Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 November	25 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 Delete. Early closure. czar ⨹ 01:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Rockhampton[edit]

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

Article is unsourced: references just one commercial website that is not RS. The three tallest buildings in a city of 60, 000 is not sufficiently notable for its own article. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these are either very tall or very notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete tallest building being only 14 stories is hardly noteworthy. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a large enough city to have this sort of article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, and per past outcomes. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NOBITE. This article is a contribution by a new user who appears to be be making good faith contributions. I note that another of their new articles has been deleted on notability grounds, without any offers of assistance or advice to this new user. We need to attract and retain new editors if we are to reverse the decline in editor numbers, not chase them away. Kerry (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You know I pretty strongly agree with you about this, but I think this article is unsalvageable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:24, 30 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. Contact me if you want to userfy. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Design of Propeller by Flow Visualization Analysis using MATLAB Simulink[edit]

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

This article has multiple issues. It is some sort of essay/tutorial about a specific methodology that can be followed to design a propeller using a software application called "flowviz". The methodology, though, is not even explained in the article, that in its current form just introduces the topic and links to the software application. The creator of the article has also written a note at the top of the lead, asking other editors not to delete the article because it is still a draft "edited heavily", but the last contribution of the creator was eight days ago. Being just a draft in the form of an essay/tutorial, I would suggest a Userfication or a deletion. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 21:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too specialized and the final product, if its creator ever finished it, would be contrary to WP:NOTGUIDE. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete, maybe userfy. It's possible that this could become an article on flowviz, the piece of software used. It would have to demonstrate notability in the usual manner, of course. The article scope as it stands though is far too narrow to be workable in an encyclopedia. The current condition of the article is also way short of being either finished or even ready for article mainspace. No object to continuing to work on the draft in the draft: namespace or as a user draft though. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant independent coverage and Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. I have no objection to having the article saved to someone's userspace so they can work on it.131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:32, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Snow keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation[edit]

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

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

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

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

Declined proposed deletion. My reasoning then, as now, was "Seemingly unnotable book; I can't find anything that suggests it gets over the bars of WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG". Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I described on Talk:Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation. --Eli Barzilay 19:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- A more thorough list of places that use the book: Aarhus Universitet, Adelphi University, Allegheny College, Ben Gurion University, Brigham Young University, Brown University, California Polytechnic State University, Columbus State, Delft University of Technology, Earlham College, Ewha Womans University, Grinnell College, Helsinki University of Technology, Indian Institute of Information Technology and Management Kerala, Istanbul Bilgi University, Kansas State University, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Lewis and Clark College, Linkpings Universitet, Marquette University, Michigan Technological University, Mills College, Naresuan University, New York University, Northeastern University, Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg, Portland State University, Purdue University, Reed College, Rice University, San Jose State University, Sonoma State University, State Engineering University of Armenia, Technische Universitat Darmstadt, Universidad de Chile, Universidade de Sao Paulo, University of British Columbia, University of California at San Diego, University of California at Santa Barbara, University of Chicago, University of Kansas, University of Nebraska-Kearney, University of New Brunswick, University of Northern Iowa, University of Rhode Island, University of San Diego, The University of the South, University of Utah, University of Waterloo, University of Western Ontario, Washington University in St. Louis, Western Washington University, Westmont College, Williams College, WPI. --Eli Barzilay 19:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean as a course text? Do you have a source for this? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as textbook. I know in person about 5 places that use it, but it is often easy to google the places where it is mentioned. Not sure that a list of links would be appropriate though. --Eli Barzilay 20:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The following page https://github.com/plt/racket/wiki/Courses-using-Racket documents several courses that use it. For example, see the CS 311 syllabus at UBC -- Takikawa (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this seems to comfortably satisfy WP:TEXTBOOKS NormanGray (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I described on Talk:Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation. --Matthias Felleisen, 14:54, 24 Nov 2014
- The book is one of the first complete and comprehensive books on programming languages that is available on-line, that has been developed as if it were a piece of software itself, and that presents a totally unique perspective on the research area. It would be Wikipedia's loss if this article and pointer were deleted.{

Keep: The book clearly fulfills "The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[5] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" -- Jens Axel Søgaard
Keep: As described in Talk:Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation, The book fulfills "...The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools" --- Spencer Florence

188.183.250.62 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE. Please sign comments using four tildes: (~~~~). One of the comments in this discussion is 'time-stamped' from before the discussion was even opened... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've had occasion in the past to look for the book here and was glad there was an entry. -- Dougher (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:TBK. Lame Name (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I use this text in my programming languages class at Northwestern University (Robby Findler)

Keep: I've been using this text in my programming languages class at Universidad de Chile for the last 8 years (Éric Tanter)

Keep: I have used (and am currently using) this text in my programming languages course at Westmont College since 2007. The text is significantly superior to others I have considered. -- Wayne Iba Wfi (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Google search for "Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation" syllabus 2014 shows this book is in active use at many institutions, even some that are not on the list at the top. It's also listed on this Computer Science Book Reading List. Nah22 (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I teach the Programming Languages course at Vassar College, and have been preparing to use this text when we offer the course again next year. (Marc Smith)

List of URLs: Since places that use the book to teach seem like an important point in this argument, here is a list of links that I have found. It is of course not complete in any real way -- I personally know about a few places that are not on here since they don't have public course pages, and about some places that have taught using the book in the past but do not keep older course pages. BTW, there is also a list of places that have used the course in the Open Textbook Library.

