. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and redirect to Paul Hyde. The nominator hasn't advanced any argument for deletion, instead suggesting merge. No sources found in my searches; redirecting to the artistes album satisfies the guidelines at WP:NALBUM. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 19 November 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 Paul Hyde. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Book of Sad Songs, Volume 1[edit]

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

The article should be merged with the artist article as it is little more than a track listing. Also, appears to fail WP:NALBUMS on its own. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and redirect to Paul Hyde. The nominator hasn't advanced any argument for deletion, instead suggesting merge. No sources found in my searches; redirecting to the artistes album satisfies the guidelines at WP:NALBUM. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 19 November 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 Paul Hyde. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Sign (Paul Hyde album)[edit]

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

The article should be merged with the artist article as it is little more than a track listing. Also, appears to fail WP:NALBUMS on its own. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and redirect to Paul Hyde. The nominator hasn't advanced any argument for deletion, instead suggesting merge. No sources found in my searches; redirecting to the artistes album satisfies the guidelines at WP:NALBUM. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Yin[edit]

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

The sourcing is not bad, and maybe notability requirements are met. But I'm nominating this to get a second opinion from other Wikipedians about a BLP article about a minor that was evidently created by a single-purpose editor who very likely has a conflict of interest in creating this article. I would worry less about this if the article subject were already an adult. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This sister may be the more notable one of the two, but as I said on the other sister's AFD: "The reference style here hides the source of the references, and most are not RS." There are a lot of blogs and youtube films, some promotional sites, a few announcements of exhibits in not well-known places. What I don't find is anything from the art world - that is, no major museums or galleries. These two sisters are highly promoted, but may be just a flash in the pan. LaMona (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add to this that the articles appear to have been authored heavily by the same SPA User:Beginspring, something that I suspect makes them part of the very intense promotional campaign around them. LaMona (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as promotional. We can do this even if there is borderline notability -- & in fact even if there is even actual notability. WP is not a nadevertising medium.
Delete as promotional. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 23:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoth[edit]

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

No indication of noteability through secondary sources. The only source mentions the -battle- of Hoth, which happened in the Empire Strikes Back. This could do with a redirect to said movie page. Jtrainor (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there appears to be real-world coverage here, here, here, here, here, and here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just revised the article to use the sources I listed above. I also housed all in-universe content under a "Fictional appearance" section, but this content could be summarized further. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik's looking beyond article's current sourcing to show WP:N through WP:NRVE. Well done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep obviously, in that it's an ice planet with a small fortification on it. Also extremely well known fictional setting in multiple works. Artw (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely played! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sourcing found by Erik. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somya Ranjan Mahapatra[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources. The one source cited does not mention the subject, the external link is to the subject's home page. Googling turned up nothing. I note in addition that the entire article appears to be the work of an WP:SPA who happens to be the very subject of the article. WP is not a social networking site for posting resumes. Msnicki (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that would put him over the notability bars of WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability and possible self-publicity as well--Mevagiss (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. User Created this page for Self Promotion with no references. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, self promotional article. Also reccomend indefinite block of editor. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:04, 24 November 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 by nominator (non-admin closure). — BranStark (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Americare[edit]

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

Article does not indicate what is notable or significant about this organization, as it only explains that the company exists and what they do; does not seem to meet notability guidelines 331dot (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I don't know what's your criteria for whether something is significant or not, but that's just your subjective opinion. Seeing the guidance you've posted, the page has references from "reliable, independent secondary sources." and it is a stub, so it will get more references either from me or maybe from you if you wish to contribute :)

Every Wikipedia user has a 'subjective opinion'; that is how things are done here. In reference to this discussion, two of the references given are from the State of New York(essentially one source) and from what I see merely explain the company. There are many companies that do what this one does; companies do not merit an article because they exist and perform services; that is expected. The other reference given to this new program doesn't indicate why it is significant, at least to me. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Just because the article does not cite many sources, does not mean it is not notable (Arguably the article passes WP:ORG by itself citing the New York Department of Health twice and a New York local news organization). But a quick google news search reveals dozens of mentions by various news organizations. There is substantial coverage of this organization which easily gives the subject the depth of coverage necessary to remain in Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby withdraw my suggestion; I appreciate the discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments are a bit thin; however, I note there is no real argument made to prove the positive. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Hayes[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the this BLP, do not believe the page meets GNG. Also do not believe the subject's career achievements meet the criteria of NACTOR. J04n(talk page) 14:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 12 November 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 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, her roles do not appear to have been significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR. Everymorning talk to me 15:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet NACTOR. Also a case of WP:TOOSOON for this young actress, maybe notable in future but not right now. Cowlibob (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG as well as NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOOSOON. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 19 November 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. Too soon. Fails GNG and NFOOTY, and although he comes perhaps close to passing NCOLLATH, he's not there yet. Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Pawlowski[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails the tests at WP:NFOOTY. ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In regard to the proposed deletion of Noah Pawlowski because of failure on WP:NFOOTY. He is not a professional footballer and rather his inclusions would fall under the category of WP:NCOLLATH, in particular #1. He was awarded the top Canadian university honour for goalkeeping, that is a national award and so it seems like a clear point for inclusion, additionally he has been "the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other", for example.--YouCallThisClean? (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't being listed as a professional athlete, rather as an Amateur Sports Person who has won a national award and who has received non trivial news coverage. This qualifies the entry as notable based on WP:NCOLLATH--YouCallThisClean? (talk) 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NCOLLATH as has been awarded all-Canadian status. NCOLLATH suggests awards and similar to those found here are sufficient. All-Canadian football team would appear to be the equivalent to College Football All-America Team. Needs expanding to show WP:GNG in a wider context not deleting. @GiantSnowman: and @IJA: may want to revisit their opinions as WP:NFOOTY is not relevant in this context. Fenix down (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@YouCallThisClean?: @Fenix down: - NCOLLATH states "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage" which I don't see here, regardless of whatever college-level award they have been given. Giant Snowman 13:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has he won anything? The article only says nominated. IJA (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the source clearly states: Pawlowski is the only goalkeeper named to the CIS First Team All-Canadian list. This is sufficient per NCOLLATH for notability as winning a national award to my mind. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage" - where is that with this individual? Giant Snowman 17:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simple logic will tell you that, if there are no substitutes named in a football-related list (which there aren't here), there can be only one goalkeeper named. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Take a look at reference 2 on the Noah Pawlowski page. It clearly qualifies as non-trivial media coverage, ie "beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other".--YouCallThisClean? (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err no it's not, it's incredibly WP:ROUTINE and also from a non-WP:RS to boot. Also your ping didn't work. Giant Snowman 08:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the the text of WP:NCOLLATH College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. That particular link features a two minute long feature on Noah Pawlowski specifically. It includes a personal interview as well as a brief biography. An interview with an individual discussing team and coach interaction as well as thoughts on being with the team are not "merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage". And by what standard do you consider Chek News to not be a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCallThisClean? (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 November 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 14:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable--Mevagiss (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not persuaded that this guy is notable. There is no question that he fails GNG and NFOOTY; this leaves the NCOLLATH guideline. Whilst he was indeed named in a major University level list, I'm not convinced that this list is notable by our standards, and he certainly hasn't received non-routine, independent coverage for being named in the team. He hasn't won an award, he was named in a team-of-the-season type thing, and that's a noteworthy distinction. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Passes WP:NCOLLATH "As the source clearly states: Pawlowski is the only goalkeeper named to the CIS First Team All-Canadian list. This is sufficient per NCOLLATH for notability as winning a national award to my mind" He did indeed win a national award distinguishing him as the top goalkeeper in Canadian university soccer, this has been pointed out a few times. Additionally he did receive independent non routine news coverage as per the video link in the references. Here it is again.

Based on the the text of WP:NCOLLATH College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. That particular link features a two minute long feature on Noah Pawlowski specifically. It includes a personal interview as well as a brief biography. An interview with an individual discussing team and coach interaction as well as thoughts on being with the team are not "merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage". YouCallThisClean? (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postscripts[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine; only references are from the publisher. Appears to be part of a long-running, albeit informal, campaign to promote this press and its owner Deb (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the list of authors and having published an award winner they seem sufficiently weighty to justify an article - needs better 3rd party refs though. Artw (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they've published multiple award winners, in fact. Article needs bringing up to date. Artw (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with multiple awards and refs for those awards. Artw (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to hand it to you, you've found more than I could. Deb (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've actually picked kind of an awful title to Google for. SF Encyclopedia helped a lot with pointing me where to look though. Artw (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability, which is not inherited. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:INHERITED is only an essay and, as it indicates, it is not necessarily applicable to publications such as magazines. We do, for example, accept that books can inherit notability from their authors and vice versa. James500 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's relevant. As it's effectively in book format in it's latest incarnation I'd say WP:NBOOKS applies, and the series would be notable due to multiple awards. Even if it's considered as a magazine I think they would swing it. Artw (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 11 November 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 14:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award-winning publication. Passes WP:NBOOKS. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies criteria 2 of NBOOKS. James500 (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb and Randykitty, thoughts on this WP:NBOOKS#2 rationale? czar ⨹ 22:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the article, now that Artw has supplied appropriate references. Deb (talk) 08:47, 25 November 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. Article clearly needs work, but that is not the realm of AfD. A possible redirect can be further discussed on the article's talk if so desired, but given the !voting pattern here, there's not much use in keeping this AfD open any longer. Randykitty (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to people confused by the edit history. Randykitty and I were apparently working on this at the same time, and I ended up accidentally re-closing it after he had already done so. I've backed out my close to let his stand. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chandu (1958 film)[edit]

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

No notability and poorly referenced (no reliable sources). Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: A brand new stub article on an early Bengali film sent to AFD hours after creation. Pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to sources, yes... but that difficulty does not equate to non-notability. Is there a special reason to toss improvable Indian film stubs? We do have alternatives that serve the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the film's stars, Mehmood Ali is a multi award-winner, and Om Prakash himself received accolades from his industry, as has Pran [21] and Shashikala [22] Is an assertion being put forward that a 1958 film, part of the career of many Indian notables, has not received any sort of attention... even if in Hindi language sources? I remain quizzical. I remind the nominator of WP:NF#Other evidence of notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quiet notable. It seems nominator is nominating all articles for deletion created by this user without any research. I fully agree with comments of MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs). Jethwarp (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bollywood films of 1958. I welcome the creation of an article about this film with a couple of reputable references, but currently there is nothing in my researches suggesting the film is notable. The whole content of the article (which only consists of technical data) is already included in the list, so there is anything worthy of merging. Cavarrone 07:24, 11 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 12:40, 11 November 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 14:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Absolutely agree with MichaelQSchmidt here - Films before 1990s are alot harder to source so leeway is usually given on these. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bollywood films of 1958 not the purpose of WP to generate notability for this film. Possible usable sources in other languages so the first step would be to start articles in those languages, not the english WP--Mevagiss (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Non-English topics do not belong in the english Wikipedia? We do not "generate notability"... its a presumption of existing notability (in any langauge) that builds articles, even on non-English topics. Just sayin' Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that notability is demonstrated not presumed - to make a WP article. This film seems not to meet this though. My point, and what puzzles me, is that the author evidently understands the content the film and its probable publicity in relevant language (Bengali?), but chooses to make an English article with no appropriate sources.--Mevagiss (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, new editors are not perfect, but his not including them does not make them non-existent. I am unconvinced that a project of multi-award-winners Mehmood Ali [23], Om Prakash [24], Pran [25], and Shashikala [26] was somehow and inexplicably ignored by Indian media 56 years ago. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not think a 1958 film by Mehmood should have brought to AFD. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as previously suggested. If more information can be found in the future to greatly improve the article that grant other films of this era their own entries. Yahudi is an example of a fantastic job done for a movie on List of Bollywood films of 1958. I do not automatically dismiss the idea that the movie is notable under general Wikipedia standards, however the lack of sources that state notability beyond "it exists" is what sways me here. For something to be notable it needs to be demonstrated as such. Without a concrete area to point to within sources or substantive details to fall back on this should remain on the pre-existing "list article". ♪ Tstorm (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to add that this is a potential candidate for a move to AfC for partial sandbox hibernation until improvement or for an involved party to take it to userspace. The existing info wouldn't be 100% lost, then. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 19:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaubees Ghante[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable sources. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: Yet another stub article sent to AFD within hours of being contributed and without tagging it for editorial concerns. Yes, pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to source but I find it difficult to conceive that a film full of award-winning Indian notables received absolutely no attention ever, even if only in pre-internet Hindi-language sources. I hope the new editor does not choose to never contribute again. We do have alternatives. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obvious keep. Please see WP:BEFORE. many sources [27] Jethwarp (talk) 15:25, 10 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 12:39, 11 November 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 14:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Absolutely agree with MichaelQSchmidt here - Films before 1990s are alot harder to source so leeway is usually given on these. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 19:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter Of Sindbad[edit]

