Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 November	22 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete as A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Arvid. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

آروید[edit]

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

I do not speak this language, and thus do not know if this is legitimate content that just needs translation. AMLNet49-Talk-Cont 23:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A run through Google translate brings up this: "Rvyd Scandinavian languages means eagle in the forest . The name in Sweden , Norway and Finland are common. Rvyd the Old Persian means a person who has knowledge of the Aryan religion . The word is composed of two terms R + VHS . R. Wade literally means fire and knowledge. Rvyd can Rbyd or another species of Irbid and means a person who has the care of the sacred fire ." Someone's already tagged it as a copy of Arvid, so I'll be deleting it shortly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Rockhampton[edit]

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

I don't see anything notable on this page about this building that merits its being kept. There are no references either. AMLNet49-Talk-Cont 21:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There would need to be something of real historical or architectural significance to make a 14 story building notable. Being the tallest building in a city of about 60,000 people is definitely not enough. That's utterly routine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with comments above that being the tallest building does not make it notable enough for its own article. It may be worthy of a mention in the article about the city though. Dfadden (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is far below the standard threshold for a building to obtain notability via its height. Additionally, just being the tallest building in -whatever population center- does not grant notability. The only other means is if it has some sort of historical importance and that is clearly not the case here with a brand new facility. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 13:15, 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. With no prejudice against speedy re-nomination due to lack of participation here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indignatio[edit]

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

Recreation of a wiktionary page https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/indignatio. JamKaftan (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've declined a speedy for hoax as the term does seem to exist. Whether it is deserving merely of a brief Wiktionary entry or of an article here, I leave to others. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. Reference 3 is enough to convince me this is a real term of rhetoric about which more could be said, though it needs to be said in a clearer way with contemporary sources in addition to (or rather than) translations of ancient sources. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:39, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 13 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, Sandstein 20:41, 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 rationale to close has been offered, not judging the merits of the merge rationale as that discussion can continue on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 17:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Antonov Design Bureau AN-70 Crash[edit]

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

Not notable aviation incident. ...William 23:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Russian government spent over 5 billion dollars to develop this aircraft. Two were built and they both crashed. This one was repaired at great expense and is the only one left. The plane was built to NATO specs. That's not notable? There are customers in Europe that have ordered several of these planes based on the performance test of this plane that was broken in two and rebuilt. This aircraft flew in 2012 and valuable flight data was retrieved. Waiting for reply, respectfully, Samf4u 01:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Antonov An-70. It is the aircraft that is notable. This is just one incident in its very long development history. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen328! Thanks for your vote to merge this article. You're right, this is one incident in the AN-70's very long history. Can you name any aircraft of this size that was rebuilt after the airframe was broken in half? Just curious. Samf4u 03:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep - the accident caused major damage to a large aircraft, which in other circumstances may well have equated to a hull loss. OK, the referencing needs improving, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Antonov An-70. Not notable in its own right. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The accident is not as notable as we would like and would be amply covered inthe An-70 article.--Petebutt (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by references. Nomination and merge votes above do not explain how notability is not met...it is met by wp:GNG references (although more could be added). As for some editors' interest in merging (perhaps out of belief that the Antonov An-70 article could be expanded to include the info?), that doesn't really work, IMHO. This article is about the 2nd prototype's crash, and there's another separate article about the 1st prototype's crash, 1995 Antonov An-70 prototype crash. Together they have interesting info and together have too much information to merge into the Antonov An-70 article. It is reasonable for editors of Antonov An-70 article to split these out. Offhand, I would link them more prominently from the Antonov An-70 article, but that is a matter for editing there. No reason to merge or to delete; Keep is best IMHO. --do ncr am 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to take a step back for a moment: Two An-70s have been built. 1995 Antonov An-70 prototype crash provides details about #1. 2001 Antonov Design Bureau AN-70 Crash provides details about #2. What does that leave Antonov An-70 to cover? It mentions both incidents and the incidents seem to be within the scope of that article. Why couldn't they exist as sections there, and split later if they become unmanageably large or unwieldy? At the moment they amount to about 3 or 4 short paragraphs each. Maybe less, when excluding information that would be redundant when merged. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an editing decision, best left to editors of the articles, in my opinion, about having separate articles about the 2 prototypes, or having them as sections in the Antonov An-70 article. Having separate articles allows for more/different pictures to be included, and for generally more info to be provided in text and infoboxes, and allows for better targeted categories such as Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2001 and such which are not appropriate for a more general article. There is value already in them being split out, IMO, and each could be developed more already, too. They do each have multiple sections already. In other words, they are "unmanageably large and unwieldy", already, it can be argued. Note it is practice in wp:SHIPS that there is an article about each ship type, e.g. Arizona-class battleship, even when there are only 2 ships of the type ever built, each of which gets a separate article. The Antonov An-70 plane type has plenty more going on about it, including fuselages being built in 2012 and activity in 2014. But the AFD is about notability, i guess, and notability of each of the prototypes and their crashes is clear in my view (it is not disputed here, right?). So, in my view the AFD decision should clearly be Keep, with no prejudice against editors of the main article choosing to merge in the separate info or not (and I think they will not). If it were me developing the topic areas, User:AdventurousSquirrel, i personally would choose to have one main article on the plane type and the separate two prototype articles. And there is nothing to be gained by forcing a merge or two merges upon the editors; there is nothing wrong with them being separate and this AFD is serving no purpose helpful to development of the Wikipedia, IMO. --do ncr am 15:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fair points. I don't dispute the notability of the incidents but, it does seem others do. But in any case, I think you bring up some good points and I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense to force a merge at this point. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:46, 22 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, Sandstein 20:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I would be more than happy to work on the lack of inline citations and maybe add another photo, but if the article gets deleted what's the point. Samf4u 13:51, 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 Redirect - already done as a part of the discussion. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

DDR5 SDRAM[edit]

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

Seems to be misinformed - there is no such thing as DDR5. Looking at the sources given:

Derzapf, Evgenij (2012). Parallel Mesh Processing (Ph.D.). Philipps-Universität Marburg. DDR5 is mentioned once, and is fairly ovbiously a reference to the totally different GDDR5.
13/222,938 US application US 13/222,938, Stuart Allen Berke, "Memory compatibility system and method", published 2014-01-28, assigned to Dell Products L.P.: dead link
Patent No. 8,493,116 US patent U.S. Patent No. 8,493,116, Jong-ryun Choi & Suho Kim, "Clock delay circuit and delay locked loop including the same.", published 2013-07-23, assigned to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd and Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation, Yonsei University: Dead link
MX35 Applications Processors for Automotive Products, Freescale Semiconductor Datasheet Document Number MCIMX35SR2AEC, 2010-09-27, p. 51, retrieved 2014-08-06: While there is a position on a drawing named DDR5, is is fairly obviously not a new SDRAM standard.