Adelphi University, Ben Gurion University, Brigham Young University, Brown University, California Polytechnic State University, Columbus State, Delft University of Technology, Grinnell College, Istanbul Bilgi University, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, New York University, Northeastern University, Northwestern University, Purdue University, Reed College, Rice University, Sonoma State University, State Engineering University of Armenia, Technische Universitat Darmstadt, Universidad de Chile, Universidade de Sao Paulo, University of British Columbia, University of California at San Diego, University of Kansas, University of New Brunswick, University of Northern Iowa, University of Rhode Island, The University of the South, University of Utah, University of Washington, University of Waterloo, Westmont College, Williams College, Worcester Polytechnic Institute. --Eli Barzilay 20:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep After checking some of the links, it is clear that this textbook is used in more than two colleges/universities and thus meets WP:BKCRIT #4. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. Fairly obvious where this is going, and I'm not seeing any delete !votes, so anyone passing can close this whenever they want. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:53, 1 December 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. czar ⨹ 14:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Chen[edit]

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

No indication of notability, borderline A7 speedy candidate. No significant third-party coverage found via Google. Huon (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. There does not appear to be any independent coverage ABOUT this TV journalist at all. A search finds only his own reporting (and that of a print journalist by the same name at the China Post; I wonder if the Chinese-language reference in this article is about that other person?). --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I removed the proposed deletion tag as potentially controversial, I am leaning weak delete for this local TV journalist. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:03, 1 December 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) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Common Good (political party)[edit]

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

An unimportant, non-notable organisation with no credible third party sources to justify inclusion on Wikipedia. Has no cultural relevance (unlike, say, Official Monster Raving Loony Party), so cannot use defence that continued lack of electoral success is some kind of badge of honour. Has no notable members, has no notable presence in English politics, never mind British politics. Cannot be justified as a Wikipedia article. doktorb _words^deeds 15:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't even try to hide how NN the party is, it lists the percentages of votes in the election seats it has contested, and it hasn't contested many! Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A party is not notable in Wikipedia terms by the percentage of votes it gets. That's a measure of how successful it is. This party has contested elections for ten or more years, most recently this year. Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. The assertion that there are "no credible third party sources" is unbelievable - the article clearly cites Sunday Mercury, Birmingham Evening Mail, Birmingham Post, Coventry Evening Telegraph, BBC News and The Guardian! Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is pretty ridiculous to assert BBC News coverage, when the BBC reference is as minimal as it is, and does not at all constitute significant covereage. However, a registered political party which has fielded candidates and received hundreds or thousands of votes meets what I suggest should be an explicit notability standard for political parties. --do ncr am 05:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 20:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all they satisfy WP:GNG. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apparently these are being discussed as one monolithic bundle even though they haven't been bundled, so I'm not exactly sure where to post this, but perhaps it is apropos to post on "The Common Good". I think @Doncram has a point that the process/"tranche" of 15 AfDs was not the best way to test the waters (one or two would have been good enough for the first "round"). Instead we have this mess. This said, now that they're at AfD it's time to put up some sources! The just pointing to a policy ("per GNG") will be ignored by the closer without some explanation of the editor's background reasoning. (That's why it's an "argument to avoid".) @Jonathan A Jones, Green Cardamom, and Mr. Guye. So it's fine to argue that it meets the general notability guideline, but why? Does it have lots of independent, reliable sourcing that discusses the party in depth? I'm seeing a lot of passing mentions in the sources on most of these articles, not a lot of depth. Specifically, as an outsider to this, I want to see discussion of at least three specific sources so I can agree that at least three sources have substantial coverage of the topic such that we can write an actual article on it. Otherwise we're looking at merges, which should be discussed on the articles' talk pages and not AfD if deletion is out of the question. (Two more pings: @Emeraude and Doktorbuk.) czar ⨹ 02:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They fulfill particularly this part: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:12, 2 December 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. Once again we have an AFD on this person plagued by sockpuppetry. People, this does not help your case, it does just the opposite in fact, any half-decent argument you may have presented is likely to be discarded out of hand. Schmidt has made a valiant attempt to save this article, but in the end his efforts have not been enough; there have been no convincing sources meeting GNG nor enough citations of her work by others to support a pass based on WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR.
Like the previous AFD, it was again asserted that Wikipedia is based only on sources findable online. To make this perfectly clear; print sources are completely acceptable, even preferred, as far as article verifiability is concerned. A hyperlink is not required, but enough information must be provided for other editors to be able to find that source themselves. SpinningSpark 12:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Delibero[edit]

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

None of these sources meet notability. This article relies on self-published stories and mere mentions. I've already removed four sources about Thomas Dolby that the article creator included because they included a short quote from her, and I've removed a faculty listing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. An older article on this person was already deleted. Her name is rendered a little differently here, which may be why the older article was not found. Agricola44 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like very little has changed since the previous AfD – delete for same reasons I stated there. Agricola44 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Is this speedy deletable as a re-creation, then? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the previous AfD. I don't think there's anything sufficiently different here to change the outcome. But the article is different, perhaps enough to save it from a G4 speedy; it has more focus on her academic career relative to her critical writing in mainstream publications. Per my opinion in the previous AfD, that change in focus makes the article more worthy of deletion, not less. Also the line about the expansion of the Center for Film and Media Studies is new. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone came to my talk page to try to argue that my opinion here is wrong, let me elaborate. In the previous AfD, I didn't think the subject passed WP:PROF, the new article presents no new evidence of passing WP:PROF, and my opinion there has not changed. As I wrote in the previous AfD, there's a better chance that, as a published critic, the subject passes WP:GNG for her non-academic works. However, for that, we need multiple reliably published sources that are independent of the subject and that cover her (or her works) in depth. In the current version of the article, references 1, 2, 6, and 7 are from her employer (independent enough to be used as references within the article but not sufficiently independent to show notability via GNG). References 3 and 4 are trivial listings of things she contributed to, and reference 5 is one of her publications; again, not independent. So instead of the multiple GNG sources that we need, we have zero. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was me and I responded HERE. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! The subject has recruited an international figure to teach in her program; the hire has made news around the world. The previous editor was wrong (as I said in the talk page): TD has credited Delibero with convincing him to come to JHU.