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

Not notable and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment: Interestingly, and even though pre-1990s Indian films are sometimes difficult to source, it seems this one was part of the careers of enough Indian notable to become part of the enduring public record. I am wondering why a sourcable stub was brought to AFD mere minutes after being contributed, when tagging for editorial attention might have been more prudent. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously notable alternate name is Sindbad ki Beti. Pl. go thru WP:BEFORE before nominating for deletion. Jethwarp (talk) 15:30, 10 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 12:38, 11 November 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 14:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Absolutely agree with MichaelQSchmidt here - Films before 1990s are alot harder to source so leeway is usually given on these. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:13, 18 November 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. and move per discussion (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery, New York[edit]

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

This dis-ambiguation page makes no sense. It has 4 uses; only the first of which meets the criteria someone who wants to search for Montgomery, New York would want to search for. The second is a county, and it's very unlikely that someone who would expect the article to be at Montgomery County, New York would simply type "Montgomery, New York". The third and fourth of these are titled "Fort Montgomery", and I'm absolutely sure that if a place is called "Fort Montgomery", someone who wants to search for an article would type "Fort Montgomery". Georgia guy (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Montgomery (town), New York to Montgomery, New York, with appropriate hatnotes linking to the village (the parenthetical should really be at the end of the article title, no?) and county. Agree Fort Montgomery doesn't belong at all -- lots of things are named Montgomery in New York. Alternatively this page could be moved to Montgomery, New York (disambiguation), with the town given the main title and Fort Montgomery removed, but it seems like the town, county, and village could best be handled by a hatnote. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but move page to Montgomery, New York (disambiguation) and give town the primary page. There's enough genuine possibility for confusion to justify that this is WP:USEFUL. Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Montgomery, New York (disambiguation) and move Montgomery (town), New York to Montgomery, New York, per the above. Harmless to keep with the number of entries on the page. bd2412 T 15:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ammanford A.F.C.[edit]

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

A bloated unsourced fanpage for an amateur football (soccer) team for a tiny town in West Wales. The highest it has reached in the Welsh Football League is Division 2. The "History" section is also entirely a copypaste from http://www.ammanfordtownafc.co.uk/pages/page_9659/History.aspx so if anyone needs to find information about this club, they can refer to its website. Fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject appears notable as has played in national competition, and from the article appears to have spent several seasons in the top flight of welsh football. Agree there are WP:CRUFT and WP:COPYVIO issues on this page, but don't agree the response is to delete. Club also appears to have competed previously in the national cup competition. I am not aware of any precedent whereby clubs that have competed in national competitions (and at the stage where they are fully national rather than regional rounds) are not deemed notable regardless of their country of origin. Needs a major overhaul, but not deleting unless the claims contained within the article are untrue. Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Welsh Cup quarter-finalists in two separate season; meets the (informal) criteria at WP:NTEST. Not too concerned that the article is a mess, it's pretty easy to fix. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I didn't know about WP:NTEST but I for one am willing to accept that as a reasonable rule-of-thumb. I notice Ammanford has been Welsh Cup QF's at least once and claim to have played in the top flight of Welsh football at least once (though it's not clear whether that was 1959 or 1989). I'm wiling to withdraw my nom on the basis of the Welsh Cup performance, and look instead to clean up the article (copyvio etc.) Sionk (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be notable. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 22:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Sionk has withdrawn the nomination now, so anyone passing can close this discussion. I'd do it myself but I've !voted so it's bad form. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Magara[edit]

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

Non notable person - His job as a brand manager doesn't make him notable, even if it does generate some press Gbawden (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like any profile on LinkedIn - not notable--Mevagiss (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads as a resume. Not notable. Fylbecatulous talk 14:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newel Elliot Kimball[edit]

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

I declined a speedy because he's a professor. 'Professor' passes A7. But does this professor pass WP:NACADEMICS? I can't see anything much in terms of independent reliable sources. The author of the article makes much play on the ancestry of the subject, and of his being second cousin to someone who is bluelinked. That can't contribute to notability. Peridon (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find a single source to establish notability. I agree with Peridon, just been related to a notable person obviously does not make the subject notable.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's not actually a credible claim of notability in this article, only a recitation of family relationships and statement of position. Agricola44 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Genealogy cruft with no assertion of notability, as Agricola44 already said. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually an adjunct faculty member. Seems to have written his own guitar teaching method, but I don't see where it has gotten any significant independent coverage. There is a Newel Kimball Whitney, but that's not the same person. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 15:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage or indication of notability. Notability is not inherited from family and nothing shows he's a noted academic.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Ramadan on fetus[edit]

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

I am not sure that this is encyclopedic. The page creator has based this article on a medical paper (listed in external links). I still feel it reads more like an opinion Gbawden (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpfully undecided. When I first saw the title and the article I thought it was going to be a quick 'delete' !vote, but I dunno...searching for "ramadan" "fetus" in Google gets an awful lot of academic studies and other sources. There might just be a worthwhile article in here somewhere (although I'd probably advocate a move to Ramadan and pregnancy or something similar). I'll see what others have to say on this I think... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on confusion. I am a Mensan with a Masters in Public Health. I suspect it is that the author night not be a native english speaker but I see things like Fetal alcohol syndrome but no connection to Ramadan. I suspect the majority of the issues discussed occur to women who do not observe the holiday. I am not sure what point is trying to be made here let alone if it is notable. Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:55, 15 November 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 12:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research until statements like "according to research, born boys were taller and heavier" (referring to mothers who were fasting) are supported by reliable medical evidence. Which I don't think will happen - if it were true, then the non-Islamic medicos would be advising fasting for most pregnant women as well. (Who said "when alternative medicine is shown to work, it's medicine"?) No references, and irrelevant to title external links. Also appears to promote fasting. Peridon (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is like a personal essay on one's own opinion rather than anything of encyclopedic merit. I find similar problematic articles in this user's history, such as Islamic eating manners, that will need attention. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment. It is 5;15AM here so I am too tired to even read this critically but there is an article in a nutrition journal that has a good analysis of research on the subject. Perhaps someone can incorporate the findings into the article to improve it? Effects on health of fluid restriction during fasting in Ramadan. Postcard Cathy (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feefighters[edit]

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

Originally prodded by me with the rationale which I still stand by: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement". Yes. the article has been mentioned by some big media - in passing, in one or two articles. Deprodded by User:TonyTheTiger who requested an AfD - so here we are. We know that it exists, but until it is a subject of non-trivial (non-passing) coverage, I don't think it meets the requirements listed above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The Inc. and Entrepreneur articles indicate that this company is topical in reliable sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:06, 6 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Initially it looks failing to meet notability, while a deep Google search it seems like to marginally pass notability. Ireneshih (talk) 07:52, 11 November 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 12:09, 18 November 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. I admit to feeling that many arguments here on both sides of the debate are ill-conceived and don't really apply. The article is not very good (reference to answers.com; "written by a 22-year-old": if he was born in 1828, he would have been 26-27 in 1855, etc), but that is of no concern here. James500 mentions different books (but didn't include those in the article nor are any bibliographic details provided here). GNG states that coverage is need in "reliable sources" plural, which by anybody else I know is interpreted as "more than one". GNG also explicitly states "multiple sources are generally expected". ("generally" here meaning that exceptions will be rare and have to have a solid rationale - more solid than IAR). Notinherited has nothing to do with the senator's endorsement: if there is a reliable source that this senator indeed endorsed the book, then we have a RS. That the senator is notable adds to the reliability of the source. However, the endorsement is currently unattributed in the article. In all, I find neither the "delete" nor the "keep" arguments convincing and therefore close this as "no consensus". If good sources are not added to the article in, say, the next month, no prejudice to renewed listing at AfD. Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Healing of the Nations[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria of WP:GNG or of the more specific WP:NBOOKS, particularly that of significant coverage in multiple sources. Nor does the looser common sense approach for non-contemporary books support IMO claims of notability. All claims in the article of notability appear to be cases of inherited notability (eg an endorsement from a well-known senator). FyzixFighter (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:NBOOKS, while searching for the subject there were hardly any resources that supports.Ireneshih (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have received coverage, in particular, in two books by Frank Podmore (both reprinted by Cambridge University Press) and one by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. GNG doesn't actually require multiple sources in absolute terms and such a requirement would, frankly, be absurd. Seems to have gone through multiple editions, which is normally an indicator of popularity. NOTINHERITED is only an essay and one that expressly states that it is not necessarily applicable to books. Why should it apply to the senator's endorsement? Why can't this topic be redirected to a broader article on psuedo biblicism or the history of spiritualism? James500 (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only case of inherited notability that NBOOKS allows for is when the book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable (criterion #5). I don't think an endorsement by someone notable falls into this category. Notability does not necessarily depend on things such as popularity (multiple editions, a change only recently added to the NBOOKS), although it may enhance the acceptability of a subject after it has been shown to meet the the notability guidelines. For me in this case the plurality of sources is less important than the requirement for significant coverage, which is lacking in this case. Also, I would disagree with you on GNG requiring mulitple sources - see the fifth bullet in WP:WHYN, which starts "We require multiple sources so that...". --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) NBOOKS has always mentioned reprints which is very obviously a measure of popularity. In fact the word "reprint" is, in that context, broad enough to include a new edition anyway, especially bearing in mind the standard of the drafting of that guideline. It certainly wouldn't make any sense at all to consider facsimilie reprints but not new editions, as that would be completely inconsistent. The present wording of the guideline doesn't specify any particular number of editions. It doesn't say that two editions are enough. We did have an RfC, as yet unimplemented, that decided that "bestsellers" were notable, so popularity does matter. (2) The footnotes to GNG explicitly state that multiple sources are not absolutely required in all cases. (3) I cannot agree that inherited notability is only allowed by criteria 5. The criteria for non-contemporary books invite us to use "common sense". Inherited notability is compatible with common sense. A purportedly exhaustive list of notability criteria is not compatible with common sense, because it will inevitably omit something important. (4) Leaving individual notability aside, why can't all these articles on books you are nominating for deletion be merged into a bibliography of psuedo-biblicism, as such books must surely collectively satisfy LISTN as a group? James500 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the possible redirect candidates, IMO List of books in the style of the King James Bible is the preferable candidate. Pseudo-Biblicism has too many issues, not the least of which is that it is essentially a WP:COATRACK by the creating editor to try and legitimize/advertise the editor's own amateur research (see [28], [29]). There's a few other things but this might not be the proper forum. I think a trimmed "Pseudo-biblicism" however would make a good lede section for the formerly mentioned "List of...". --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 12 November 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 12:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I like it" isn't a good reason. I'm not using it. But, I feel that this should be kept. I've never read it, and I'm unlikely to - but I have heard of it. It's still available (rather expensively) through Amazon and I think it's (cheaply) on Google books. The book may be twaddle (most 'spirit' written text and music is), but it's of note. WP:IAR. Peridon (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems weird/obscure but oddly important, and seems notable. I find this "review" / endorsement in a Google book 1901 by David Newport as an early Google hit in searching on ""The Healing of the Nations" -wikipedia Linton". Seems like it was historically influential in many persons lives. It's a stretch but maybe like "Ivanhoe" (1820), arguably a nonsense book, was in fact important to many (and inflated U.S. southern chivalric ideals before, and tragically contributing to, the U.S. Civil War). Or Uncle Tom's Cabin, 1852, also arguably nonsense relative to what would be acceptable now, contributing to the Northern side of war. I don't know which side "Healing" was on, if either. But what people read then matters. --do ncr am 03:37, 27 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight (Taylor Swift song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable song that fails WP:NSONGS criteria. There is no significant coverage outside of album reviews from reliable secondary sources, so a separate article is not warranted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 4 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contrary to views asserted in the previous AFD, appearance in a chart (in this case, digital downloads rather than singles) is not a cast-iron proof of notability. Nor are the brief mentions in the album reviews cited. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:43, 14 November 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, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drinkwise[edit]