I have designed a small CPU when I studied computer science, and the text in the current Wikipedia article makes no sense. You do no use a new DRAM memory standard to support parallel matrix operations. And making DDR5 compatible with DDR2 through a riser card is insanity, since DDR2 is many years old and obsolete. And and and... Thue (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is completely unsourced and also conflicting with WP:CRYSTALBALL; out of three online sources, two are dead links and a search for those patents resulted in one of them actually describing additional memory emulation logic and mentioning DDR5 only as a hypothetical new memory standard, while the other seems to be only mentioning DDR5 by mistake instead of DDR4 as an example of SDRAM memory type. As already explained above, the third online source isn't about DDR5 – that hardware platform uses DDR2 memory while "DDR5" is used for positions on timing diagrams (not a great choice for IDs, by the way). — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created DDR4 SDRAM#Successor; I suggest that we redirect DDR5 there, since DDR5 is a natural search term for people looking for information about any sucessor to DDR4. Thue (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. Went ahead and WP:BOLDly turned the article into a redirect to DDR4 SDRAM § DDR5, what might be slightly against WP:EDITATAFD but it's so misleading that we simply shouldn't wait for the AfD outcome. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. As long as there are nobody actually opposing it and it makes Wikipedia better, I see no reason to follow the rules mindlessly to the letter for the rules own sake. I wish more Wikipedia editors would understand that :(.Thue (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could an Admin close this please It seems to have been dealt with. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thue, would you be willing to withdraw this nomination and close it, please, what would be in accordance with WP:WDAFD? We've already turned the article into a redirect, so there's no longer any point in deleting it; with a withdrawn nomination we'd also be able to delete the AfD notice from the redirect itself. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts what are Non Admin Closures for? Neonchameleon (talk) 17:43, 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. The article was deleted by User:TomStar81 per CSD G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Socialist Party[edit]

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

A case of "as above, see below" with this. Having fought just two by-elections, and "achieving" lost deposits in both, the PSP remain a hobby horse without any WP:NOTABILITY or importance whatsoever. This article has been hastily recreated on the back of a second by-election failure, with barely any second or third party sources to prove notability or importance, there is no indication of importance within British politics generally, and no evidence of campaigning outside minor local elections. Fails almost all Wiki guidelines on organisations, importance, and notability. doktorb _words^deeds 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC) doktorb _words^deeds 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note The article has been marked for Speedy Deletion 22/11 doktorb _words^deeds 10:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further note The article has been deleted doktorb _words^deeds 07:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above arguments for deletion would apply to nearly all the parties in List of political parties in the United Kingdom. I think that if a party has participated in a parliamentary election (whatever the result) then it is notable. Biscuittin (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily as a recreation of deleted content. Biscuittin above doesn't seem to recognise that the usual notability criteria apply to political parties: merely existing and contesting elections doesn't make a party notable. If it did, we would have articles on thousands of tiny trivial parties. A party which has never been elected to anything, has no notable members, and has never received significant attention from the media, is not notable and shouldn't have an article; in the case of this one, that judgement was reached at the previous AFD in May, and nothing substantial appears to have changed since then. Robofish (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think everybody shares your view. If they did then most of the articles listed in List of political parties in the United Kingdom would already have been deleted. Biscuittin (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A registered political party that contested the 2014 local elections and two Parliamentary by-elections, all of which are sourced. Results are irrelevant. Has a representative on the Wittering Parish Council in the form of a defector from UKIP.
- A parish council is not important or relevant enough for Wikipedia doktorb _words^deeds 21:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as last time WP:GNG not being met. Add the required third party reliable sources and I'll change to keep but if anything this new version is worse than the one deleted on that score. Keresaspa (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still doesn't differ from the reasons for it's first deletion. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I could change my mind as I am generally an inclusionist on these things. However the PSP seems to still fail the notability criteria due to the current dearth of reliable third party sources in the article. We have three sources currently. (1) The group's website, (2) council results notifications and (3) two articles from the media (BBC and East Anglian Daily Times).

The group's website is never going to be sufficient for notability. Council results simply prove that the party has unsuccessfully stood in some elections and the BBC and EADT only mention that the party has stood in elections. There is simply no reliable third party coverage that does anything more than state that they exist and unsuccessfully stand in elections.

So the argument seems to boil down to whether standing in elections is in itself a claim for notability. There is not a test that I know of around that. In my opinion standing for one election to the national legislature would not in itself be a sufficient test - then we'd have separate entities for each one of Bill Boaks ballot descriptions. Parties that would get to any threshold would have in almost all cases been covered by reliable third party sources, which is why there should be some caution in looking for such a rule.

JASpencer (talk)

Keep It's a political party contesting (amusingly ineffectively) elections in the UK. Re. the Bill Boaks point, that's just rebranding and easily handled on his page (in this case, there should not be separate pages for the UPP and PSP). We have an article on Lewisham People Before Profit, which is similarly small (albeit with double the vote in Rochester & Strood). Bromley86 (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedy deletion I have contested speedy deletion at Talk:Patriotic Socialist Party. Biscuittin (talk) 14:39, 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 Procedural close. Was deleted on 21:57, 24 November 2014 by User:Orangemike. (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Noah A Waters III, 32° F. & A.M.) Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Noah A Waters III, 32° F. & A.M.[edit]