"Dolby says he knew nothing of Johns Hopkins outside of its reputation as a medical center. He saw an ad for someone to teach the ‘Sound for Picture’ course and wrote a letter to the department chair. “I felt I wasn’t really qualified to do it and she felt that I was hugely overqualified,” he recalls of his conversation with Linda DeLibero. “I wasn’t really a specialist in sound for picture, I’ve done a film score and couple TV scores so I know my way around it, but it’s not what I’ve specialized in. But she said ‘your practical experience would be a very good compliment’ and felt that it is the direction the university is trying to go to give the students the tools and skills to hit the ground running with a well-paying job rather than making tea for a production company.” He was intrigued, but was even more interested when he was told about the collaborations with MICA—which is partnering with Hopkins for the new Film Studies Program in the Centre Theater, which will house offices, classrooms, and screening rooms—and with the Maryland Film Festival, which will operate out of the Parkway, which will host a three-screen, 600-seat theater. - See more at: http://www.citypaper.com/arts/artsandentertainment/bcp-blinded-with-science-hopkins-brings-in-thomas-dolby-to-do-a-neighborhood-and-evangelize-for-its-trou-20141104,0,6744251.story#sthash.OHnXdbDM.dpuf signed~

There is absolutely no WP guideline that specifies notability of an individual for hiring someone else who is notable! The previous AfD was filled with lots of absurd pleading & assertion, but this one tops those. Agricola44 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:BIO through WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG, and her field expertise is reflected by WP:USEBYOTHERS. This latest version is better sourced that that which was narrowly deleted six months ago. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever sources you are using to make that determination, please add them, cause I don't see them. If I have to use my browser's "find" button to determine a short article's relevance, it has no business as a source. I mean, Christ, this article is trying to claim notability by naming people actually notable as her co-workers. As far as the sources that have short quotes or her opinions on film, that isn't notability, that is simply something that all film critics do. Merely a part of the job, for any film critic. Being interviewed in a couple local papers doesn't make her Roger Ebert. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I responded HERE. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We do not oversubscribe impact based on trivial mentions nor notability based on who one works with or hires. The previous AfD analyzed her academic credentials quite thoroughly and found them wanting. Indeed, the closer commented "Despite impassioned opinions to keep this page the policy-based arguments are firmly in favor of deletion", which I don't think is the "narrow" that Schmidt would have us believe. I don't see that anything obvious has changed. Could advocates point out what they feel has changed? Always willing to switch positions if warranted. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

WP:BLP requires verifiability and does not care is such is minor. See THIS. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO. She is very well known in Baltimore and DC. It is unfortunate that the person who builds the program who attracts stars does not get credited as much as the stars but this program is Delibero's and she lectures prominently around the area. I have added another important book review. I see an editor has taken off notice of her regular public appearances.--Jpeeps (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh... so we have her meeting WP:AUTHOR as well. Nice. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AND with such as WP:NACADEMICS, we do not need the SIGCOV of a pop star. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added is a book review that is BY Delibero. It is not ABOUT Delibero. As such it adds nothing of value to this discussion, and is also completely irrelevant for whether she passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry David, but I see Delibero and her writings are written of and/or quoted in enough other works [1] to convince me that she meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:NACADEMICS.[2][3][4][5][6][7] etal. You need not agree, but were she non-notable, no one would be quoting her.. and per community standards and while wonderful when written about pop stars, SIGCOV is not the only means by which we measure notability. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you do realize that more than half of the books you listed mention her in the acknowledgements, right? That means the book isn't about her, she merely knows people. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not mean that "she knows people", it does mean however that people know her, and respect her work and expertise. It's not who she knows, but rather a matter of who knows her.. which is a different measure of notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the many supposed references that MichaelQSchmidt just listed, all of these seem to be either short quotes, trivial mentions, or acknowledgements (e.g. "my dear old friend Linda DeLibero") rather than substantive sources for the purpose of fulfilling WP:GNG (e.g. a full article in an archival publication about DeLibero). For perspective, I'll note that a citation to someone's work, for example in a journal, carries more impact than something like an acknowledgement, but even then we still require hundreds of those to demonstrate notability. Agricola44 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

And the other half do more than just "acknowledge" this respected expert. What you fail to acknowledge in your arguments, and what is found elsewhere in by our community standards, is that WP:GNG is not the sole means by which notability may be determmined... it is the simplest way, but not the only way. WP:NACADEMICS is met. WP:AUTHOR is met. Thus WP:BIO is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please have an honest look at my analysis of WP:NACADEMICS in the previous AfD, which carefully examines all the criteria in this guideline. She did not pass any of them at that time, and in looking at these same sources now, her title (position) at JHU, etc., it is evident that nothing has changed substantially since that AfD. Sorry, but she does not pass WP:NACADEMICS. Agricola44 (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You fail to convince, thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh... so we have Jpeeps arguing notability on the basis of local WP:FAME. The subjectivity here is starting to take on the same flavor as it did in the previous AfD. Agricola44 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