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

The article is almost entirely self-promotional in nature, and every single (incorrectly-formatted) citation outside the criticism section. It reads like an advertisement. This problem is compounded by the fact that the page has been heavily edited by users User:DrinkWise Australia and User:DWACEO232, both of whom obviously seem to be associated with the subject. V2Blast (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Google Book search shows a number of hits, which for a non-profit suggest likely notability (coverage by media). Selfpromotion is not a valid reason for deletion (but for tagging the article with COI/etc. templates). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I completely agree with Piotrus, marginally meets notability. Maintenance tags are sufficient to handle promotional issues. Ireneshih (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 12 November 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 12:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a major rewrite, but the subject is sufficiently notable, even if the only good references to that are criticisms. Essentially it needs to be rewritten as "This organisation, which does this, and is best known for criticisms from...". But it still deserves an article.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:20, 25 November 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 Polimer TV. It doesn't look like any more comments will be forthcoming after 2 relistings. Given that there are no sources, I am redirecting this to Polimer TV. Any content that can be sourced, can be merged there (all content is still available in the article history). Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Polimer TV[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BROADCAST and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Polimer TV is not notable? If so, you should have included that parent article in this nomination. Otherwise, I see almost nothing but blue links, so the series listed are presumably notable. So I don't know how your deletion rationale applies here, not with just a WP:VAGUEWAVE and no discussion specific to the content. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 10 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: I'm thinking the nom and WP:BEFORE don't get along. Besides that, WP:BROADCAST is to determine the notability of stations, not the notability of lists of programs. What part of BROADCAST does the nom claim this fails? Nha Trang 18:25, 12 November 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 12:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back in to Polimer TV - To be fair unless there's tv programmes missing here then it's not long at all so thus doesn't require a second page, Plus it's also unsourced anyway so I think Merging is a better option here. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:17, 18 November 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 Crosby, Isle of Man. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 19:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crosby Cross-Roads[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crosby, Isle of Man. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, probably to Crosby, Isle of Man, per Mjroots. It can be mentioned at target that "Crosby Cross-Roads", at Crosby, has served as a TT point. Better to redirect than delete, keeping edit history, per Wikipedia commitment to preserve credit for authors and also for possibility that Crosby Cross-Roads may eventually have separate notability. --do ncr am 23:28, 17 November 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 11:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crosby, Isle of Man per nom - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:46, 18 November 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. No policy or source links to show here, but still, consensus after two relistings is clearly to keep. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 19:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Mastane[edit]

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

No notability and poorly referenced (no reliable sources). Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: A little diligence finds this 1958 film, a representative sample of Indian cinematic history, is sourcable. Yes, pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to source, but not absolutely impossible. Why was it brought to AFD mere minutes after being contributed, when tagging it for editorial attention might have been the better choice? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quiet notable. It seems nominator is nominating all articles for deletion created by this user without any research. I fully agree with comments of MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs). Jethwarp (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- Nominator must consider that any delete nomination takes a lot of man hours to research, comment and vote. Speedy keep.Ireneshih (talk) 08:34, 11 November 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 11:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Films before 1990s are alot harder to source so leeway is usually given on these. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2016 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series[edit]

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

The article is about a stock car series not due to happen until 2016. I believe that this article falls under WP:TOOSOON. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced, speculative article about a series of races that doesn't begin until well over a year from now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The NASCAR website has a story about the season running at least until 2016. Compare with the 2016 F1 season. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well we should keep it but it's not too soon. Look at this, it's same as Formula 1:

2010 = 2012 2011 = 2013 2012 = 2014 2013 = 2015 2014 = 2016 It is likely what we do. User:Bandon23

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:01, 10 November 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 11:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article should not be created until later in the 2015 season when the schedule is released and when it is known where most drivers will be. Dough 48 72 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hermer[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fluff piece for yet another famous person (and verified socialite, apparently). There's an award, and it's verified--but whether that one single award should make a person notable enough for inclusion, well, I don't think so. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources contain scant mentions of him, sometimes amid many others in the same business. I don't see any substantial articles about either him or his restaurants. Admittedly, it is a highly competitive business, especially in a city like London, but nothing seems to make him stand out from the crowd in terms verifiable notability.

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, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete; article created by his wife, Melissa Anschutz, for no other purpose than to create a smokescreen for her 'performance' on 'Ladies of London. Where does this end. Is every restaurateur, MD of any company, owner of a cornershop, or someone who had their gob photographed in Tatler going to get their own Wikipedia entry. Just saying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamRouse (talk • contribs) — GrahamRouse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am sorry but thus article is pathetic and needs to go. It was created by by his wife (!), marissaanshutz, under the grand heading 'Created page with 'Matt Hermer — Founder and Managing Director of Ignite Group The Ignite Group is an independent company in the UK luxury on-trade sector, with a portfolio of bar' and she continues to monitor and amend this page under pseudonyms such as marissaliamaeanshutz and marissaliamae (why 3 identities?). There is this appalling reality show called 'Ladies of London' which features Marissa complete with fake house in Chelsea and restaurants which Matt supposedly owns but clearly doesn't. Utter BS. Get rid of it and don't feed these people's insecurities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrancisHeathfield (talk • contribs) — FrancisHeathfield (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. I can't find enough coverage to conclude the subject merits a standalone article. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised the article wasn't deleted earlier. I personally think Wikipedia is terribly devalued if such people are given a platform to give them an importance they simply don't possess. And creating such an entry for your husband? I am afraid that is simply 'not done'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LucySmythe (talk • contribs) — LucySmythe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete probable self-publicity to generate its own notability --Mevagiss (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs are trivial, a non notable individual. Even the IP and SPA editors think he's NN. Not seen that before! Szzuk (talk) 22:25, 22 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timezone Records[edit]

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

Alleged to be a non-notable music group, however the article is a decent stub and there are some links to other subject related pages on site. I therefore feel an afd would be better suited to resolve the credibility issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keepThe article has sources and meets the criteria for stub. The article fills 50+ redlinks and has articles on other wikipedia's. Therefor I believe its notable. Ed Lane (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What do you mean by "The article fills 50+ redlinks"? I assumed you meant that there were more than 50 redlinks to the title before you created the article, but I have checked, and there is a grand total of four other articles that link to Timezone Records, three of which do so because you added links after creating the article Timezone Records. Unless I have missed something, that means that there was one redlink to the article. However, even if there were 100 redlinks to it, that would merely show that someone has posted links to it on Wikipedia, which would be no evidence whatever of notability, since anyone can post links to Wikipedia articles, and it is far from uncommon for people to come and spam hundreds of links.
You say "The article has sources", but I wonder what you understand by the word "sources". The only thing in the article that could possibly be regarded as a source is a link to Timezone's own web site, http://www.timezone-records.com .
The fact that a topic has articles on other Wikipedias is no evidence of notability, both because other Wikipedias sometimes have different inclusion standards, and because on any Wikipedia there are likely to be many articles which there shouldn't be: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. I can also find only one article on this subject on one other Wikipedia, namely de::Timezone (Musiklabel), and the external links in that article don't come within a thousand miles of being the sort of coverage required to establish notability under English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 12 November 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, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing I could say that JamesB hasn't already. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 16:52, 23 November 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. Wizardman 13:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Thompson (baseball, born 1957)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. To my knowledge, he has never held a major league job. References are lacking. Alex (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage so see fails WP:GNG. Playing and coaching exclusively in the minors doesn't meet WP:NBASEBALL. Mdtemp (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 00:51, 16 November 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 11:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails BASE/N and GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Grace[edit]

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

Two Canadian students who self-produced 2 EPs but never toured. Failt WP:MUSIC as the page doesn't indicate any notability. Karst (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's one decent-ish source in the article already, but my attempts to find more garnered nothing; fails WP:MUSIC at the moment. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:53, 11 November 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 11:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it doesn't seem like they've gotten far enough yet to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Any evidence therefore? Bearian (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good*Fella Media (GFM)[edit]

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

Not my field, but I do not see any of these references as substantial and independent--except for a local newspaper, and local newspapers m are not selective in covering local personalities DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 4 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 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 11:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ballyhooed Hudson Reporter article makes it clear this organisation was a small semi-pro internet radio/blogging operation with a passion for self-promotion. The article appears to have been created by someone interested in advertising the subject. I do not believe that WP:WEB "web content ... is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice." or WP:ORG "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Difficult to find anything more than a passing reference in secondary sources even with a variation in spelling; fails WP:ORG. Blackguard 08:37, 20 November 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 SOFTDELETE. J04n(talk page) 18:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Men's Physique Showdown[edit]

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

Not my field, but I'd like to see if the community thinks that this article (and presumably similar ones for other years and categories) is justified. My own opinion is that it would be better to just give the winners, or top 3. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:16, 3 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 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 11:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:EVENT Secret ^account 17:10, 21 November 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. No discussion of individual sources, but consensus after two relists is clear to keep. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obihai Technology[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion per WP:ADV and WP:CORP. It doesn't belong there (as CSD is for uncontroversial deletions), but I'm nominating it here to open discussion on whether the topic itself meets our notability guidelines. K7L (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, under what criteria is this article being proposed for deletion? I don't see it fitting any criteria.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 12:09, 7 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:19, 11 November 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 11:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - does not appear to have any reason meeting deletion criteria.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 20:59, 18 November 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. I am no big fan of IAR at all. However, I agree with DGG and cannot imagine that there would not be any good sources on the CEO of a company of this size (especially because it is in the not uncontroversial tobacco industry). Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

André Calantzopoulos[edit]