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

Subject not notable, most references are self-published, I couldn't find anything independent and reliable. Subject is 25 years old (according to IMDB). Seems a bit young to have attained the highest rites of the Masons. I suspect someone is having us on. ubiquity (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP and WP:42 - there is not a single WP:RS in this stub. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reached out to his people and heard back from his assistant. She said as far as his masonic achievements go there is no database open to the public how ever he does have his "Dues card"s and rite achievements. I'm not sure what that means but I guess its a kind of documentation proof. She has been to is lodge although never during ceremony. Again not totally sure what that means completely. There are a few indepndent interviews in the references I put. What else needs to happen? thanks for the help. Melisa Hoffman (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)MF[reply]
- Pretty much anything from "his people" is not going to be useful here. What is required is that people NOT affiliated with him have found him worthy of note. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of satisfying WP:BIO. His rather grandiose film/acting claims are belied by his IMDb page. Way WP:TOOSOON for an article on that basis. All the secret society claptrap does not help with notability at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if all the masonic puffery could be verified, it wouldn't be evidence of notability by Wikipedia criteria unless a credible and relevant third-party source said it was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. (I have deleted all the masonic stuff from the article, as it's both irrelevant, and intrinsically unverifiable, the masons being a secret society.) Maproom (talk) 18:15, 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 Redirect to Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 05:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchinson Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school. PamD 16:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, for a middle school that does not meet the requirements of GNG. There does not appear to be significant independent coverage about this school. The fact that it is a California Distinguished School does not make it notable; the state hands out that title like candy on Halloween. In any given city there are probably more schools with that award than without. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N. I can't find substantial independent reliable sources to show notability. It seems to be a fairly good school, but not exceptional enough to be notable for that. More than 200 CA schools were recognized as California Distinguished Schools in 2013,[1] and the school's API of 845 is above the state (792) and county (785) averages, but still just barely into the 8th decile. [2] There is an unsourced claim that the school was the first school in La Mirada when it opened in 1956 as an elementary school, but that does not seem sufficient to show notability. Note that the article was written "in collaboration with the principal and the dean of students as we decided that this school needs to get a better online representation." [3] Meters (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this school is as notable as all the other questionable schools. This school was the first school opened in La Mirada and the founder was teh one who United and Unified Norwalk and La Mirada into the Norwalk - La Mirada Unified School District (NLMUSD). If this school is deemend NOT notable, we might as well spend years bickering back and forth on the notability of every school nationwide. Thank you for your consideration, STJMLCC (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STJMLCC is the creator of the article. Meters (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Please see the latest comment on this discussion by: caaaaaaaaarrrl @Viva_La_Resistonce at the previous site of this discussion Talk:Hutchinson Middle School STJMLCC (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate keep stuck (again). The other editor can make his own comments if he wishes. Meters (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize for unmarking the strikethrough, I thought it was for other purposes. As for the other editor, he is apparently unaware of this page and thought that the discussion was on the other page. STJMLCC (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I too agree with Viva_La_Resistonce and STJMLCC. This school is notable and is connected historically to la Mirada. Not only that, but it is overall a better school than other middle schools in the area and has a greater accedemic performance and higher achieving students. It should not be redirected and should be kept here. Please reconsider your statements and let this page be. my apologies for posting this on the other page. I was unaware what AFD stood for. ಠ_ಠ @TNTdonut (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an old user with a new account, I came across this and have decided to support STJMLCC. It seems to me that this school is very notable compared to other middle schools. Please refrain from redirecting it. Wikipedia should be an environment with information of all kinds. After reading STJMLCC's provided articles, I have also came to the conclusion that this school has a historical background and therefore is notable. caaaaaaaaarrrl @Viva_La_Resistonce (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC) [This is his post, but I just moved it to this page ಠ_ಠ @TNTdonut (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Thank you TNTdonut, I am completely fine with you moving that post caaaaaaaaarrrl @Viva_La_Resistonce (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to know how as an ‘old user with a new account’ you suddenly became aware of this article, and that it was under deletion discussion and created a new account today that has been used exclusively to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The users recommending the article to be kept on account of the school's historical connections or academic performance may wish to review Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organisations and companies (which also covers educational institutions). Specifically, those guidelines point out that an organisation does not inherit notability from who- or whatever it may be connected to, and possesses no inherent notability simply by existing, or because editors perceive it to be important or better than other similar organisations. The primary criterion for establishing notability is substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. It's the apparent lack of such sources that's the reason for this discussion, and it remains unaddressed. Regards, Indrek (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well in that case, we might as well scrap all the pages on Wikipedia. My thoughts on this are the fact that a historical school existing with some secondary coverage sources, such as the state, and ample primary sources can and should exist on Wikipedia in article form not redirect form.

Thank You For Your Assistance Regarding This Article, STJMLCC (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District per standard procedure as documented at as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Redirect to Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District per standard procedure as documented at as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jacona (talk) 15:14, 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Rowley[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played at a senior level in a fully pro league. JMHamo (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - Fails NFOOTIE. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 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) 11:46, 22 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:31, 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) 21:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saddleback Eye Center[edit]

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

Non-notable business. Citations consist entirely of business directory listings and the company's own website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:35, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed bin Khaled Al Juffali[edit]

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

The only ref is a blog. Notability not established. TheCascadian 03:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:GNG, only reference is a self-published blog. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 10:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable car enthusiast. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Collins (MTA Character)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about fictional character no indication of WP:Notability Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:24, 21 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) • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can tell, seems to be in WP:MADEUP territory. ansh666 01:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Your made-up GTA Online character will never earn any notability unless they become sentient and come out of the monitor to be a real person; typical archetype of typical character used by who knows how many in that game. Nate • (chatter) 03:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11; obviously invented by the article's creator. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks straightforward. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:54, 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. Secret ^account 18:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baye_McNeil[edit]

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

This entry seems to be sourced mainly from self-published sources (published by the subject himself), his blog, or interviews with the subject concerning his self published books.

There are few or no reliable sources connected to this entry.

It also has problems with notability, seeing as it has a few secondary references, all of which are over a year old (2013 being the most recent). Almost all the secondary sources are interviews with the subject. Some of them are the same book review or article published in various places.

I've searched Google books and news, but only the subjects self-published books were returned.

This guy is basically a blogger and part time news paper columnist. This is not notable.