His arguments is more than just the essay WP:FAME, so best not to denigrate him by a concentration on that weaker portion. We can look to all arguments made toward keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, by admitting that my argument concentrates on Jpeep's position, however weak it may be, you're tacitly admitting your error in accusing me of WP:ADHOM. "Keep" does not emerge from a collective of weak, unconvincing assertions, but rather from satisfying any of the many WP guidelines on notability. So far, the arguments here are pretty similar to the those in the last AfD, which found the evidence wanting. Agricola44 (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

That previous AFD resulted in a deletion by only a very narrow margin. And um... most would think choosing to belittle another editor is indeed ADHOM. I am not saying you could not continue to do so, but am only pointing out that doing so is one of the "arguments to avoid" as listed in that essay. Thank you. And publishing for 30 years and her works being quoted and referred to in multiple other publications tends to strengthen WP:AUTHOR. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to point this out, but you do not seem to be able to distinguish between belittling an editor and criticizing her argument. I've weighed-in with a number of comments here and all focus on policy. Would be nice if we could keep the debate on point instead of trying to obfuscate by resorting to unjustified accusations of ADHOM. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note Some discussion about this is on my talk page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the possible exception of a brief bio in the theater panel discussion source, none of the references in the article seem to be independent of the subject. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the many independent reliable sources confirming this BLP were removed by someone who wants the article deleted. Check earlier versions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no experience in these things but I am interjecting here that most of Linda Delibero's public work does not appear on the web. For a decade she has been a regular speaker at Cinema Sundays series in Baltimore but this fact is only obliquely mentioned in the web. She writes for playbills -- I found one and uploaded it -- but these things again do not seem to be findable on the web. She lectures regularly at the AFI in DC but again, these things are not findable on the web. Yet the number of people who quote her work (on Twiggy for example) shows that she has a clear impact. So I'm sure I'm getting all of this wrong but it seems to me that your deletion of her is based on fundability on the internet when much work does not find a footprint here, just a trace. --128.90.90.251 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that those sources indicate notability. Any professor will do a lot of lectures, and I doubt that writing playbills makes someone notable, and being quoted means almost nothing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(chuckle) More than just playbills... check under her maiden name. She has not quite as many film reviews as on-academic Roger Ebert, but her opinions have some merit. And yes, a lecture is not notable, UNLESS those lectures catch the attention of national media. Agree or not, but according to our community standards, being quoted by others does mean more than "almost nothing". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Twiggy argument" was already advanced and refuted in the previous AfD. This paper, written in 1994 (i.e. now 20 years old) has been cited only 8 times, according to GS, which amounts to 1 citation roughly every 2.5 years. I doubt there's any convincing argument that this paper is somehow above average. Agricola44 (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable source listed says anything about the subject of the article. It's all stuff by the subject of the article, or brief mentions. Not notable. I checked the "deleted references" referred to above, and they're mostly about her finding an academic home for some has-been musician. John Nagle (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, guideline allows that the subject can speak about herself and background filled in through WP:ABOUTSELF without creating notability... THAT is found through verifibly meeting some of the SNGs, as the GNG is not the only means by which we may determine notability. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closing admin will be grateful if we can get down to brass tacks. You've said now several times that GNG is not the only notability bar. Would you kindly specify exactly which notability guideline you believe Dr. DeLibero satisfies? Agricola44 (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and again... To the closer: She is notable through meeting WP:CREATIVE (point 1) by the verifiability of she being so often referred to in other works to show "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors," and WP:NACADEMIC through that same verifiability of her work being cited by peers, and that citing-by-others showing she's affected a number of academic institutions, and her reviews and opinions and lectures show "impact outside academia in their academic capacity," and ther is an instruction that those in academia are notable if they meet WP:CREATIVE.
And Agricola44... yes, the GNG is the easiest (and sometimes laziest) means by which we determine notability, but it is not the only way (read the hat-note above any guideline). Insisting that only it matters would be reason to mount RFCs to delete every SNG, and with respects I do not see that happening. However, please ping me if you mount them. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is a loser. First, you're claiming that acknowledgements like "my dear old friend Linda DeLibero" are substantive citations. By the convention of many hundreds of academics' AfDs, they're not. Second, even if we allowed such acknowledgements to count as citations, this same corpus of academics' AfDs established that, for the purposes of specialist guidelines like WP:PROF, "widely cited" means hundreds of citations. Indeed, this convention is what has led to widely-used rules-of-thumb, for example minimum h-index of 15 (i.e. at least 15 papers each having at least 15 citations, making a total of 225 citations). The problem with DeLibero is the same as in the first AfD of this article – she very conspicuously does not meet the "case law" standards that have been established for specialist guidelines like WP:PROF. I agree with you that WP:GNG is easier and I'm surprised you haven't concentrated on that, since she arguably would present a stronger case there. Cheers. Agricola44 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've cleaned it up a bit and stuck an extra ref in. The combination of her academic and media (okay, it's local media) career make her an interesting blp. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also searched Highbeam and Newspapers.com for anything that would establish WP:GNG. As pointed out above, the only other criterion left is WP:PROF#7. If it could be established that she is a professor, there is a case for #7. However, she appears to have a non-academic director appointment, which is a common non-academic appointment in American universities. If it could be clearly sourced that she has an academic appointment, I might reconsider. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as CSD:G4. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too many keep votes for G4 to be valid at this point. And the article is now too different from the original. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:12, 2 December 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 Melotron. (non-admin closure) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda (Melotron album)[edit]