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." and I believe this is still valid. It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with he following rationale: "CEO of a very large company". The deprodding rationale seems invalid - why should CEOs be given a prod-immunity - but in either case, this seems like a vanity bio based on few passing mentions, and probably a job of a PR/paid-for editor. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to be that the CEO of a company as large and important as Philip Morris easily qualifies for an article on Wikipedia. Such people are clearly notable, in my opinion. We have to use common sense on Wikipedia, not just dogma. Some people are notable by virtue of who they are, whether or not they meet notability guidelines (although I'm pretty sure he does in any case). Other than one rather unctuous quote, I don't think the article is in any way vanity, and even if it was it's the individual's notability we assess when we decide whether an article should exist, not the quality of the existing article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Necrothesp: Yes, we have to use common sense, but I don't see why CEOs of large companies should be automatically notable. This is not a business who-is-who-pedia. All biographies have to meet GNG/BIO guidelines; just as not every professor, scientists, or artist is notable, neither are all businesspeople. We don't seem to have any Wikipedia:Notability (businesspeople) guideline that would make exceptions here. You are more than welcome to start a draft on one, but until we reach consensus on it, I believe that it is only common sense that CEOs have to meet the same criteria as anyone else. Just landing a nice job is not enough. (For the record, I'd be willing to consider a notability criteria that CEOs of companies listed during their tenure in Fortunte TOP500 or such are automatically notable, but until such a policy becomes, well, policy, I look at such articles through GNG, and this one seems to fail it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You forget that we are not guided by strict rules on Wikipedia. The notability guidelines are just that - guidelines - and can be overruled by common sense. And to me, common sense dictates that the heads of companies as large as this one are notable by virtue of their post. Simple as. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Necrothesp: While I agree with you that IAR is worth of remembering, in this case I don't see why CEOs of large companies should be special. They are just highly payed workers, but - just that, workers. Unless they do something extraordinary and get themselves notable, just getting a very well-paying job isn't, IMHO, enough to make them notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The point is not that they are workers but that by getting a post like this they have risen up their chosen profession to a very high level. They didn't just parachute into a job like that out of nowhere. Reaching the highest levels of one's profession, in my opinion, makes one notable. We give articles to singers with one relatively minor hit, to sportspeople who have competed once at international level, yet you don't think we should give articles to individuals who have reached the top of less glamorous professions. Where exactly is the common sense or logic in that? And how does that make Wikipedia a project to be taken seriously? Essentially by following your logic we are giving articles to people who get fans, but not to people who are acknowledged as leaders by their peers. The former haven't done anything "extraordinary" either; they just happen to be in jobs that get written about. They are no more notable; they just have more press coverage. That's why we should IAR (not that we have "rules" in the first place) if it's clearly better for the project to do so. I believe it is in instances such as this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @Necrothesp: Your arguments have merit, through I am not sure I am convinced by them. I would encourage you to start a Wikipedia:Notability (businesspeople) page. If it would pass, we could restore this article (if it is deleted) and have a clear guideline for the future related to similar entries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CEO is not automatically notable. Insufficient sources. (Mention in articles about the company as a CEO performing normal CEO duties is not enough.) LaMona (talk) 23:01, 14 November 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 11:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage independent of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet GNG or ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 22:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep CEO of a famous company is notable, just like the head of any similar organization. Sources will be findable, and as long as there is verification, there is justification in keep ing such articles. A "CEO performing normal CEO duties" ACEO of a company this size performing the normal CEO duties of a company this size is notability. It would make just as much sense to delete articles on major league baseball players because they do nothign that is not expected of major league ball players. In other words, "just another Olympic athlete". just a can be applied to anything, not matter how notable or even famous. DGG ( talk ) 12:49, 26 November 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 Zoltan Istvan#Political career. Ignoring the puppetry, there is near unanimous consensus that this does not belong in the main article space. Opinion is split on whether it should be deleted outright, moved to draft space, redirected or merged. The suggestion of a logical redirect target came up late in the debate; I suspect if it had been suggested earlier, many of the delete !votes would have been for redirect instead, so that's what I'm calling this. The existing article history is still available beneath the redirect, so if anybody wants to selectively merge material, they can still do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanist Party[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable future party apparently based solely on its founder's intended 2016 U.S. presidential run. 3 of the 4 references in the article are by the party's founder and a quick Google and Google News search fail to show the significant coverage in reliable sources required by the WP:GNG. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An exact search of the phrase, using a closed quotation Google search, "Transhumanist Party" gives over 9,000 hits, and a search without quotations gives over 117,000 results. The formation of a Transhumanist Party is only one month old, and it has already generated this much media buzz, so clearly it is notable. Another thing that makes it notable is its connection to the futurist and transhumanist political movement. There are many political viewpoints within these groups, and the Transhumanist Party is an umbrella for all of them. Waters.Justin (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is notable, but if the Wiki volunteers disagree then my request is to change the name of this article to "Transhumanist_politics." That is a much broader subject and it will encompass even more notable opinions and movements. Thank you, Waters.Justin (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DON'T DELETE THE TRANSHUMANIST PARTY PAGE: There are "now" 29 original references to Transhumanist Party on the Wikipedia page, including from major independent sources such as Extreme Tech and Wired. Additionally, I know that approximately an additional 6 new interviews, television shows, and articles are scheduled to appear in the next 2-14 days, some in major media, such as Kurzweil AI, Vice Motherboard, and Jewish Life Network Television, etc. Istvan expects dozens of media stories over the next few months to appear on the Transhumanist Party as the campaign gets going full speed. Already, the Transhumanist Party has been covered in numerous languages too. The Transhumanist Party is sure to grow quickly, and will also likely be covered broadly in media this weekend on November 15th when Istvan publicly debates celebrity philosopher John Zerzan at Stanford University. Thanks for your patience and consideration regarding the newness of the Transhumanist Party page. Additionally, Transhumanist Party website should be fully functional with staff listed in 14-28 days. Mikegeraton 11/10/14 1:41AM

"Sure to grow quickly" is part of the problem. Basically, it is WP:TOOSOON to know whether the party will become notable and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philosopher, You bring up an understandable point, however one important issue at hand is not only whether this political party will grow, but also what impact it will have on politics and major media coverage of politics. It's presidential candidate deals with major media almost everyday, and he has about 30,000 social media followers. The Transhumanist Party is already doing about 2 to 3 interviews a week. Many of those are in very well known and established media, and it's likely the coverage of the Transhumanist Party will continue to sharply rise as its rallies, projects, and events get underway. I hope you will consider some of these factors in letting the page remain. Within one to two weeks we expect the amount of original coverage and references on the Transhumanist Party to double, but more likely triple. Some of it will certainly be critical, yet it will certainly be noteworthy. I believe this would qualify as being a useful Wikipedia page. Thanks for your consideration. Mikegeraton 11/11/14 6:42PM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Mikegeraton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

INCUBATE, subject has received some significant coverage in non-primary or secondary reliable sources, such as in news, but one is a blog written by the founder at HuffPo, and the other is an interview with said founder. Therefore, it is debatable whether the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources sufficient to meet notability as defined by WP:GNG at this time. Therefore it is my opinion that this article should incubated to a draft page under the primary author/editor of this article, and after work is done and a period of time has passed, submit it for review.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, possibly with moving to some incubation space or draft space, to be developed if/when the party gets going. :) So far, what is in the article is just about Zoltan Istvan and his views, and there is no evidence of any "party", of anyone else being involved at all, much less a political party that is capable of getting a candidate onto ballots in any U.S. state at all. Changing to "transhumanist politics" wouldn't help; there is no evidence here yet that there is any involvement of transhumanist ideas in politics anywhere, in any real way. It's just wp:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. Note to article creator(s): there are major U.S. political parties whose state organizations are significant yet which lack state-level Wikipedia articles. Perhaps {{Democratic Party (United States)}} has 50 separate state-level party articles, but Conservatives and others do not, because there is not enough evidence of notability for many of their state organizations, all actually existing as real entities while Transhumanist Party has no real existence in terms of offices or funds or election participation at all, yet, i expect. State political parties have websites that work, and list lots of persons involved. http://www.transhumanistparty.org/ has links that just yield "something coming here soon" type messages. I participated in some AFDs in the last year or so that ended up deleting a bunch of the state-level party articles. For the Transhumanist Party to deserve a Wikipedia article, it has to get significant independent coverage. It is generally accepted that any national-level political party gets an article, however. For you, this could be established by Transhumanist Party actually getting onto the ballot in any one or two states. --do ncr am 00:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC
Delete now, as it isn't notable enough yet, and most of the sources are blogs, not very notable or reputable, or are referencing each other. (and I would guess the overly long series in the first paragraph probably added to try and convince people not to delete the page) If the party becomes more notable in the future, the page can be recreated. Thunderstone99 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy (or WP:DRAFTS), so interested editors may collaborate in building up article to meet inclusion criteria, upon which time they may submit ({{AFC submission}}) for review and inclusion into encyclopaedia. Filings with Federal Election Commission and gaining ballot access in any state would greatly improve assertions of notability but, we don't seem to have that just yet... -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

INCUBATE, It has already had more coverage than other supposedly acceptable and valid political parties around the world. I see very little chance that this won't get significant large publications' attention over the next 14 months. Ballot access is likely in at least a state which should suggest notability as Dsprc stated. Woodcutter631 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

INCUBATE Deleting this page would be, in itself, against the rules Wikipedia claims to adhere to. It has more than enough coverage by several different media webpages to be accepted - that includes both political and technology-based news sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.96.237 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 November 2014‎ (UTC)— 71.71.96.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
INCUBATE, Since the party is gaining more media attention each week there is no need to rush to delete it while it is in a clear growth phase. It is the only party of its kind right now and Wikipedia should have an entry, even if it is embryonic and growing as the party is gaining more coverage. One of the great values of Wikipedia is its ability to be on the cutting edge of events as they happen and to adapt quickly to emerging cultural developments. It doesn't make sense for Wikipedia to remove itself from the top search results of a new and unique political party. --Carmstrong1959 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)— Carmstrong1959 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment All these "Vote!s" for "Incubate" amount to agreeing that the article should be DELETED from mainspace. With almost any deleted article, it is fine to provide a copy to the original creator or anyone else, for them to have in their userspace or to put it into draftspace. Let's be clear though, this article is to be deleted from mainspace, i.e. from the Wikipedia in all major respect, and let's not muck around with interest in this non-party becoming a party because many people don't like the existing parties, or whatever soft other reasoning people might have.... To the eventual closer, you should be honest about this, please. --do ncr am 23:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per RightCowLeftCoast, and others advocating for that action. It is debatable whether or not the subject meets WP:GNG at the present time, but there is clearly potential for increased coverage in reliable sources in the coming weeks/months. The article should be restored to mainspace if and when that coverage materializes.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speak for yourself, not others, @doncram. Incubate =/= Delete and "to provide a copy" is most assuredly not "fine" as that would break the edit history and attribution requirements (copyright and content licenses). Incubate is a move to the appropriate Namespace (which preserves Edit history), not wholesale removal (even Delete just hides content from view). You already made your case, let us not inject our opinions into the statements of others nor make assumptions of political allegiances, please. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, well, a copy to userspace can include the edit history; I myself have numerous times requested and received copies of deleted articles including edit history. I absolutely did not mean to call for separation of edit history from any copy; I do consider it important to preserve edit history specifically for proper attribution in version potentially to be restored to mainspace. But I am also not familiar with "Incubate" being a type of vote in AFDs. And, the AFD decision is to delete from Wikipedia mainspace. Whether a copy with edit history is put somewhere else does not matter, IMHO; the proper language for the AFD decision is "delete". I hope this clears up some of your concern, Dsprc. --do ncr am 04:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@doncram I misunderstood; you are correct, there is strong consensus for not being live in mainspace. Incubate etc are listed in the lede of WP:AFD and as an outcome in WP:XFD. It means we move the page to user or draft space and out of mainspace. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well i see the usage of word "incubate" at the two places you suggest. But the procedure for closing AFD's, per section Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed doesn't give "incubate" as a decision option: the closer is to "assess the discussion for consensus to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article" (emphasis in original). And in practice i do not see "Incubate" used as a decision outcome. And the AFD STATS tool which evaluates any editor's AFD "performance" does not include it as a decision outcome. So, @dsprc, I think you are advocating for a change in practice, not yet ratified in wp:AFD, in favor of "incubate" as an option. --do ncr am 14:01, 19 November 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 11:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability guides, as noted by others; blogs aren't sources. "Incubate" is not a valid result for an XfD, we either keep articles or delete them. If an individual wishes to have a deleted article userfied, then they may make that request to any admin after the fact. Deleted articles do not automatically drop down to some sort of draft/incubation state pending their final fate decision, this isn't Survivor with the Redemption Island twist. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tarc, you are mistaken. Incubate/userfy/draft/redirect or whatever, are valid outcomes (some even preferred over others depending on topic). These methods are listed in the opening description of WP:AFD and 'other outcomes' in WP:XFD. One should probably be familiar with community norms and process before making uninformed claims about them (If you wish to change that process, the proper forum is WP:PUMP not here). -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't presume to lecture me on XfD norms, newbie. I stand by what I said, which you did not seem to understand. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not call me a noob: WP:NPA. I understand perfectly; you want to waste everyones time at WP:DELREV despite it being the norm to userfy or draft. You really should read WP:INCUBATE, WP:AFD and WP:XFD. Barring that, you are free to stand on a foundation of sand all you want though... -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, note AFD stats tool reports show 8 deletion-related comments by Dsprc, 454 by me, and more than 500 (the max reportable) by Tarc. I commented above that "incubate" is not much of an option in practice, IMO. That said, I appreciate Dsprc's attempt here to support use of "incubate" as an option; perhaps it oughta be elevated; that is probably best discussed at Talk page of wp:AFD. --do ncr am 14:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My own thoughts are that incubation should (only) be done at the request of any editor willing to improve the article, but the current instructions do seem to imply that it can be voted on even if there is no editor willing to improve it. Certainly the references in the various places that User:Dsprc linked to should be improved to say which of those is, indeed, the case. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~*PLEASE KEEP THIS PAGE TOTALLY AVAILABLE ON WIKIPEIDA~~: I'm not really clear on the incubate or delete things on Wikipedia, but what I am certain of is how much media coverage the Transhumanist Party will have in the next month and how it will begin influencing other politics. There is already a major documentary project ($100K budget) in the works and a dozen large media sites interested in covering the party and its presidential candidate. You can expect in the next 2 weeks to begin seeing them, as they are already appearing often daily (and no, they're not just small sites with little traffic: Extreme Tech, Kurzweil AI, Huffington Post, Wired Germany, Vice Motherboard, etc). The party's candidate himself appears in dozens of articles every month, and many of them will begin addressing the Transhumanist Party. What's happening here on Wikipedia regarding this page is that there are people, including in the transhumanist, conspiracy, anarchist, and religious communities, who hate the Transhumanist Party and hate it's candidate. And they want to make sure this page gets deleted. The haters should look beyond their hate and should keep the page. but write their disagreement with the party on the page if that's how they feel. But to question whether it's worthy of existing is absurd. Istvan probably gets millions of views a month from his media exploits. And his main mission now is the Transhumanist Party. It's already established enough, but will soon become a well known party simply from the viewer numbers involving media. I don't really see how anyone, including the haters, can argue that this isn't a a worthwhile established page with some solid references. This page is very useful to the general public and therefore is a valuable page for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs)