I believe it should be considered for deletion. nagoyablue (talk) 08:56, 21 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 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to suggest that McNeil is ultimately notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Most of the sources I've found are ones that fall just short of being reliable sources (like this one), as they initially appear usable but are ultimately SPS. The cover blurbs are just that- cover blurbs, short and positive 1-2 sentence statements that the publisher specifically asks for from various authors or notable persons. They've never been usable for notability purposes, especially since in many instances the quoted people are either friends/acquaintances of the author or they're people who publish with the same company. As far as his work being in several publications, that isn't a qualification for notability in and of itself. Being widely published may make it more likely that someone will gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. Unless there are scads of coverage for him in a foreign language, I just can't see where he's ultimately notable enough for an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article was submitted to articles for creation desk, then approved, then published. Subject is notable and sources are good…Tokyogirl79, you're wrong about cover blurbs. I specifically asked Wikipedia articles for creation help desk whether cover blurbs are OK as sources, and was told, "YES" they are. (If I hadn't been told this, I wouldn't have noted them as references.)…I made edits to article and comments on its talk page (Talk:Baye McNeil}. Nagoyabllue responded not by commenting on talk page, but by proposing article for deletion. Why?...Minusminority (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cover blurbs are not independent reliable sources -- they are directly selected and published by the author and/or publisher. Yes, they are inherently biased. This is not a matter of someone issuing a ruling and establishing precedence. Someone might have told you something and we might or might not agree with them. Either way, the WP:CONSENSUS will be the only decision that matters. The editor proposed deletion because they felt the subject is not notable. Having only self-published works, McNeil is very unlikely to pass WP:AUTHOR. That leaves the general notability guideline (GNG). To pass GNG, McNeil would need to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cover blurbs and interviews are not independent of the subject. Of the few sources left after that, I don't immediately see any that are "reliable". - SummerPhD (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought the article had enough reliable sources in 2013 and I still think it does. Tho I cede the above editors' points about cover blurbs. As for the other references, I seldom have the stomach to dig in for a protracted war over our notability criteria, or our reliable source criteria for web resources. But I will note that while this article has seen a great deal of heated conflict between the article creator and the editor who posted this RfD, that conflict didn't seem to have anything to do with the notability of the subject until very recently. What changed? Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 00:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply.I was unhappy with this entry for various reasons, but until I recently looked at the case for deleting another entry (unconnected to this), I was unaware of the rules of notability and reliable sources. Looking at it again with these in mind, I could understand why I felt unhappy with the entry. I also felt, that within these guidelines, this entry should be deleted. If people can find reliable sources that prove this person to be notable, I'm happy for it stay, of course. But I couldn't find any despite looking.nagoyablue (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Tokyogirl79. WP:AFC is not a prefect process and not all its reviewers demonstrate the level of skill and knowledge generally required by that project. At best, AfC performs no better than NPP which is also inherently flawed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had a look around and while he has written several pieces for The Japan Times, that cannot count towards notability of himself. The other coverage I found was either press releases (eg: [4]) or self-published (eg: [5], [6]). This Tokyo Weekender piece looks to be the best source I found, but that's about it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having this article up for deletion seems like a case of changing the rules in the middle of the game. IF that is the case (and depending on outcome of this debate) I would like to humbly suggest Wikipedia work on consistency...As I have noted previously on this AfD page or on the talk page for the article, I went through Articles for Creation before the article was published (by someone else, not me). The submission passed the eyes of at least two or three editors who work on AfC…Users have mentioned cover blurbs several times. As I have noted previously (on this page and the talk page), I confirmed with an editor at AfC (in a chat) that cover blurbs were OK to note as sources. If cover blurbs are not OK as sources, why was I told they were before article was approved for publication?...Also, the Kam Williams' sources, at least one of The Japan Times' sources and the Tokyo Weekender source are not written by subject of article, nor generated by him. Why aren't they considered good sources by some who are debating article's merits on this page (when they were considered good by other editors, at AfC)? …User Kudpung กุดผึ้ง states, "At best, AfC performs no better than NPP which is also inherently flawed." If that is the case, I would like to know why these processes exist. (AfC = Articles for Creation; NPP = New Pages Patrol.) Replies from other editors on this would be appreciated. Thank you. Minusminority (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Minusminority (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfect processes exist because no system is perfect. In this particular case, the problem traces to the fact that Wikipedia is not a strict hierarchy. With very few exceptions, no one person can authoritatively answer any question about what is or is not within our guidelines. Consensus is, in most cases, the one and final arbiter. Even then, consensus can change. In a bureaucracy, ever higher levels of authority can give ever more authoritative answers (Department of Motor Vehicles < state courts < federal courts < Supreme Court < Constitution). If the DMV says something, it is correct... unless a higher level overrides it. Wikipedia does not work this way. Every article is created and edited with the expectation that it must meet our policies and guidelines. If, at any time, an editor believes that the creation, deletion or content of an article is not in line with those policies and guidelines, they may attempt to address that issue in various ways. In this particular case, an editor feels the subject of the article is not notable. If the consensus supports that opinion, the article will be deleted. If any editor later believes that the decision was incorrect, the subject has become more notable or our guidelines change, that editor can work to form a new consensus and restore the article. A consensus stands until a new consensus changes it. The opinion at AfC (contested, as it is, on the article's talk page) is the current consensus. The apparent consensus here (to delete the article) will be the new consensus. If things change at some point in the future, the closure of this discussion will provide links to the process to recreate the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cover blurbs are sources for establishing claims or facts and may therefore be used within an article. They are not sources for establishing notability. Not all your sources need to establish notability in the same way as not all the times you kick a ball it needs to end up in the net - but you won't win the match if you don't score at least one goal. New Pages Patrol is a process that exists to play Whac-A-Mole; its main purpose is keeping obvious spam, promotion, and nonsense off Wikipedia. Articles for Creation mostly, so far as I can tell, makes sure that people have beta readers before putting articles up. (These are of course personal opinions rather than authoritative). Neonchameleon (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that the real question here is whether the book reviews contribute to the notability of the author. I am not aware of any guideline saying otherwise, in which case there are certainly multiple RSs covering this individual. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:46, 29 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. Michig (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bells E.M High School[edit]

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

No references since its creation date i.e., 3 May 2011‎. A sentence The first student of the school was Priyanka Pothala. conveys that the user who created this page has the same name. (a kind of self-promoting) Vin09 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient Ghits out there that prove that this high school exists. Keep per OUTCOMES and standard procedure. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All high schools are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary school, kept per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 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. Michig (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Annapurna High School[edit]

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

No references, and promotional where phone numbers are provided using wiki as advertisement site. The page creator User:Chowdaryvsn was also notified on 5 April 2008, but no references were provided till date. Vin09 (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient Ghits demonstrate that this school exists and is a ~~gight~~ high school. Keep per standard practice as documented at OUTCOMES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 09:53, November 22, 2014‎
Keep. All high schools are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the high school can be confirmed to exist and thus we invoke the school outcomes essay. I couldn't confirm this particular Indian school though, outside of social media. However, there are plenty of schools known by this name, so either it moved around or this will end up a dab page in the long run: "Mount Annapurna High School of Pokhara", Annapurna High School (Nepal) perhaps near Kathmandu?, Annapurna Higher Secondary School (Nepal), "Modern Annapurna High School in Siklis", etc. czar ♔ 06:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary school, kept per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 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 speedy delete per author/subject request. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poornachandra Tejaswi S V[edit]

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

I don't think this guy meets the notability guidelines for music. His career only started last year and even if the External links are counted as references they are of low quality IMDB is self-editable, two are interviews with him, hardly an objective source, and the last appears to be lyrics. Premature at the very least when two of the films are in production Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

Please help me about it. Which proof you are required? We have all the datas with us. And please help me about the error of my article, I don't understand the actual problem. If any one can help me about this and will edit my article, I'll really thankful to you.

Thank you very much for the notification.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per author's request. Author and main contributor blanked the article content, and requested deletion on the talk page [7]. Meters (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

Please delete this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poornachandra_Tejaswi_S_V as soon as possible. Because it is hampering our impression. What is the problem with this to delete the page.