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

Almost 5 years withot a source. I would PROD it but a fan could de-PROD without arguments. So if there are any valid arguments to keep this let's listen to them here. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, could not find enough sources outside distribution channels or blogs and a review at a music site to establish notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist. Release Mag review, but otherwise not finding anything reliable by way of Google or GBooks. Got some extra hits for "Mellotron" with the extra L—worth considering if you're searching. It's a valid redirect term, so opt for redirect before deletion. czar ⨹ 20:01, 23 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, Good afternoon (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a mention in Allmusic but nothing else. I don't agree that "Propaganda (Melotron album)" is a likely search term for a redirect, but a mention of the band in Propaganda (disambiguation) would be okay. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 and Crystallizedcarbon, the albums notability guideline recommends redirecting to the artist's page, as long as the album is verified to exist czar ⨹ 18:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Understand your rationale, but the guideline says "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged (my emphasis) into the artist's main article or discography article". My interpretation of that is that a user should be able to get to wherever the information is about the album from the title alone in the search box, regardless of how it's implemented. Usually that does indeed amount to a redirect, but if the title is disambiguated (as it is here), I think things are a little less clear cut. However, via the "delete and mention in disambig" option, somebody can still type in "propaganda", find a link to the disambig page from the hatnote, and see a link to the band which will mention the album. Hope that clears up my thoughts. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:08, 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 Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia#National headquarters and staff. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrecrest[edit]

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

non-notable. Some random house, with no sources cited nor forthcoming from a Google search. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, back to National headquarters and staff section within the Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia national fraternity article. The content of this article is way too much, not encyclopedic at all, and no notability of Lyrecrest itself is established. It includes recounting of national headquarters locations of the fraternity, which seems not encyclopedic. A small part of its contents could be edited down and merged into the "National headquarters and staff" section, but most should simply be dropped. There is no encyclopedic purpose for naming staffpersons who worked there. The building is not of architectural or historical note, and a picture of it appears in the national headquarters section already. The national headquarters section should be kept about as short as it is now, dropping other info there now in order to add any bits from this article. But, "redirect" is preferred to "delete", for tracking contributions, and for the unlikely possibility that Lyrecrest becomes wikipedia-notable in the future. I would not mind having the redirect protected to prevent re-creation by too-enthusiastic P M U S ers, with explanation left at its Talk page. --do ncr am 00:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 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, Good afternoon (talk) 13:15, 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 delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Stern[edit]

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

Tagged for notability already, I don't believe her work as a Tournament director makes her notable enough Gbawden (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While she has directed or assisted at some high level tournaments, simply being employed to do a job at a reasonably high level isn't notable in itself.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm sure she's a great tournament director, but there's not enough secondary coverage that I can find that she'd meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:16, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics for Imaging[edit]

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

Nominating as speedy was declined. Seems to be a war between two camps: half want it to be weirdly promotional, half want it to be overwhelmingly coatrackish. Either way, it's lost (or, rather, never had) any semblance of encyclopedic relevance. Justen (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It became notable due to the controversy ([8]); I see some passing coverage on Google Books; it's on NASDAQ. Without the corp shooting itself in the foot, I'd be on the fence. As it is - congratulations, you are in Wikipedia - even through primarily as an example of bad business practices. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The awards are trivial, and the labor-law issue is basically ONEEVENT. I could find nothing significantly ABOUT the company in sources. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Eckert[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. Previous afd closed as keep due to him playing in mexico, but that no longer qualifies under the revised guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--Yankees10 22:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 13:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strange as it may sound, considering I AFD'd this guy before. But, my reasons for keep are numerous: He spent considerable time at Triple-A (part/all of six seasons, four in US Triple-A) and I am willing to lend more credence to those who play a while at that level. He was covered a lot in the book When Baseball Returned to Brooklyn and he earned considerable mention in The Brooklyn Cyclones. The New York Post gave him a full feature here: [9] and he was one of the focal points here. He had this entire article dedicated to him. He also had articles dedicated to him titled Eckert shining despite saga and Eckert's time with 51s might be done, but unfortunately I can't get the text for them. There's also this and this. He more than passes WP:GNG. (More is out there, but I think what I've posted is sufficient). Alex (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources presented in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the coverage listed above is of the "local boy" variety or standard coverage of a player on a local minor league team. If Alex is so passionate about aggregating and keeping this sort of information, his time would be much better spent at Baseball-Reference Bullpen. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 04:00, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Isitt[edit]