You already voted above. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think the sources available are enough for the subject to meet any of the relevant inclusion criteria. I don't have a strong objection to userfication/incubation and I can see that being a likely outcome of any DRV discussion subsequent to this AFD. We would need much better sourcing for this to make its way back to mainspace and proponents would probably need to go back through DRV anyway. Sending this to DRV twice is just painful. This has nothing to do with "haters" - I've never heard of them and I won't get to vote in that election anyway. There's a lot of WP:IDHT going on. Ironic given the subject matter. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it fails WP:42. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The sources presently contained in the article do not satisfy WP:RS. Subject currently falls short of WP:GNG & WP:ORG. No prejudice against recreation in the event the relevant coverage predicted by User:Mikegeraton & others should come to fruition.--JayJasper (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails notability. If we were to include all recently created parties because they attract fringe media coverage, there would be hundreds of entries. Moonboy54 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - encyclopaedias should be encyclopaedic, or else what's the point? The first U.S. transhumanist party is clearly notable. The entry is well-referenced. --Davidcpearce (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that if there were a Transhumanist Party, that it would be notable. But there isn't...there is no formal party existing--no convention, no achievement of ballot status, no petition of thousands, perhaps even no other explicit individual's support of there being a party (besides Istvan's). What we have is notable mention by Istvan of his wish that there be a political party, which would be appropriate to include in Istvan's article. In my opinion, it undermines the meaning of language if Wikipedia has an article on a political party that does not exist... it is wp:TOOSOON. You might consider Wikipedia's practice on proposed future movies...we have policy not to create articles on them until principal filming has commenced (i think, or it is some similar clear milestone) or until there is clear wp:GNG about the movie itself. I hope this helps. --do ncr am 23:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Transhumanist Party more or less notable than, say, the admirable 'Alex from Target'? Judgements of significance are inevitably subjective. If mainstream media coverage is a criterion of notability, then the Transhumanist Party makes the cut. But what is - and isn't - politically notable is itself a political issue.--Davidcpearce (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had not heard of Alex from Target but i see there is an article. Right, the Transhumanist Party is less notable. Alex from Target exists and there is wp:GNG substantially about the topic. There is no such thing as a Transhumanist Party, it does not exist. And there is not, as far as I can tell, any coverage substantially about the topic. Note meeting GNG includes requirement that there be "Significant coverage" which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is no coverage about the party, per se, because it does not exist. There's no coverage of a political convention, of donations, of anything. It doesn't exist! Hey, Davidcpearce, don't get me wrong, I appreciate that you and some others may be energized to be editing in Wikipedia by the idea of a transhumanist party to write about. I welcome you and hope you will contribute on other topics. I happen to believe that it is TOOSOON to cover a political party that ...does ... not...exist.... Hope this helps you understand where i am coming from. sincerely, --do ncr am 02:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist Party is currently small; but that's different from its being a one-man-band. Why can't interested readers use Wikipedia to find out more about the party from (ideally!) a neutral point of view - just as you've found out more about 'Alex from Target'? A Criticisms / Controversies section is fine.--Davidcpearce (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just not what Wikipedia does; we're trying to be an encyclopedia about established topics, using mostly secondary and tertiary sources to reflect well-established knowledge, not to be cutting-edge. You want a free website to share enthusiasm/info about the next greatest thing coming in any field area, then you need to open a free blog, and to post Youtube videos, and so on, seriously. No offense intended; your trying with this is fine, but IMHO it is gonna be deleted and you should not take offense from that. I do hope you'll contribute on other topics, and on this topic itself if/when it becomes established in the future. --do ncr am 19:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-established topics like 'Alex from Target'? Surely Wikipedia should embrace well-established traditional knowledge AND the topical and cutting-edge. We're not trying simply to mimic Encyclopaedia Britannica. --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I know of three top 50 news sites (sites with millions of viewers a day) now newly doing stories on the Transhumanist Party (should be out in December), besides the fact that Vice permanently added the name Transhumanist Party to Istvan's byline today at the top of his column. I hope the people that want to delete this page will give it a few weeks to see how it develops.**— comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs)

Right, well, in a few weeks if there have been substantial developments, then it could be okay to propose a new article. I suggest you use the "Articles for Creation" process, see wp:AFC. This is ready to be closed, IMHO. --do ncr am 19:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Digg released Istvan's latest article on its front page this morning, with a link directly to the party website in the very first sentence of the article. Digg is a very high ranked sites for news according to Alexa. And last night Yahoo! News Science put Istvan's Huff Post story up, which has links to Stanford mentioning of the Transhumanist Party. The Digg release is especially important, as it generates massive traffic. http://on.digg.com/1BTUcO6 It's currently on Digg's front page right now, which generates probably a million views a day, and it's about Istvan's policy on education. Hard to see how anyone can discount these types of high number views. --comment added by Mikegeraton. 11-22-14

That only reinforces doncram's position that the party doesn't exist yet. It is just Istvan. Is the party registered anywhere? Something like one of these: [30] California (dept state), [31] Florida (dept elections) or New York maybe?? Have they ever gained ballot access anywhere at all? Have they even attempted to do so yet? Who is their Treasurer, Secretary, etc? Or, are there none of these positions because it is just Istvan, and not a political organization at all? Another tell is the lack of a dedicated web resource. Right now, the domain is just a redirect to a subpage on Istvan's site and the domain is assigned to Istvan, and only registered on September 14th (with bogus registration data at that). -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe this has already been discussed. Infrastructure of the party, members, volunteers, filings, a proper website and everything else are underway. But as already mentioned, the party is only weeks old. Stuff like that takes time to do properly. But ultimately, the "only" important question is not if it fits your specific parameter of a political party, but whether it's notable as a political organization to the public and according to Wikipedia standards. There are probably dozens of organizations that considers themselves political and ideological on Wikipedia that have not had the widespread coverage that the Transhumanist Party has had, but have useful pages to the public on Wikipedia and are not threatened by haters for deletion. Comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs)

Keep, Don't Delete Sources provided to the Transhumanist Party's Wikipedia page are from valid independent sources. With more than enough number of independent sources to be considered trustworthy, ranging from Technology and political news sources such as Huntington Post, Extreme Tech, and Stanford University. The party has been gathering more coverage and attention each week, so the list of independent sources should continue to grow. Why can't we leave the page open to interested Wiki readers? The sources are listed below, if readers find any of the information questionable, they can always check up on the cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elitanna (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 November 2014‎— Elitanna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Don't Delete Why do you think the page about the Transhumanist Party should be deleted??? Unfortunately, I am not an American citizen and therefore - can't vote for it. Still I find that party essential for the entire humanity as it promotes freedom, liberalism, technology for better minds, bodies and relations, anti ageism medicine and many more wonderful things!

To all the haters of the tranhumanist party you can say whatever you want but the number of people who support this party will continue to grow rapidly.

The page is of interest to many many people worldwide (including people like me who can't even vote for the Transhumanist Party)

Keep the page up!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.91.211 (talk • contribs) November 23, 2011

Comment moved from the talk page by – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.}

Don't Delete The rapid growth in awareness of the Transhumanist Party shows that something important is developing here, right? It has the very real chance of becoming an instrumental part of all of our futures. I would give it some more time. Keep it up until spring, revisit and then delete it if the growth hasn't continued.

UPDATE I've already voted, but I just want to update those following this discussion. Yesterday somebody deleted half the articles and references of the Transhumanist Party page. However, the person was aiming to make it a better page, and many of the significant references were kept. That is fine, as I think everyone agrees the page should look good and fit Wikipedia standards. But I do want to point out that, in addition to those other 15 or so independent and original references that are no longer there, today, in the news, another major site that coverers independent political parties has written an original and full feature on the Transhumanist Party. It's a popular and reputable independent site. I have referenced it in the Transhumanist Party page. That article can be seen in many different sites now and also has been commented on and been responsible for creating other new articles on the Transhumanist Party. Basically, EVERY SINGLE DAY, new original stories are coming out on the Transhumanist Party (and there are many other major stories coming out in the next month that are already scheduled). It would be unreasonable to delete this page, given how much exposure the Transhumanist Party is attracting in the public. I believe it's time take the "consideration for deletion" section out and leave the Transhumanist Party page intact and up for the public. It can be re-considered for deletion in the future if something changes about the party later. Thanks. Comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs)

For what must be about the 10th time, we need significant coverage of the organisation enough for it to meet WP:ORGDEPTH before we have an article here. Despite the promises of more significant coverage, it always seems to be just beyond the horizon, simply reinforcing Wikipedia policy and the argument that this should be deleted, for now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do non-notable topics receive coverage in the multiple mainstream media news outlets cited? Unlike genuinely non-notable trivia, the Transhumanist Party clearly excites strong sentiments, both for and against. But IMO the solution isn't to propose deleting the entire entry but rather to add a Controversies section - and take pains to ensure the entry as a whole retains a neutral point of view.--Davidcpearce (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your description of passing mentions, promotional nonsense, interviews with the founder and the founder's commentary on his own work as "coverage" is disingenuous. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, please assume good faith. I posed a question. For what it's worth, my own left-liberal political views are far removed from the party's founder and several leading supporters. I was just noting that mainstream media outlets tend on the whole to interview only people and organisations that - rightly or wrongly - they regard as notable. --Davidcpearce (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You posed what seemed like a rhetorical question based on an (intentional or unintentional) misinterpretation of sources and policy. The basis on which it was posed and your proposed solution only serve to distract from the broader question here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, yes, I was mystified why you believe that magazines such as Wired would want to interview the founder of a non-notable party. But I'm more than happy to accept your good faith; I just wish that you'd accept mine. My reason for suggesting ways to strengthen the existing entry is that consensus here seems to be elusive. --Davidcpearce (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is certainly not elusive. The policy-based arguments here are all on the side of those opining for deletion. WP:NOTAVOTE means the newer "but WP:ILIKEIT!" contributions will be disregarded anyway. That leaves two inexperienced editors (one of whom has declared a conflict) as the only two to attempt to make policy-based arguments. I disagree that your arguments, and his, accurately reflect policy but I appreciate your trying to make them. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, if consensus is not proving elusive, why are arguing so vigourosly against editors who favour retaining the entry? I'm just trying to find out why you believe that magazines such as "Wired" would want to interview the founder of a non-notable party?--Davidcpearce (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I spend plenty of time at AFD and I'm genuinely open to being convinced. I like to play devil's advocate; highlighting the weaker points in arguments contrary to my stated position. The aim here is to discuss something until a consensus is reached, not to simply record "for" and "against" votes. My point is that some aspects of your argument are either irrelevant or contrary to policy. You should focus your efforts on those things that serve to answer the concerns raised by others. Broadly, proponents should focus on securing more reliable source coverage of their organisation rather than trying to shoe-horn their organisation into Wikipedia in an effort to promote it. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Why does Wired want an interview? Editorial discretion? It doesn't matter - it's still Wired reporting what the founder said about his own organisation. Those are generally considered primary sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, by all means say that that you strongly disagree with editors who favour retaining the entry. But this is very different from claiming a consensus. The reason I suggested a Criticisms / Controversies section - and extra vigilance in maintaining a neutral point of view throughout - is precisely to avoid any of the promotional - or derogatory - content that contemporary political entries tend to attract.--Davidcpearce (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stalwart, there are original independent articles on the Transhumanist Party coming out almost every day. I referenced one today, yesterday, the day before, etc on the page. The party is also involved in various actions, including partnerships with nonprofit work in Africa and some environmental campaigns working protecting against existential risk. There's a lot of stuff already going on. And much more coming. Thanks. Comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs)