Please help me. Thanks.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 South Slope, Brooklyn. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 05:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter rouget[edit]

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

Ignoring the fact that the article is so poorly written and reflects badly on the school (assuming the author is a student there), there is nothing to suggest that this establishment is in any way noteworthy. Bikeroo (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. An unsourced article about a middle school divided into three "houses". Pretty unremarkable. A possible redirect target is South Slope, Brooklyn, the nearest locality. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The only substantial coverage I could find in a search comes from press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the school does exist, but it certainly isn't notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Slope, Brooklyn. Normally we would link to New York City Department of Education, but that site does not list or even recognize the individual schools controlled by the department. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 29 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. Thank you to Gwen Gale for the large amount of effort that went into creating this article, but, sadly, the consensus here is that it's not appropriate for wikipedia. There may be some other project for which it would be more appropriate; should you find a better home, please ask me (or any other admin) to userfy the deleted article so you can reuse the text. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kremlin Letter (plot)[edit]

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

This is an extremely long synopsis (about 4500 words!), well beyond the WP:FILMPLOT recommended max. length (700). There is an attempt to justify this in Talk:The Kremlin Letter#Way too long, but I don't buy it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if a long synopsis warrants a deletion. The article could be could use some headings or some other improvements in the layout. But I agree that the article is way too long in the position that it is in. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. No other film article I've ever encountered has a separate plot page, and I've seen plenty. FILMPLOT is pretty specific as to what's acceptable. It's all a Commie plot, I tell ya. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Wikipedia is a place for information about notable films, it's not a repository for long descriptive pages about a film's plot. The movie's plotline is already covered in the pre-existing page for the film and I can't see where the article is improved because we have a blow-by-blow summary of the film on a separate page. There's zero reason for there to be a separate page specifically for the film's plot. If not for the fact that this was created back in August, I'd suggest A10-ing the whole thing. This is just a pretty good example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My two pence as the writer of this page. The main article is not and has never been the "the pre-existing page for the film," that page is still and always has been the main article, with a helpful short summary, which readers see first. This page is only a sub-page of the main article. The film itself has a very deeply woven and threaded plot, which on only one screening, might be hard to follow for some, even though they may like watching the characters, overall sweep of things like plot, cinematography and so on. Hence, coming to Wikipedia to read about the film, some readers might want to read a thorough rundown on the whole plot. The main article (with the short summary) looks like it gets an average of almost 50 hits a day, over 4,000 in the last 90 days. This plot page averages roughly 4 hits a day, almost 400 in the last 90, so while no readers of the main page are getting bogged down by a long plot summary, about one in ten are clicking through to have a look at this more thorough (and very long) sub-plot-page. This is close to what I thought might happen and why I think it's working as hoped. Since this page is there for those who might want to read it and meanwhile no reader need see anything other than the standard Wikipedia film article if they don't wish to, I see no editorial harm to Wikipedia or its readers, only help. Also, so far as I know, not having looked at their contribution history, the nom, User:Clarityfiend is here in good faith and if the fiend handle in their name means they feel strongly about making Wikipedia ever more helpful, which I think it must, I think that's great. Their username does clearly put forth a strong editorial agenda or priority. While I should think there is much overlap between their and my outlooks on editorial clarity here, our methods of getting clarity, so far as this article goes, may not be quite the same. I think the shorter summary in the main article yields clarity, so we seem to see that the same way. Moreover, I think the much longer summary on the sub-page, which most readers don't click through to, also yields a lot of clarity for those who want it. Having said all this, only as to this article, I myself have an agenda, on the topic. I first saw this film in my early teens and ever since, I've thought of it as the best and truest "spy movie" I've ever seen or know of (the novel from which it was drawn was written by someone who had worked for CIC). Although it's long been overlooked by most critics, it may be in my own "top ten" of films ever made. Others here and there, however few and far between, feel more or less the same way. So, after thinking about it off and on for over a year (as I recall), following WP:Not paper and WP:Bold, I made this sub-page last August. Thanks for reading this (long!) post and thank you User:Clarityfiend for letting me know about this on my talk page and thereby stirring me up to think it through once again and share my thoughts here, which I've enjoyed, given my own eagerness about the article topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the plot synopsis in the main article to be PLENTY long enough. This separate article reads almost like a Cliff's notes. Much too long, and for anyone who wonders about the movie, a bad substitute. I can imagine that if it had been written as a piece of brilliant criticism, a' la Anthony Lane, Pauline Kael, Christopher Hitchens, then the synopsis would be interesting. Alas, a mere accounting of the scenes and characters is not enlightening. LaMona (talk) 22:23, 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 22:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AMDA Hospital[edit]

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

Delete non notable hospital no claim to significance much less one that is proven. Should have been speedied as such. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in Bucket is back for deletion.

Keep The hospital has served especially to reduce infant mortality rate in the region. Although there are no reference to prove in the web, the hospital is creditable and serving around 250,000 people of the region.nirmal (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky Hell in a Bucket wanting people's articles to pass WP:RS and be able to be verified as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, I'm not sure but Medical claims this may apply to medical claims as well but it may only refer to actual medical subjects. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ~~Delete~~ Article currently fails WP:V. Will happily reconsider if/when reliable sources are added. On a side note, I was the one who removed the CSD tags. There is a very low bar for passing CSD A-7. Pretty much any credible claim to notability works. The article has that. But, no it does not pass V as it currently stands. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Stalwart111's excellent comment below pretty much sums things up. My only disagreement is that while I think the one source on architectural significance moves the ball down the field, I don't think it gets it over the goal line. This whole AfD strikes me as odd. I can't remember an article about a hospital where there was so much difficulty finding reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Hospitals should normally be notable. Perhaps this is just one of the rare exceptions. In any event I'm glad this was relisted. I will keep an eye on the discussion. One more good secondary source would probably be enough to move me to a Keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No one's saying that it's an unworthy place or that it doesn't help people. Without reliable, independent, third-party sources, it just doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Nha Trang 18:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is notable. It is also known as Siddhartha Children and Women Hospital, which I added to the article and created redirect for it. Try:

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

Note the Siddhartha Children and Women Hospital search provides sources, e.g. this Google book version of a study on Telehealth (doctors over video?). And it seems important in Nepal-Japan relations, based on coverage of Japan funding a program or part or all of the hospital. --do ncr am 19:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--do ncr am 19:14, 20 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, Deadbeef 06:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think what my colleague above means is, "I believe it's notable"; unilateral declarations not being worth much in a consensus discussion. I'm not at all convinced by the "it's a hospital" or "it's important to Japan-Nepal relations" arguments. That's a construct of Wikipedia - a form of synthesis that suggests that because we have an article about something, other subjects that relate to it might gain notability. Sorry, no. There are thousands of projects that receive partial or full funding from foreign governments. That doesn't make the project notable, nor does it increase the notability of the relationship between the two countries, such things being entirely within the routine nature of foreign aid funding. What is compelling, in my view, is the fact that the building itself (in addition to being a hospital just like any other) is of architectural significance. This provides a good overview. This is significant coverage of the build and the institution. But beyond that, there's not much else - passing mentions in press releases or other official communications about individual staff with passing mention of the fact that they do (or did) work at the hospital. I'm not entirely convinced it's notable but there's probably just enough there for it to scrape by. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stalwart111 for finding that source on architecture; i have just added brief use of it in the hospital article. About the Japanese-Nepal relations angle, I had come across this coverage at the official Japanese embassy webpage. Japan-Nepal relations came to mind for me, because I read there that Japanese official "Mr. Tadashi Fujiwara...also expressed his belief that the Hospital will play a vital role in strengthening the friendly relations between the two nations." It asserts the Government of Japan gave US $938,298 funding. In the present article there is mention of "Japanese INGO" funding, which I did not understand. It needs to be clarified that explicitly the government of Japan provided funding, i guess, and/or explain what an International NGO is and identify which Japanese one is involved. And I personally think it is unusual for this to be touted at a Japanese embassy webpage; there are not "thousands" of other items mentioned there; it seems not routine to me. Maybe the Japanese official's statement of it being important for relations is not worth mentioning. But however it is to be presented, I do think some usage of this Japanese embassy webpage as a source would be justified. And yes, I was asserting "I believe it is notable", but that was based on my browsing and finding what appear to be numerous reliable sources (which I did not list nor add to the article) by searching on the "Siddhartha Children and Women Hospital" name which had not previously been mentioned. --do ncr am 23:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be mentioned in the article, and I'm not suggesting it's necessarily routine in the context of Japan-Nepal relations in particular or even Japan-X relations generally. Some countries elect to give larger amounts (in this case almost a million dollars) to a select few aid projects. Other countries give smaller amount to a range of different projects. Either way, I don't think that makes those projects notable - in this case its the other things I think just get it over the line. But they don't have to be notable to be included in various articles and that source is solid enough to support a mention (if this weren't kept). There was a similar (African) hospital article a few months ago that was up for deletion and the argument presented was that most equivalent hospitals in 1st world countries had articles - basically per WP:OUTCOMES. I suppose that's where I went for the rest, beyond the architecture stuff. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to withdraw the nomination as I highly respect the opinions of User:Stalwart111 and User:Doncram Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hell in a Bucket. If you are withdrawing your nom you should strike the nominating statement and indicate that you are formally withdrawing it. Although I still have doubts about this article, in all but very rare cases I believe in deferring to the nom if s/he changes their mind. If you withdraw the nom I will switch my !vote to neutral and defer to consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 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 no consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chu Chung shing[edit]

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

Appeared to have received, basically, the art world equivalent of WP:15MIN. No indication of any kind of lasting notability, and the author of the article has only made two edits (both to this article), suggesting self-promotion. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 5 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) 06:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey wasn't this AfD-deleted some time earlier? ~~Speedy Delete G4~~. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 13:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to keep this. In the previous afd, the article was machine translated and consensus was to nuke, then start over. Now that it's a stub, G4 no longer applies. I removed some link spam (same story, hosted on a different website) but there seems to be enough for the stub to pass WP:GNG. Fuebaey (talk) 14:04, 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, Deadbeef 06:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I saw this it was this diff, which was still pretty much the same thing just cut down a bit. With Fuebaey's great fix it is much better and no longer G4-worthy. Retreat SD. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:44, 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. Michig (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Hawk[edit]

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

Non-notable character from what seems to be a short story self publish on a website. The only reference are to the website in question. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since it's a fictional character (albeit one that was created for a website story), it can't really be speedied anywhere and because the story exists somewhere, it doesn't fit cleanly into WP:A11 territory. It is, however, still decidedly non-notable. I can't find where this character is discussed anywhere but the official website itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 13 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 04:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, per nom. Ifnord (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't really add much to what everyone else has said - there's no real indication that the world at large has independently decided the character has encyclopedic value. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:35, 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. Michig (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Tales: The Prophecy of the Demon Emperor (video game)[edit]

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

Prod removed by IP. Hasn't been released yet - only due for release in 2016. It may not even be released. Can't tell if it meets GNG et al until then, all we have now is hype and advertising Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best this is just WP:TOOSOON, as the game has not released and from what I can see via the developer's facebook page, this is a brand new announced project that is currently seeking funding on IndieGoGo. I honestly can't see where any true production has begun on the game other than some marketing material. What kind of makes this entire thing slightly dodgy is that so far there has been zero coverage of this and all we have to show that there is any plans for the game is a photoshopped SNES cartridge, a mockup of the game box, and some artwork on Facebook. I can't even find anything that talks about the developer Midnight Riders NSK other than their fb and Twitter accounts. Their IndieGoGo campaign doesn't even seem to exist, from what I can see. This may be a case of an indie developer that doesn't really have any true experience with marketing their prospective games but I've seen people come on to Wikipedia to promote games that were either outright hoaxes or so unlikely to get made that they may as well be hoaxes. If it's the case where this is a very inexperienced crew of people, then Wikipedia is the last place in the world you need to be. The best place to seek promotion would be to contact the gaming websites that are likely to promote independent games. I'll warn you though, you will need to have more than a mockup of the game's promotional artwork. An actual concept screenshot would be what you need to show them and you will need a website that is actually functional. Even so, this is just too soon for an entry. I'm trying really hard to assume good faith here, but I can't help but feel that I've seen this artwork somewhere else- this just seems a little fishy that there's all this artwork but no actual coverage of the game and no IndieGoGo campaign. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the article creator as a promotional username, full disclosure. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:56, 12 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) • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 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 04:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources, and none likely to be found until at least when the game is released, if ever. For me, it lies somewhere between WP:TOOSOON and WP:HOAX; either way it's delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above and failing WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Ifnord (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did finally find an IndieGoGo page, only for it to show up as a cancelled campaign. Apparently they started the campaign up two days after the AfD was posted, but the whole thing was cancelled. This comes across as extremely fishy to me, so this kind of further fuels my suspicion that this is pretty much all a somewhat elaborate hoax, especially since the article claims a different campaign date and a different amount of money. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I'm getting the impression that this is one of two scenarios: someone who decided to make up a hoax game for whatever reason (money, lulz, etc) and realized how easy it'd be to get caught (and the repercussions for this) or someone who put together a game premise without fully cementing everything and things fell through very, very quickly. Either way, it doesn't look likely that this game will get made anytime soon or at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a hoax or joke to me, with elements that seem to parody both ultra-generic JRPGs (the art & story) as well as over-promising crowdsource projects (promise to release it on every imaginable platform including SNES cartridge!). This would all be worth an ironic laugh or two if it weren't for the apparent attempt to raise real money for it. Score one for humanity that nobody was dumb enough to donate real money to a project with the Team listed as "John Doe" (no, really). Even giving it the maximum imaginable benefit of the doubt and assuming that someone, somwhere is serious about this game (maybe John Doe?), it's neither notable or verifiable enough for Wikipedia and is unlikely to become so unless actually released. I'll keep the SNES handy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 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 redirect to Pure Heroine. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still Sane[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. My redirection to Pure Heroine was reverted Adabow (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pure Heroine as the nominator suggests; doesn't really need to be at AfD. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pure Heroine as at the moment no evidence of notability, I will say however Adabow was IMHO right in coming here as redirect-warring isn't ideal and If I were in there shoes I'd of done the exact same thing. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No justification for a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Redirect Clear failure of WP:NSONG. Clear use in redirecting (unless someone else needs the page). Coming here avoided an edit war. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:03, 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 all. Leaving Perfection R.I.P. aside as already being redirected and with insufficient discussion to come to a consensus here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan Wanderer Lu[edit]