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

Director of a few films. References I can find seem to be aboutthe films, not her. See the adjacent AfD also. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to easily find a few references, which I added, so this continues to be a stub, perhaps, and should still have a "refs needed" banner. There are sources to be found in the UK press. LaMona (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the UK's top comedy film writers/directors and the top female one, Three box office smashes under her belt and five TV series, she's won many awards, she would easily make for a full article, rather worried that the UK female TV/film comedy writers are being picked off for speedy deletion, while the male counterparts remain, also these days much of the media for productions is done on radio/television which there is no way to link to interviews/reviews ext,to help verify notability, however there is a lot of actual print on Miss issit Jasperxj (talk) 23:23, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see three sources: an article about her, a directory listing, and an article that mentions an award she won, in passing. I would think we'd need more coverage for the GNG, no? czar ⨹ 19:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly was on another planet! - Doesn't even come close to GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a couple more refs including one showing that Nativity 2 grossed £10m+ in the UK alone. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:46, 1 December 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. czar ⨹ 01:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Brandon (writer)[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:BLP. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search shows that his work has been fairly substantially reviewed by the mainstream press, so he would pass under that qualification alone. Some of it is actually heavy enough to warrant articles for some of his books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've heard of his work, and it's well-reviewed. I think he's notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.196.241.150 (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2014‎

Comment Well, one person that's "heard of his work" does not notability make. Also does nothing to help discussion or debate here. Moreover, there isn't enough coverage on his books to meet WP:BK and wouldn't meet requirements even for a re-direct never mind an article. Although his work has been reviewed, that in itself is nowhere close to enough "qualifications alone" despite these "fairly substantially reviewed" books you mention, it still doesn't clear the hurtle of notability as none of his books meet any of the 5 criteria, for starters...Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of his books have received coverage in reliable sources and the book reviews I added to the page was just the start of the coverage. I had some other stuff I needed to do (final semester projects and other WP pages) so I didn't bother adding the other stuff (plus I was planning on waiting on adding them, as I was just going to add them to the articles when I made them- I'm not a fan of tossing a ton of sources on a page as a placeholder unless I'm making the article right then and there). I normally don't WP:TROUT editors, but coverage wasn't exactly hard to find and seven reviews in reliable sources was plenty enough to show notability- although I'm in the process of adding more since I do plan on writing articles for most of his works. I figure that the reviews can sit there until I have the time to make the articles in question, plus it kind of does show exactly how very notable this guy is in the literary world. I'll admit that I'd never heard of him before this AfD, but that doesn't mean that he isn't notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I dislike clutter on pages, I've went ahead and made stub entries for three of his works. They need to be fleshed out by people who have read the books, but there are enough reviews to warrant them having articles per WP:NBOOK. I want to note that before I migrated most of the sources to the applicable articles, there were 32 sources on the article. Two of those were for awards that he was nominated for and about eight were interviews or articles about him, but 22 reviews are more than enough to assert notability for an author. (I'd removed the last primary source from the page, so all of the sources are independent of Brandon.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also figured that I should add that an author does not have to have articles for his or her books in order to pass notability guidelines. There has been more than enough precedent at AfD (even during this past year) where we've kept articles for authors despite their books not receiving enough coverage to merit an article separate from the main page. If the guy had only received trade reviews then I wouldn't argue so hard for notability, but these are mainstream reviews and articles from some of the most major newspapers, websites, and magazines in the United States. (AV Club, Arkansas Times, New York Times, Vogue magazine, Sydney Morning Herald) Even if the books didn't have enough coverage for their own articles (even though they do), throwing an entire article out because we can't write an article for each book- despite having dozens of independent, in-depth, and reliable sources for the guy overall... that's really kind of the opposite of what we should be doing on Wikipedia. An author can have notability without having separate book articles and AfD has set at least a good dozen precedents in the last few years for this, if not more than that. I don't mean to sound like I'm getting WP:BITE-y, but I'm very bothered by the fact that your argument comes across to me as saying that the original amount of reviews and articles alone wouldn't be enough (six reviews in mainstream, non-trivial sources and one article) and that notability for an author boils down to whether or not we can create articles for their books. That's a little too exclusionist for my tastes and far more exclusionist than what the current guidelines require. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references are solid. It is a bit early in this writer's career, but I don't think it is WP:TOOSOON because he has already won awards. LaMona (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't win them, he was just nominated for them and nominations can't count towards notability. I added them sort of as a lark since they were by such large organization (American Library Association and the New York Public Library), plus it was something I was going to add to the book page. In any case, he's received more than enough book reviews to pass part three of WP:AUTHOR (The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:44, 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) 14:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi Baaba Baabuwee[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The most detailed source I found was this book, which still provides rather few details of Bambi Baaba; beyond that I came up with passing mentions only. The current content is (literally) a hagiography based exclusively on primary sources. Huon (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable, per WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 01:11, 21 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 05:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - clearly fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 05:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Green Industry Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Sources are primary (and/or dead). Is this really notable per WP:GNG and WP:CORP? It claims to be "International" but then seems mainly local (1 exception). Not seeing the significance enough for an article, seems more like promo. Widefox; talk 18:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a well-meaning but non-notable organization. I could find no coverage at all ABOUT the group and the article doesn't provide any. Google finds social media and press releases. Google News finds many mentions in the press, but all of them are basically some company bragging that they got an award. WP:ORG requires independent coverage about the organization, and I couldn't find any. Most of the article consists of lists of the companies that have gotten the award; Wikipedia is not a hosting site for that kind of material. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability.Charles (talk) 18:17, 30 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. czar ⨹ 01:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allan De Genova[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician whose only elected office held, to date, is the Vancouver municipal parks board. This is not an office that passes WP:NPOL, and the only other substantive claim of notability really being made here is that he ran for, but failed to secure, his party's nomination as mayoral candidate in 2008 (and even if he'd won that, he still wouldn't be able to claim notability on that basis alone — if a person doesn't already have enough preexisting notability to get over some other inclusion standard, then they have to win the general election, not merely run in it, to pass NPOL.) And the cited sources are only covering him in the context of those non-notable roles, and there aren't enough of them being cited to claim a WP:GNG pass in the first place. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" - "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:24, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merely running for office does not guarantee notability. Fails to meet the GNG or WP:NPOL. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Parks Board members of generally not notable, and coming in 3rd in the party primary for mayor of a city does not make one notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 05:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Pasqua[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG EBY (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is promotional and the subject lacks notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional, and relying entirely on primary and/or unreliable sources with not a shred of WP:RS coverage in sight. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write a good and properly sourced version, but Wikipedia is not a place where anybody's entitled to keep a promotional profile. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 05:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen K. Ray[edit]