As explained, only one of those things contributes to the notability of this organisation. You added more self-published stuff, a dead-link and another primary source interview. This is the wrong place to promote your personal interests. Once it is (or if it becomes) an established political party written about by more people than its founder and members, come back and try again. The promise of "more to come" is meaningless. We don't publish things that way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many things contribute to the notability of this organization, including almost 40 original references now (many which were taken out, but can still be undone or seen in edit). Also, as of today the Transhumanist Party is officially helping out with publicity and donation efforts for AIDS orphans in Uganda with various nonprofit and religious organizations. I've updated the page to reflect this with reference. I'm sorry you want to insist that the Transhumanist Party is not a notable organization. It's one of the most discussed topics currently in the transhumanist community, which easily has millions of people around the world interested. Comment added by Mikegeraton (talk • contribs)

Nobility and notability are not the same. Doing great works has no bearing on notability. There are many charitable people and community-minded organisations - few are notable. Being discussed among those already interested in the subject doesn't do much for notability. You seem very insistent with regard to what Wikipedia policy should or should not be without a great deal of understanding about what Wikipedia policy is already. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep upstart political party passing WP:GNG with multiple, independent sources.--TM 17:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Zoltan Istvan#Political career. I agree with those saying it is premature for this to stand as a standalone article. As pointed out several times previously, the sources are nearly all primary and/or do not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Plus, it could be argued the subject dosen't meet the basic prerequisite for an article, which is verified existence. From the sources currently available, it seems the only evidence of the existence of the Transhumanist Party is Zoltan Istvan saying it is a thing. While Mr. Istvan may well be a man of integrity, and may well be serious and sincere about the formation of this party, he is by no means a secondary source. Having said all that, there seems to be no dispute about the notability of Istvan himself (and for those who might ask: "well, dosen't that make the transhumanist party notable, by extension?" No, it dosen't). There is also no apparent objection to the party being referenced in the section of his article I've linked to above. Clearly, this Party is a significant project of his, and at the very least warrants mention in his bio. So why not merge a portion of the content of this article to that section where it can be redirected, until such time (if and when) the party clearly establishes notability in its own right as to qualify for its own article? Of course, the content would have to be condensed in a way that is in keeping with WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:COATRACK, but basic information about the Party would be available and easily accessible, as it would keep the term "Transhumanist Party" in Wikipedia's search engine. If the article is redirected, I propose the edit history remain intact, for ease of restoration to the mainspace should the Party be deemed notable in its own right at some future point (which certainly seems to be a distinct possibilty). To me, this seems to be a fair, reasonable and somewhat obvious "compromise" solution, if you will. I'm a bit surprised no one has suggested it before.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE/REDIRECT As suggested above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B12F:585B:BDD9:8059:4D98:40A9 (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect per NextUSprez. Changing from my previous !vote of "delete". Makes sense to redirect as the party is already mentioned in Istvan's article. As pointed out, this can easily be restored to article form if & when reliable secondary sources can be provided that confirm the party is an actual existing legal entity, and not just an elaborate pet project of its founder.--JayJasper (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment Note that merge-and-redirect is a viable option even if the article is deleted. --JayJasper (talk) 14:45, 28 November 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. Given the complete absence of sources, I find the "keep" !votes not grounded in policy. For the same reason, a merge is not appropriate (we should not merge unsourced information). Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Michalchuk[edit]

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

Tons of plot detail, notability concerns, and completely unreferenced. Has been tagged for both of these since July 2009. Gloss 22:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to be cleaned up but AfD is not cleanup. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be cleaned up if they can't first establish notability. If you've found enough sources to accurately source and article about this character, by all means, share with me. But that doesn't seem to exist. Same situation as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all of which were deleted/redirected to the List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters article. Gloss 16:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily found results among books and scholarly sources. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd greatly appreciate if you listed these books and sources here, as I'm unable to find any with useful information. Gloss 18:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she's a prominent character in a prominent series. She has been discussed in the media but there are two dozen characters sometimes discussed only by first or last name. Paige is described using both at times or only one or the other. I don't understand the desire to delete these articles when this is not some fly-by-night pilot but a 4th series from a well-known franchise. Apple — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple byte (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are, in point of fact, very few TV shows which really need or warrant separate standalone articles about each individual character in them. All that's really warranted in most cases is a list of characters (and even that's cruft that's better described as "allowed" than actually "needed" per se.) Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep needs cleanup not afd be bold instead Avono (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting I should have cleaned the article up when I have concerns over the subjects notability? Because that doesn't make much sense at all. Gloss 16:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well concerning fiction you are true that notability is difficult,but imho afd should have been used as a last resort instead,maybe something similar such as Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (Bobby Singer has it's own article for example). Avono (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Television characters do not automatically qualify for separate standalone articles just because they exist — if you cannot add reliable sources which provide real-world context for why the character is a notable topic in an encyclopedia, then all they really warrant is inclusion in a list of characters. But that's not what this is — it's just an in-universe summary of plots she was involved in, which provides no demonstration whatsoever of why this belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a Degrassi fansite. Delete or merge into a character list unless real sources demonstrating real notability can actually be added. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable unless anyone can find strong sources and clean up the article, which looks unlikely. If you remove all the plot summary content from the article (which is unsourced and not specifically relevant to the character), you're only left with the "relationships" section which is fandom material. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 20:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as somebody sources this, then I would keep it. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, everyone is saying that there are sources, but there's nothing in the article and nothing presented here. We should not be keeping unsourced articles around. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:15, 15 November 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 11:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not notable, but belongs in character list. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This project requires reliable sources that discuss the subject matter in-depth, which appear to be non-existent for a 20-year-old tween drama. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability--Mevagiss (talk) 12:15, 28 November 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 Procedural close.. Should be listed at WP:RFD (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Army in Iraq[edit]

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

It's not and shouldn't be used. People POV push to try to stress US involvements in mid-east affairs while de-emphasizing other influences. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:40, 18 November 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 November 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - This is a redirect, not an article. Needs to go to WP:RFD. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intaction[edit]

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

Article based on Press Releases, are there 2x WP:RS to meet WP:GNG? WP:ADVOCACY. (edited by sockfarm editors User:Hillysilly blocked User:Josiah120214 etc, possibly linked to banned User:Morning277) Widefox; talk 00:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would suggest the article should be kept. Notable, independent reliable secondary sources include the Vice article and the New York Post article referenced in the article. Intaction by nature is an advocacy organisation, but so are other organisations that have Wikipedia articles (think World Wildlife Fund or similar). I understand that the people who initiated this article may be close to the subject such that there is a conflict of interest, but the fully cited sections of the article can be kept, and I suggest it would be better to improve what's there than delete altogether.

I understand where you're coming from, but WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't very strong. It isn't about the topic (which I personally find interesting), it is failure to WP:V and WP not being WP:ADVOCACY / hosting PR. Widefox; talk 15:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Undisclosed paid editing is against our TOU. This has only been edited by blocked socks, sockmasters, and suspects - all of which are under investigation with overwhelming evidence and no disclosures. Widefox; talk 15:16, 10 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Vice and the New York Post are not reliable sources, if they ever were. This is tabloid trash. I have no opinion for publication (ahem) on the substance of the matter. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article violates TOU, subject fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of all-rounders in games of skill[edit]

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

The topic of "all-rounders in games" appears to be novel, judging by "all-rounders+in+games"+-wiki&oq="all-rounders+in+games"+-wiki goole results and the sole web reference on the page doesn't even mention the idea of all-rounders. The topic makes sense at a basic level, but it's not one which has a literature, making this impossible to document reliably. SFB 09:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. There's something here, but the title sucks, especially the "all-rounders" part. I disagree that it can't be documented. It's not all that hard to show that people have won major competitions in different games. P.S. Stu Unger was a beast at gin rummy and poker. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of interest only to a fringe --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly synthesis, and little apparent reliable sourcing related to the topic as a whole. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but, I agree with Clarityfiend on basically every point. I think that from the existence of the Mind Sports Olympiad, Pentamind etc. it follows that there is encyclopedic value in compiling a list of people with major titles in more than one major game. I'd place it as similar in importance, and similar in construction, to articles which give a list of players who have swapped from one athletic sporting code to another. But I agree that a more explanatory title is required ("all-rounders" can only be used if the term does have a specific meaning which is unambiguously understood within the mind sports world), and it needs a "this list may not be complete" tag. Aspirex (talk) 07:31, 12 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inevitably an exercise in original synthesis. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Clearly sourceable. But why _those_ games isn't at all clear. It's arbitrary synth as it stands. Find a source that covers this with a finite list of games and I'll change my mind. Only thing that keeps me from a pure delete is that A) I know some of these people get significant recognition for doing well in two areas (I knew about 2 of them before reading this). Hobit (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Alayli[edit]

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

Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of this article, but there isn't anything that looks like a clear indication of why the subject of this article is notable. The entire article is a hodgepodge of peacock terms, subjective non-NPOV phrases, uncited synthesis of subject's works/presumed views/opinions, and possible copyright violations (due to inclusion of a significant amount of source material). Even if notability can be established, the actual article is so poor that this might need to be WP:TNTed. Contested PROD; tag removed by IP, presumed to be original editor, without explanation. Kinu ^t/_c 07:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable or not (and I don't think I've done this more than once before), I'm invoking WP:TNT. There's no way to edit an article that's saturated with the likes of
If destiny selected for cross-cultural memes to witness the birth of the Dadaist movement in the west at that time – and this was the womb which later gave birth to the Surrealist movement- then it is no surprise that the east should witness the birth of such a genius. There is no doubt that he was sent to us from the valley of Abqar to become one of the pillars of the literary, linguistic, philosophical, social, and judicial renaissance. A man who became one of the singular geniuses of his age, referred to as the luminary of the Arabic language, and as the high priest of linguistics!!
into a suitable piece, and we can't leave it in its current state. If someone else wants to write one in the future, so be it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I edited the first paragraph to some sort of standard, then tried to find anything in the second section that was encyclopedic, and simply could not see anything but fluff. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article relies too much on quoting subjects own works. Seems to largely be a primary source attempt to glean his life from his writtings, with no indication that the person who did so has the scholarly and cultural background to carry it out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to ASIMO. Despite their large number, the sources don't establish notability. perhaps this will be different in the future, but there is no way of knowing that right now. Per the suggestion of Thryduulf, I am creating a redirect to the similar sounding (and therefore likely typo) ASIMO. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azimo[edit]