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

I tried and tried, but couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that would put this musician over the bars of the general notability guideline or the more specific guideline for musicians. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating his recordings:

Perfection R.I.P. has also been changed to a redirect to this article as a result of this discussion.

His other recordings are up for deletion here and here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as non-notable. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete European Monsoon and Fight My Battles for Me. Fail NALBUM. Weak Delete Pagan Wanderer Lu. A smattering of reviews in minor music press don't appear to add up to pass BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The BBC indicates that several of his tracks have been played on national radio, coverage includes this, but it's a bit thin to support an article. --Michig (talk) 10:33, 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 merge to Let's Play Love. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Let's Play Love episodes[edit]

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

Firstly, it's notability is questionable. Secondly, we do not know whether the contents is free from copyright (I strongly suspect it is copied from another website, probably XINMSN by reading the descriptions!). Thirdly, the tone is non-neutral and advertising, e.g. "Who will accumulate the most points in this race to be the ‘Best Lover’?"; "At the end of five minutes, will Ian meet Xiao Yi?" Besides copyright issues, there are a lot of other issues that suggests the article should not exist. HYH.124 (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 13 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 02:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mainly for reasons of notability. Ifnord (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect in to Let's Play Love - Usually this kind of info is on the main article anyway and In this case I don't see why it can't (If there were 2 series or more than a separate article would be justified but since there's only 1 series there's no justification for a seperate article). –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:42, 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 21:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Campanelli[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG EBY (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is unreferenced and contained material unacceptable in an unreferenced article, which I have removed. More to the point, placing eleventh as one half of pair in an event with only fifteen pairs competing doesn't establish notability. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the above, the 11th place was in the novice section, so no claim to fame. The references in the article don't amount to significant coverage - they are just mentions in the broader context of the competitions he has competed in. I have Googled around and the story is similar. Yaris678 (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable. --Michig (talk) 09:59, 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. Consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Lawrence (actor)[edit]

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

Dean Lawrence was a child actor in a 1970s ITV childrens TV. series He doesn't seem to have done a great deal of any note since. Admittedly if there was coverage at the time it would not be easy to find. A more recent blog post/article by a journalist suggests his most notable character, Tyso, "is remarkable in The Tomorrow People for his redundancy". The other mention Lawrence gets is in the ITV's TV Times (cited in the article), which is not an independent source. Overall I'm not seeing evidence he meets (or met) WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR criteria. Sionk (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 13 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 02:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any reliable sources. Don't see it pass WP:NACTOR. Harsh (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 09:57, 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. J04n(talk page) 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Avery (actor)[edit]

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

I would say this article is close to being a speedy deletion candidate. His acting role in The Bill TV series was very minor, a uniformed Special Constable for 4 episodes of a long running police soap. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sionk (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any substantial roles he's played, appears to be a bit part actor. Szzuk (talk) 12:13, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 13 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 02:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Can't find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:22, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arab World Institute for Professional Certification[edit]

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

Welcome to the deletion discussion for Arab World Institute for Professional Certification. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive.

non notable company WordSeventeen (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 13 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 02:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability, no coverage found. --Michig (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did not find any coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Car Driver[edit]

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

I might be missing something, because this game old and doesn't really have a search-friendly name, but despite what I reckon was a pretty thorough search, I can't come up with anything to suggest this game meets the notability requirements set out at WP:GNG or WP:NVG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:21, 13 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) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search, nor in any standard Commodore VIC-20 references:

There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Can't verify it even exists. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 15:08, 13 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 02:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication here of notability and I didn't find any coverage. --Michig (talk) 09:49, 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 no consensus. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Marie Bridges[edit]

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

Not a notable actress and article has no references. JDDJS (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 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) 05:51, 13 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 02:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I have added two book sources confirming her role in two shows, though nothing beyond simply confirming her appearances without comment. That makes a simple redirect to a former cast list article (such as List of previous The Young and the Restless cast members) problematic as there would be several to choose from. So the only option left is to keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:16, 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 Nom withdrawn / Thanks Eastmain for improving it alot / Since I've just changed my !vote I don't have any issues if anyone wants to change theres, Cheers, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Lennox[edit]

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

Promotional and doesn't meet GNG EBY (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promo crap, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmains amazing work! - Even I found looked and found nothing so I'm genuinely surprised sources were found. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - such a person (if he existed) might be notable but this is just unreferenced BLP nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Harsh (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references and removed the excessively promotional text. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my Deletion recommendation - it is absolutely shocking that the subject has turned out to be notable. Due diligence was done before this nomination; the original article and sources (with the common name) were nonsensical. @Eastmain, there needs to be a new silk from sow's ear award. EBY (talk) 02:40, 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 Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Adventures of Bruno[edit]

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

Alleged to be a hoax, and the article is on the fringe edges of WP:CRYSTAL, but a google search does turn up a single, legitimate hit which suggests that there could be something to the article after all. I leave it to the community to decide how to proceed with the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked up one of the characters' names (Salmon Rushty) and found an image in DeviantArt with this character. The image's description says "The Bruno Show" was from the image's creator, which I believe is not Mitchell Hurwitz. There's a couple of pages in Scratchpad in Wikia about this subject, but to me it's still a hoax series. This external article about Jason Bateman mentions the show, but I believe it's the result of grabbing unsourced information from his Wikipedia article (The show was in his TV roles section from February 6 2014 until July 21 2014), and the website's articles probably depend on Wikipedia articles. Mentions of "The Bruno Show" is present in at least one TV.com page of Sit Down, Shut Up, but I also believe it's derived from Wikipedia, unsourced. I cannot find a legitimate page acknowledging this show's existence. TheGGoose (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I've never watched the show, but I know that Arrested Development has a very rabid fan following and that anything done by people strongly associated with the show is likely to gain coverage simply for that fact alone. That Hurwitz is notable for several other things makes it more likely that anything he touches will have coverage. The same thing can be said about the Hub's shows in general- usually there's some mention for their projects somewhere. Now all that considered, there's absolutely no reason why a project by an extremely popular creator that is to be broadcast on a popular and highly visible TV network wouldn't have ample proof of existence somewhere. This is a pretty obvious hoax, to say the least. That it has such extensive details on a show that hasn't yet aired is further proof of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, we should transfer this to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Little Adventures of Bruno, since it's been on Wikipedia for at least a year now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... I'm an admin... I'll just do it myself, if noone objects. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article will move to the List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. TheGGoose (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:00, 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. Consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Peace[edit]