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

Autobiographical article failing notability per WP:BIO. Ifnord (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - he's penned a few books and there may be offline sources about these (which is why I say 'weak' delete). However, there's no hint in the article he's been widely noticed in mainstream media. The article reads as evangelical and self promotional and the personal details are largely unsourced. Sionk (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The personal details are unsourced because they were provided by user User:Stephenkimray. There's also a IP-based SPA. Beyond, that, though, there are three moderately good third-party sources, but not widely distributed ones. If one were to remove all of the unsourced data, the article would shrink greatly in size to a couple of sentences saying that he has written a book and done a DVD series about his travels to the Middle East. LaMona (talk) 02:01, 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. czar ⨹ 05:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Groome[edit]

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

Fails notability WP:BIO. Tagged as such since Aug 2012. Ifnord (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it was fairly easy to find independent coverage of Groome. His opinions on papal matters seem to be pretty widely quoted. He may be best known as an author. I've added a couple of reviews to one of his books as a start. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 08:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very impressive Google Scholar results, especially for religion. The NPR interview could also be added to the article. St Anselm (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per StAnselm and EricEnfermero. He is a prolific author (WorldCat listing), with works including Christian Religious Education (in 472 libraries), What Makes Us Catholic (in 268 libraries), and Sharing Faith (in 266 libraries). These extensive library holdings strongly imply notability IMO. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:53, 1 December 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. Based on WP:SNOW following the move to Shooting of Tamir Rice. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamir E. Rice[edit]

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

Subject appears to be notable for only one-event and because Wikipedia is not New York Times. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Shooting of Tamir Rice The Ferguson situation is covered by Shooting of Michael Brown (not Michael Brown), in conjunction with 2014 Ferguson unrest. This is in line with WP:BIO1E's recommendation that the article "usually should be written about the event instead." The Trayvon Martin article covers his bio, his shooting, and the aftermath, but that seems to be an exception to the policy (maybe by WP:COMMONNAME). I think the page in question here should move to Shooting of Tamir RIce, with redirects from Tamir E. Rice, Tamir Rice, and other titles which come into use in ongoing coverage.