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

I originally prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement". It was deprodded by the creator, who added some new sources, but I am afraid they don't seem sufficient. New sources include a CNN video, were the company is briefly mentioned, but brief mentions on video, even by major networks, are rarely sufficient. A documentary, or at least a dedicated program, is what is usually needed here. The article shows few passing mentions by mainstream media, and several more detailed articles by less mainstream outlets such as TechCrunch. I don't think this is sufficient. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." A quick search reveals over 3,000 pieces of coverage in thirty languages across The Economist, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Bloomberg, BBC, Times, Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde. Link with Facebook trying to buy the business. There's no doubt this entry is valid. Thesocialpro (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is deleted, please consider replacing it with a redirect to ASIMO (which I've heard pronounced with a Z). Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment above. Thanks but two entirely different things ASIMO is a Japanese robot and Azimo is the worlds most complete online money transfer business. Thesocialpro (talk • contribs) 07:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, hence "if this is deleted". This is a plausible misspelling of the robot's name (that's how I ended up here), if there is an article here then the hatnote directs people who made the same mistake as me to what they are looking for. If this article is deleted, then it could become a {{R from misspelling}} redirect. If the article is not deleted my comment has no relevance. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:58, 10 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure spam / advertising that was rejected multiple times at Articles for creation containing a train wreck of sources that either are general routine coverage [32], passing mentions [33] or not actually mentioning the company at all [34] - but ultimately it's a fairly standard company trying to puff up notability. The biggest claim of importance is the potential acquisition by Facebook, but the sources relating to that are generally unconcerned by this organisation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Depending on how they are interpreted, it seems to meet all of the criteria in the Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the rather vague (for commercial organizations) guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). It's clearly not a local garage company. It is one of the companies that Reuters and other news services choose to write about when covering this new field. So people will see it in the news and want to know more about it. My concern is that some of the statements are not supported by the cites. For example, why is it the "most complete"? So I say keep it and tag it where needed with {{failed verification}}. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would go further and say the statements that make the largest claims to notability are the ones which fail verification, which means in my view that a neutral, well sourced article at this point is impossible to write. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article did give the impression that it was jumping through hoops to satisfy the AfC notability requirements. OK, it's only a couple of years old and has just received its Series A financing. Nobody knows if it will still be around in five years, or whether it will have acquired by a larger company. The notability would seem to me to rest on the awards it has received and the services themselves. I think there is material in the sources to describe why it was founded in the first place, namely as a way for migrant workers in Europe to send money to their families without being gouged by the banks. I tend to be sympathetic to that and think it's enough justification for an article. I moved material on the awards and financing to the end of the article. Information that you need to evaluate a startup, but users don't care. I also deleted the first claim about "world's most complete" because I couldn't find anything on the Net to support it. Everything else seems to be supported by the sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Tourbulence (Dream Theater tour)[edit]

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

I prodded it under the following rationale which I believe is still valid: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (music) requirement". The article has only a single reference: the band fansite. This is a premier example of music-cruft, common particularly in the band tours articles, that infests Wikipedia in clear disregard of any notability guidelines. This kind of stuff belongs of the fansites or fan-wikias, not here. PS. The prod nomination was deleted by the article's creator without any explanation, a clear violation of the PROD procedure which requests that such a rationale is provided. And this was after User:Animalparty has warned the creator that this and similar articles have major notability problems, and suggested their merge (link). Sigh. A mass review of that article's creator articles may be in order, likely followed by a mass deletion proposal. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 3 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A11, "Made up by article creator or an associate, and no indication of importance/significance" NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denix[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article; possibly a neologism. I dream of horses (T) @ 07:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism/WP:MADEUP. A11 may also apply. Dea db eef 08:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A11; only source is one comment in a forum inviting people to make up names. Sam Walton (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A11). Invented word from a small community, no citations, no claim of significance. czar ⨹ 20:26, 24 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Slaughter[edit]

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

Multiple violations. 1, possible WP:COI violation seeing as a Victorsmesq's userpage redirects to this one. Also fails WP:NGRIDIRON as he has never played in the NFL. Fails WP:NCOLLATH because he didn't receive national media attention and his college is Division II so he hasn't won any major awards and the only All-_______ team he was named to was named to was an Academic All-American team which only recognizes academic accomplishments not athletic. Rockchalk717 06:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only news articles I can find simply mention that he has been waived or released from an NFL team--essentially confirming a lack of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable college football player and wannabe pro. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), nor professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season game in a major pro league). Fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there's the COI to which the nominator refers: just that a new editor created an article in his user page, then moved it into article space - see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_25#User:Victorsmesq. PamD 16:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Voices UK[edit]

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

This article was tagged or CSD on advertisemnt/promotional material grounds, which usually suggests copyvio trouble as well since most of the articles I see tagged as such as copy/past additions from corporate websites, however I find no copyvio here and the article, while poorly written, doesn't appear to otherwise be in open violation of any our of guidelines or policies. I therefore put to the community the issue of whether the article should be deleted or not. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An SME company going about its business, but the awards are routine and no evidence is provided or found that the firm has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I do not believe this article is in violation of the guidelines as there are a range of external references and news articles therefore it should be kept. MhairiHS (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Refs are all social media et al. Szzuk (talk) 22:20, 22 November 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 was a close decision, but delete seems like the right choice here, given that, even among the people arguing for keep, there is feeling that the existing article is deeply flawed. I note that User:Gforcepakistan4 is under indef block. If anybody wants to take a shot at writing a new version of this article, which addresses the concerns raised at this AfD, you are free to do so. If you want to start with the existing text, ping me and I'll be glad to undelete this and move it to your user space. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G Force Pakistan[edit]

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

I believe this hacker group is not very notable, and the article is simply being used as a soapbox by User:Gforcepakistan4. —suriv (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article but fully protect it in a non-User:Gforcepakistan4 version. There are sources there. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does have sources, one of which is BBC News. --Biblio worm 20:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the article would need to be almost entirely rewritten anyway if it was to be kept, given that only the first three sentences have reliable citations (the rest of the article relies completely on primary sources, and most of it is written in an unencyclopedic tone). And as the nominator mentioned, the article has been repeatedly used as an advertisement by multiple users associated with the group. --V2Blast (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and likely not notable. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources seems to be correct and points to notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite The sources do not support the claims made, especially those concerning the cyber crime family. The BBC refers to them (and others) as a "nuisance more than threat". Their only "claim to fame" as far as I can see is defacing a NOAA server in 2001, which is insufficient to make them notable. Kleuske (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article really doesn't show any notability and the few sources, in my opinion, amount to trivial coverage. However, I wouldn't be opposed to someone re-creating this article at a later date if they could show notability. demize (t · c) 18:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, until the subject meets WP:GNG. BBC source seems the sole reliable one, and existence does not equal notability. Miniapolis 23:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As stated by nominator, "...the article is simply being used as a soapbox by User:Gforcepakistan4". Also, fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Tibbydibby (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. I find plenty of passing mentions in all kinds of sources; books, journals, new reports etc etc, but only really passing mentions, lumped in with some other hacking groups. I was convinced that there must be something more in-depth out there somewhere, but I found nada, so as things stand I reckon it fails WP:GNG. Userfying it might be an option; I guess there could be some coverage in Pakistan or India that I'm just not picking up, though who you give it to is anyone's guess. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per others, esp. re current evidence of notability. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite and userfy according to many above. There are some references and mentions of the group concerned, hence I think WP:GNG is probably satisfied at the minimum. But an overhaul is definitely required for the article. I might have a go at this, if time permits. Mar4d (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick google on "G Force" + Pakistan turned up multiple reliable sources. clearly meets GNG even though, at present, this is a woefully inadequate article.ShulMaven (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established. Improve, don't delete flawed articles. ~KvnG 05:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptonator[edit]

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

Originally prodded by me because "he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations)/Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement." I stand by this description. Deprodded by User:Pishcal who stated on Talk:Cryptonator "I removed the proposed deletion template, it's been covered in multiple news articles". I don't think that the coverage in the article is sufficient; they are all niche publications/blogs about cryptocurrencies, and neither suggests that this topic has gained any notability outside it's own little world. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete press releases should not form the basis of an article --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 11 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When removing a prod, it is expected that improvements will be made to the article to address the issues identified in the prod. Other than the talk page claim of "multiple news articles", I am not seeing any improvement. And I don't see the existing news sources as having any semblance of a broad audience. WP:CORP specifically excludes "media of limited interest and circulation" as establishing notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:45, 18 November 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 03:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glenlough[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:19, 11 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 18 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pyaar Humein Kis Mod Pe[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:18, 11 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it is difficult to find sources for old Hindi films we can't really justify a separate article for a song because it is "outstanding" and "melodious". Needs to have much more evidence of notability and reliable sources to back up the claim to notability. Cowlibob (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The film article spells it Pyar Hamen Kis Mod Pe --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:53, 27 November 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 RHaworth per A10. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk to me 13:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calculation of drag force[edit]

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

Please let me know if I am wrong, but there is a very similar article in Wikipedia about this topic. William2001 (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10: WP:CFORK of Drag (physics). Marked as such. Dea db eef 03:55, 18 November 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 Genderqueer. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agender[edit]

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

I'm not in the habit of creating WP:AfDs; in fact, in my several years of editing Wikipedia, this is the first WP:AfD I've started. But I've started it because, with Ajfweb's insistence on creating the Agender article, my patience for all the unnecessary genderqueer articles -- meaning the unnecessary WP:Spinouts -- has run out. With the Agender article, what we have is a non-WP:Notable or barely WP:Notable topic/a WP:Neologism/an unneeded WP:Content fork. This is partly why the Agender redirect was redirected to the Neutrois‎ article; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 18#Agender. As seen in that discussion, there was the argument that agender is essentially the same thing as neutrois‎, and the argument that they are not the same thing. Whether they are or are not the same thing, we do not need two separate articles on these matters. Per WP:Content fork, we should not have articles about the same thing and should strive to keep topics that are pretty much the same thing (if not exactly the same thing) in one article, instead of causing our readers to go to more than one Wikipedia article for that material. When I explained to Ajfweb, in the Agender edit history, why the Agender article keeps getting deleted or redirected, and asked whether I should take this matter to WP:AfD, Ajfweb stated, "Agender is only as unnotable as neutrois. Take this to AfD if you like. The redirect is tagged as possible for expansion." Well, I don't support the Neutrois article existing either, as I essentially told an IP at the Agender talk page when commenting on Draft:Agender (the draft that the aforementioned IP created). I've been clear, as seen at Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1#Merge proposal, that non-WP:Notable genderqueer topics, or ones that are WP:Notable but cannot be expanded much beyond a WP:Stub, should be covered at the Genderqueer article, which is the umbrella term article for all of these aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I don't have much time immediately, but my perspective is that Neutrois doesn't adequately cover the concept of Agender. As it exists, or at least existed prior to my minor edits, agender is included as merely a synonym, rather than mentioning any real distinction. While there is some overlap between the two (some neutrois people identify as agender and vice-versa), from what I can see, they are distinct: Neutrois is neither gender or a neuter gender, while Agender is a lack of a gender. But I am no expert on the subject, you'd really need to find someone who is. I might be happy if Neutrois became, say, "Neutrois and Agender" and covered both concepts (and their overlap) in two different sections of one article. That would be better than treating Agender as merely a synonym of Neutrois. —ajf (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the situation was worse: The article just mentioned the word "agender" without explanation, not even as a synonym. —ajf (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Agender and neutrois or Neutrois and agender could work. But my concern is still what I stated above about all these WP:Spinouts. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this Nymag.com source after clicking on the first "Find sources" link above ("Agender"), it essentially notes agender and neutrois as the same thing. Sources doing these things, defining these terms in ways that don't distinguish them or distinguish them well, is why these topics don't deserve separate articles and is why the Genderqueer article currently lists all this together: Without a gender (nongendered, genderless, agender; neutrois). Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 18 November 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 November 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most sources treat agender/neutrois/identifying with no gender as a subset of genderqueer, although a few seem to indicate that nonbinary/genderqueer = identifying with more than one gender and is separate from agender. Certainly there's no need to have multiple articles on identifying with no gender, so agender, neutrois, etc. should be merged under whatever title is seen as appropriate; I would support merging both to Genderqueer. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The aforementioned IP added to the article, including wording it in a way that the IP personally agrees with, even though sources disagree with one another on how to define agender. Also, I alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology to this discussion, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also alerted editors of the Genderqueer talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reluctant to weigh in as I identify as agender and I do feel that identity is different from neutrois, but I honestly don't have reliable sources to back that up. I do think a merge of both agender and neutrois to genderqueer or another article on nonbinary gender identities would be a good idea, until such time as there are more reliable sources available to make distinctions between these terms. Funcrunch (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is H.A. Burnham ? What is the etymology of "neutrois" word? It seems to have something with "neutrality". Neutral what? Gender? Then synonims of agender are enough. Or maybe also "ungendered", sexless body - neutral body, to be not assigned (by gendering, sexist society) to any gender by visible sex traits. Maybe this will solve the problem as well as those conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.110.40.196 (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. The participants to this debate are reminded to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]) and to discuss issues, not editors. The problem that should be addressed here is whether API Chaining is a notable subject, as verifiable through references in reliable sources. There are no such references currently in the article: a toolkit, a list of speakers (?), a speaker schedule (?), and a set of slides. Hence, this feels WP:GNG (or any other specialty guideline). Note to Orubel: I understand your frustration, but creating articles on WP is a very tough thing to do. I suggest you hang around a bit and contribute to some existing articles to get the hang of it all before trying again. You'll see that things are going to be much easier then. Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

API Chaining[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Was prodded and removed by spa account with no improvment. AGF I have nominated the article for discussion to allow the community to discuss the fate of this article. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this technique. It is discussed in the blogs, but it is probably WP:TOOSOON for reliable sources to develop about this topic. Without any RS, even a selective merge to method chaining seems problematic. --Mark viking (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Cannot find any reliable sources on the subject. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor lacks WP:NPOV. From conversation below and on user talk page, editor obviously is practicing WP:TE and cannot separate user issues from content. Editors need to remember WP:HERE. Suggest re-evaluation.Orubel (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with my behavior, please take it up at ANI and I will defend myself there. This is not the place for it. Also, you need to sign your name. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an article, this is pretty awful. I'd have hoped that any geek up with things enough to be aware of API chaining was also capable of writing tolerably well, but evidently not.