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

As near as I was able to find, this biography is only source-able to cast listings and IMDB. (There is a fellow from the early 19th century of the same name who has better coverage, but I don't think he reaches WP:BASIC either.) j⚛e decker ^talk 01:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only stuff I've found are bios on dodgy sites, bunch of fake twitter accounts and a facebook account ..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, actors do not get a free notability pass on Wikipedia just because an IMDb profile can be added as confirmation that they exist — the key is reliable source coverage which verifies that they pass one or more of the criteria at WP:NACTOR, and that's lacking here. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I didn't find much coverage but he at least seems to have had some significant roles in pretty big films. --Michig (talk) 09:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) - NQ (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Watling[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:PROF. EBY (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be a pretty distinguished figure in his field. MBE, past president of the Botanical Society of Scotland, Neill Medal from the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Seems to have also been president of the British Mycological Society, but I'm looking for a better source. In any case, a leader in science in Scotland. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 07:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NACADEMICS, criteria #1 (has described 100s of fungal species; several awards from academic societies; numerous publications in leading mycological journals), and #3 ("elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association"). Sasata (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Scotsman's frankly poor search facility gives a zero return but Highbeam returns articles from the same publication. There and elsewhere (Daily Mail, etc.) I'm finding the subject described as a "renowned mycologist", "one of the country's leading experts on mushrooms", "leading expert", etc. These plus the awards from notable bodies are sufficient for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs a bit of work, but seems the subject of the article is clearly meeting notability criteria set out in WP:PROF. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a very clear pass of WP:PROF, with a h-index of 30 by my count, plus other WP:PROF criteria. Did the nom do any WP:BEFORE check? -- 120.23.24.245 (talk) 22:33, 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. Consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Munch[edit]

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

As near as I was able to find, this biography is only source-able to cast listings and IMDB. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, actors do not get a free notability pass on Wikipedia just because an IMDb profile can be added as confirmation that they exist — the key is reliable source coverage which verifies that they pass one or more of the criteria at WP:NACTOR, and that's lacking here. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found him listed in a few casts and brief mentions but nothing convincing regarding justifying an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 09:41, 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 Withdrawn[8]. -- GB fan 01:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gluten-sensitive idiopathic neuropathies[edit]

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

I can see some very tentative coverage of a possible association between coeliac disease and peripheral neuropathy but virtually none discussing an association between the wider class, gluten intolerance, and peripheral neuropathy. This seems to be a very fringe (not kooky, fringe, i.e., very very far from a professional consensus) notion without sufficient discussion and support in independent WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. There are a number of journal articles I can't access; perhaps I'm missing something there. So, would anyone wanting to keep this article please make a case for it using sources that comply with our medical sources guideline: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine). Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 21 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 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:21, 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guildford bus station[edit]

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

WP:LOCAL Laun chba ller 01:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You may aswell say every bus station on this entire 'pedia fails "LOCAL" in that respect ... Admittingly it needs work doing but personally I see no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davey2010. Also WP:LOCAL is just an essay not policy, so deletion rationale needs expansion. Keresaspa (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that bus stations are inherently non-notable because they do not attract national/non-routine attention and, thus, fail WP:GNG. Even West Croydon bus station, which having been to both I consider to be bigger and, due to its proximity to a tube station, more important, has a section of a larger article. Crawley bus station, Horsham bus station and Redhill bus station are all redlinks.--Laun chba ller 09:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - bus stops are not notable, but bus stations can be. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If all railway stations are notable (and we consider that they are), then I think it's reasonable that all bus stations are also notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Roach[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, and Googling shows no reliable, independent sources. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons nominator stated. This actor shows no reliability. VViking_TalkEdits 01:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh look, three years after I noticed this and marked it as IMDB only, it still is. Checking the article history, it also appears to have been developed by copying the IMDB filmography at the time. More on-point, I don't see WP:BASIC being met here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found to indicate notability. --Michig (talk) 09:36, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) - NQ (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Menasche[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable. Quis separabit? 00:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was all set to come here, quote WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and say delete, but he appears to be the subject of quite a few in depth pieces of coverage, such as Today [9], HuffPo [10], and USA Today [11], and Steve Carell is about to play him in a film, which is a pretty big deal. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty much ditto of the KEEP above from Dylanfromthenorth. I am aware of this man, his travels and his book and I live in Seattle with no school aged children and know many who are aware of this story as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneHappyHusky (talk • contribs) 01:12, November 21, 2014‎ (UTC-5)

Keep I know some people will say, if I don;t know who is, it's non-notable crap and delete quickly, but sometimes in the tragedy comes the article. I would like to see more information about him. His story was big enough to make national headlines and be the subject of a biopic, he certainly is notable enough for a couple kilobytes in cyberland. 107.77.90.112 (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar to Dylanfromthenorth I was expecting a WP:NOTMEMORIAL (or perhaps even WP:RECENT) matter, but comments here and evaluation of sources in the article have swayed me. I won't pretend to understand all the details to his life and every detail of the biography but I cannot refute to depth and breadth of citations from very high-quality sources. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's well known, and a very important educator. Give the article time to grow. Consider changing the DELETION POLICY instead. Anyone who once kicked a ball gets a free pass in society (and on wiki), while those who actually make a difference are ignored.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Motthoop (talk • contribs) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of notability and sources. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I know I must be biased, as I was one of Mr. Menasche's students (and he definitely did make a huge impact on my high school experience), but his book The Priority List: A Teacher's Final Quest to Discover Life's Greatest Lessons has not only sold huge numbers of copies but the reviews are nothing but positive. Also, as the book is being turned into a movie (starring Steve Carrell), I think David Menasche should have a reference page since it's going to be based on him. Another little side note is that Steve Carrell gave David Menasche a cameo in a movie he had been working on while David was still with us called Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day-- which I think is probably pretty apt, because if anyone's had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day, it's got to have been David Menasche.. though you'd never know it by talking to him.— MilaTequila (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: As StewdioMACK said, there's already plenty of notability and sources in the article. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 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.