It's a new technique, so there's not much out there as yet, but it is a technique with some traction behind it and a clear definition. We should keep this, for the benefit of the encyclopedia.

It's inevitable that the article will be deleted. It's a creation by a new editor who's already guilty of the worst wikicrime of all, lese majeste against the admin posse. It's also so obscure, technical and poorly written that no editor, other than a specialist in the field, has a hope of seeing the point to it. As such it's hard to generate the enthusiasm for the total rewrite that would be needed here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, that, block evasion and sock/meat puppetry... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)~~ I should not have brought this up here and I will apologise to Orubel for doing so. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, editor lacks WP:NPOV. User and information are two separate issues. Orubel (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Yes, it's an interesting technique - there are other ways of doing something similar, notably in HATEOAS which does URL mapping, but this technique seems more elegant. But it's early days and no real standard has emerged. I also think we should include it somewhere with a view to expanding it later on, should it gain more traction. Perhaps include as a section under the API article?Mediavalia (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to WP:NSOFT requirements, the first requirement is discussed in reliable source; large conferences where conference materials are peer reviewed meet this criteria. Conference materials are always peer reviewed for acceptance and the bigger the conference, the more reliable the source and the larger the peer review for acceptance.. SpringOne is one of the largest Java conferences in the world and conference materials were reviewed by a group of peers. APIDays was also peer reviewed as was Grails API Toolkit in which functionality exists. Orubel (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't care anymore. My other material has been removed by editors, I have constantly been under attack. Just delete everything. Orubel (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the case that there is some peer review involved in what you say but none of the references in the article talk about API chaining short of a mention in a title of a scheduled talk during a trade show[35]. This one [36] is a list of speakers at a conference it doesn't even talk about API Chaining. The last one [37] is not a source but a place to download the source code for the grail toolkit. These do not qualify as Reliable published Sources. WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG have not been met with the sources provided, if there are journals or tech magazines which have covered the subject they would do much to move this into a notable software. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize you didn't look at the slideshare notes which have tons of additional information on 'api chaining'. Again it is the editors lack of trying to FIND the information that is to blame... not the user. The rules have all been followed. You just have an agenda. And once this is deleted, you can bet I will have this reviewed for your lack of effort in investigated this properly.Orubel (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have a Conflict of interest in this matter and have a hard time Assuming good faith, with weak threats of retribution and accusations of witch hunting.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already had several editors break the WP:BITE rule by quoting 'ignorance of rules isn't an excuse', by blocking me when trying to respond, by trying to delete my pages when I am blocked, by casting aspersions and by making statements about the USER instead of the content when making decisions about whether to delete. So yes, one can saying I am beginning to see how process (or lack thereof) works. WP:AGF is supposed to be on both sides. And there is a distinct lack of follow through as shown by the other users comments here. Orubel (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However... A conflict of interest does not address the fact you neglect to see information where it is available. I just presented you with information which is clearly present that you missed; you responded by stating I have a conflict of interest. That is not a valid argument. That is also not a WP:NPOV. We delete based on information provided. Information has been provided and you mistakenly missed it; I pointed out your error and you state I am misguided. Am I the one who is misguided for pointing out your error? Orubel (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your taking Reliable published Sources out of context... see software guidelines for inclusion and notability [38] . You also neglect WP:AUD as this must be taken into consideration as there are limitations to magazines publishing scientific work like this... as such, conferences are where this is done. Hence the 'common sense' rule in WP:NSOFT. SpringOne is not a 'trade show'... its a software developer conference for Java tools, software and development principles... all of which are open source and requires peer review to be accepted. Links are provided for notability. The article provides information; if you actually look at the presentation, it mentions api chaining in the notes. Wiki guidelines do NOT require magazines for software. Software and software concepts are presented at conferences and they get in to conferences through a peer review process. Read notability guidelines for software --Orubel (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed your comments and your interruption of the policies I believe are still incorrect. That being said it is not I that decides the fate of this article it will be the community.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and WP:NSOFT states to use common sense. If you are using USER actions to judge 'information' you are not judging information on criteria alone Orubel (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the closing admin, based on this edit and this acknowledgement, Orubel (along with creating the article) states that he is the creator of the pattern that is the basis for his claim that this is notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the closing admin, above content is out of context. Notability statement is about slidedeck given at SpringOne, a peer reviewed conference. Above editor only read what he wanted to read. Orubel (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in arguing with you on it but what context can you add to "As the creator of the pattern that meets WP:NSOFT requirements"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No... it seems like you do want to argue. But if you insist, WP:NSOFT states that you use 'common sense' in evaluating. The first point in the list of notability requirements is peer reviewed materials. All conference materials are peer reviewed. You selectively are choosing to ignore ALL these even though they are attached to the article and are acceptable notable materials.Orubel (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let's say I'm going to argue. It's your comment not mine. Did I misquote you in some way? Are you not the creator of the pattern? Isn't that pattern the basis of your claim that it passes WP:NSOFT? Are you saying that you meant to say that you were the creator of the pattern that, following a peer-review, was incorporated into material at a conference about the subject-matter itself which is thus the basis for your claim that this passes WP:NSOFT? WP:NSOFT is an essay not a policy or guideline and so the guideline issue of "independence of the subject" is still important to consider, do you agree? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Notwithstanding the accusations above, let's get back on topic and look at the merits of API chaining as a technique. As I pointed out before, there is something of interest here, but it's still too early to tell whether it will be widely adopted. As it stands, I would include it elsewhere as a short section under the article on API or simply delete as there is not enough WP:NPOV verifiable evidence to support it as an article in its own right. I would also suggest that another author aside from Orubel take this on to avoid WP:COI. Mediavalia ^talk 12:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of independence from the subject in the sources provided. The first source simply a link to the toolkit. As to the other two sources, without some more details, it seems like the creator spoke at one conference along with dozens of other speakers and then spoke again at a single seminar. The only independence it seems is because the conferences invited said speaker to speak. WP:NSOFT is also an essay not a guideline, one that's been around for four years and never elevated and the reasoning here does not support elevating it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be good to get further input on this from other editors. You have already made your position abundantly clear Ricky81682! Mediavalia ^talk 09:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a little unnecessary. He's just as entitled to his opinion as anyone else --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - written in haste earlier. No offence meant. Just trying to get wider input into the debate. Apologies. Mediavalia ^talk 12:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as clear vandalism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mokism[edit]

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

No context to identify the subject of the article. Eurodyne (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A11, obviously made up by the editor and has no claim of significance. Aerospeed (Talk) 02:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as pure vandalism - I am having trouble believing that this was submitted in good faith as encyclopedic content. I have tagged the page accordingly. Mz7 (talk) 03:07, 18 November 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 San Diego Unified School District. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balboa Elementary School[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE, searched for non-primary or secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage to the subject of this AfD, and evaluated it against WP:GNG, WP:ORG, & WP:NSCHOOL. IMHO, there are insufficient reliable sources where the subject is the primary topic of the content, where the subject has has received significant coverage, to pass the aforementioned notability guidelines; therefore I propose that this article either be deleteed, or redirected to an appropriate redirect target such as San Diego Unified School District#Elementary schools or Shelltown, San Diego. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a longstanding consensus that non-notable primary schools should be redirected in a bold action, which obviates the need to bring them to AfD. Philg88 ^♦talk 21:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this. Please show me the essay or guideline, which clearly states this?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RightCowLeftCoast, this needs no guideline or essay. Redirection as an alternative to deletion is firmly anchored in a far superior policy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, until this AfD. I will remember it for the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 12 November 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, Dea db eef 02:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Shelltown, San Diego~~ San Diego Unified School District per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Diego Unified School District. The common outcome listed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says to redirect to the school district that operates the school. We would only redirect to the neighborhood if we could not identify the body that operates the school. RightCowLeftCoast did the right thing - searched for sources before bringing it here. Having done that search, as Philg88 notes, the article could have been boldly redirected. --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Diego Unified School District per my comment above. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate target. Nominator please consider doing this yourself instead of unnecessarily bringing such articles to AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 22 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Cabrera y Cuarón[edit]

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

Delete per notability guidelines and WP:TOOSOON. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassador of one major nation to another major nation. Significant post equals significant holder. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" significant post" does not mean automatic WP article, unless it has a defined inherent notability under WP:BIO which ambassadors do not. LibStar (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete as previous AfDs have demonstrated there is absolutely no inherent notability of ambassadors and their notability is not related to the "significance" of countries represented or posted to. What would establish notability is significant third party coverage of this person including achievements as ambassador besides routine reports "he holds an ambassador position". I have done a search and found no evidence to establish WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm usually an inclusionist, but not in this case, as per above user's argument. Stamboliyski (talk) 16:33, 8 November 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, → Call me Hahc21 20:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 15 November 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, Dea db eef 02:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible notable but no justification at present --Mevagiss (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf Malkani[edit]

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

Stub article about a non-notable Pakistani poet and writer. The only ref in the article is a dead link, and a search on Google returns nothing but Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and various other user contributed sites, plus Amazon, who have previously sold a book by Malkani, but no longer do. Thomas.W ^talk 12:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep the article is relatively new and Waskaro (Children's Magazine) & Laat (Children's Magazine) do indicate recurring notable works that have wikipedia articles. The current information about the subject is not enough to decide whether to keep or delete the article as of yet. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the BLP, does not appear to meet GNG or NAUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 22:17, 23 November 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) 12:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Tober[edit]

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

Probable autobiography that doesn't establish notability, and relies entirely on self-published sources. —Swpb^talk 00:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BIO. Ifnord (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find that she meets the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC, or WP:BIO. She has written a book that hasn't been published, and a documentary that hasn't been released. She has published articles in peer-reviewed journals, but the articles are not cited enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC. And basically she is her own source for most of the information about her. --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Swpb and MelanieN. Also portions of the article mirror bios found with a google search. --Neøn (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above. GS citations about average for mid-career academic. Agricola44 (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Iny[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for Notability since 2010. It is sourced to a single essay in a single book, and to 2 articles in an online, local Weekly. Google search turned up this Wikipedia article, her LinkedIn page, Facebook page, and the page of her employer, a nonprofit where she works in a fundraising capacity. Scanning a few more pages reveals some few sources including [39], spotlighting her political activism. ShulMaven (talk) 23:58, 17 November 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 November 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO. Ifnord (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The passing mentions in the 2 given references are a long-way short of provding coverage to meet the WP:ANYBIO criteria and multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are providing nothing better. AllyD (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing the notability here. Neutrality^talk 01:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable under any criterion. Shame on us for keeping this article since 2007, and kudos to ShulMaven for finding it, doing a thorough search for sources, and ultimately suggesting it needs to go.--MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 24 November 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.