I believe it deserves to be kept according to WP:NOTNEWS because a) it is widely "verifiable" in a great number of WP:Reliable sources, and b) it is likely to be of "historical importance" because other unarmed-black-youth stories, such as those of Martin and Brown, have inspired extended responses and this case involves the death of a young child, which will probably stir people up even more and spawn even more active debate on policing practices. FourViolas (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for deletion It seems the notability of this event, in media coverage, relates wholly to the controversy in Ferguson and a larger national conversation, and is not about this specific boy or tragic incident itself. 96.237.108.28 (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, but comment, added section at Anonymous regarding their shutting down of Cleveland's website and video posted due to this incident. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quick google reveals how rapidly this has become notable. But move to Shooting of Tamir Rice, and somebody needs to improve it.ShulMaven (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Shooting of Tamir Rice. surfbird (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am happy to work on improving the text of the article but am not confident I can add that content without disrupting Wikipedia-style HTML and formatting. Is someone here willing to apply Wikipedia formatting if I provide a draft of content?surfbird (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this AFD proposal is another idiotic example (after so many others) of Wikipedia dogmatism regarding notability. There's people here who have nothing better to do and it makes them feel important I guess. People at large will want to find information about this case, that information is available from reliable and trusted sources, and that's what WP should supply. Contact Basemetal here 11:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: Yes, I agree people will want info curated from WP:RS and that the page should therefore stay. I'd also like to gently remind you of our good-faith and personal attack policies; I'm sure User:Anupmehra knows what they're doing and has perfectly legitimate intentions, such as fighting WP:Recentism. The original article was in fact written in news style, and I think there was nothing wrong with its nomination for deletion. Cheers! FourViolas (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - purely on the basis of notability. established.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While of course this takes place straight in the middle of the Michael Brown shooting affair, this is still notable enough considering the circumstances of the situation, i.e. the shooting victim between 12 and the fake pistol (which could launch a new debate on whether realistic-looking yet fake guns like airsoft or BB guns should be counted in the debate of gun control). Libertarian12111971 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i think it should be deleted. just my 2 cents my name is drugzarebad69
Keep but move to Shooting of Tamir Rice - As of November 26, 2014 at the latest, this event is receiving more primary coverage in reliable/major U.S. and international news outlets (e.g., the BBC, NYTimes, AP) and is no longer a secondary/tangential event being reported on in relation to Shooting of Michael Brown (as it was described above in a vote to remove the article). Furthermore, while this event does directly pertain to a larger national conversation (this was also used as a point in the same vote to remove above), the does not necessarily mean it isn't worthy of its own article. Police brutality and racism in America was a larger national conversation long before Michael Brown was shot, yet this did not stop the creation of an article regarding his shooting. I agree that Tamir's notability for a Wikipedia article solely pertains to this event, so it should be moved (it appears it has been moved already, though, so is this AFD not relevant anymore?). It's already become historically significant in part because it occurred right around the same time of another historically-significant event. Jp4gs (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shooting of Tamir Rice, very similar comportment of many police officers to Shooting of Michael Brown. Trackteur (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tragic, obviously, but there's no indication this rises to notability in the encyclopedic sense. This is clearly in WP:NOTNEWS territory. TJRC (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (noting that the article has already been moved). This is obviously notable, given the attention this story has received on the national stage, its relation to the Michael Brown Case, and its relation to a variety of contentious issues in American politics. Wikipedia is not improved if someone searching for Tamir Rice finds nothing instead of this article. L33tminion (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as already moved). Googling Tamir Rice yields almost 6 million results; I'd say it's notable enough. Argymeg (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable, and very much so, based on tremendous press coverage. Everyking (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep When it's getting in depth coverage from reliable sources in the UK (BBC, Guardian, Independent) and Australia (Sydney Morning Herald) it counts as notable. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as this is neither direct journalism, or in any sense routine coverage. And WP:BLP1E was a valid call to make when the page was at a page named after the victim, but someone has very properly followed wp:Bold and moved it to Shooting of Tamir Rice. The deletion nomination was plausible when first made, but the conditions that made it a candidate for deletion have all changed. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Highly significant number of sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for closure of deletion discussion Two rationales for deletion have been stated: WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The first is not relevant since User:Cyanidethistles's move, and the second is by majority (of arguments, not votes) inapplicable because the event is historically relevant and its coverage has been far from routine. Can we declare consensus? The page is being heavily viewed, and I think it reflects poorly on WP that all these viewers are seeing a somewhat astonishing deletion tag. FourViolas (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Having the tag there just makes us look ridiculous to all of the people coming to view the article. Everyking (talk) 02:56, 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. czar ⨹ 05:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Levin[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having reviewed WP:NYA, it appears the article passes. I have also added a few better sources from popular news agencies. EoRdE6 (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what EoRdE6 said.2600:1004:B05B:A4EF:0:17:168C:F101 (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probable sock of User:EoRdE6.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is out there [10][11][12] - I've also removed all the IMDb crap . –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All the sources I've come across are blogs which isn't brilliant - So other than blogs I can't find any shred of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that there are articles about her on large popular websites is enough to be notable like you said [13][14][15]. Also its nominated for WP:TOOSOON not as much notability EoRdE6 (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs aren't reliable sources, I'm fully aware of the noms reason.....–Davey2010 • (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 and 5 ([16][17]) are not blogs don't know where you get that impression from EoRdE6 (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're both getting confused here ..... Most search results are blogs ....The 2 above are clearly not but that's like out of 200 results... –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010, did you see the below responses? czar ⨹ 05:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: - Nope but thanks for pinging :) - KEEP per sources found below. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not even begin to pass WP:N, WP:GNG, or WP:ENT. Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, I am finding a sizable amount of dedicated and extensive coverage in a number of reliable sources. It's just that this article doesn't mention or reflect that at all and seems to have been written by someone less than competent, and the article does not assert any kind of recognizable notability. It's also true that the article creator has been edit warring over non-WP:RS citations, etc. I don't know whether to !vote Delete with no prejudice for someone else creating a decent article with the actual RS interview coverage she has received, or just leave this article standing and wait for someone else to add the RS coverage. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The WP:TOONSOON train already left the station when Levin became one of the leads of a national hit television show. Also there's enough in-depth coverage by secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. [18][19][20][21] --Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find Oakshade's argument and sources compelling, and refute the WP:TOOSOON argument.--Theredproject (talk) 22:57, 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 speedy delete. Deleted by User:TomStar81 per CSD A11, "Obviously invented". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sackey[edit]

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

Hoax. No official sources could be found indicating that this player was on the teams described. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. This hoax is easily detected. The RSSSF makes no mention of this player in its summary of the 1982 African Cup of Nations (at http://www.rsssf.com/tables/82a-det.html). He does not appear anywhere of the archives of the RSSSF or FIFA. Moreover, the supposed career-ending injury in 1982 World Cup qualifying against Algeria could not have existed; Ghana never played Algeria in World Cup qualifying until 1992. The quotation at the end is taken (inaccurately) from Bill Shankly. 66.177.64.39 (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, how has this hoax lasted so long. No player of this name listed anywhere where it should be, and created as the only contributions of Sackmaster33. Clearly created by someone having a laugh, and still having a laugh over four and a half years later. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A11 - I've tagged it as such as it's obviously a hoax - Found nothing on Google. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:48, 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 no consensus. The discussion has not yielded a consensus for one particular resulting action regarding the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Sergeant Almog Shiloni[edit]

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

Might as well include redirect (Almog Shiloni), one way or another, right?? Quis separabit? 18:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many of Palestinians killed, just in the last couple of weeks. Like 22-year-old Kheir Hamdan, in Galilee, or 21-year-old Mohammad Imad Jawabra (see http://www.imemc.org/article/69681). None of these are given a Wikipedia article, so why one for Almog Shiloni? Are all Jewish victims notable, while Palestinian victims are non-notable? Huldra (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Huldra recently nominated Palestinian stone-throwing, [22] a new article of mine, for deletion with similarly insubstantial arguments. And has also just nominated Killing of Yehoshua Weisbrod for deletion within an hour or 2 of its creation.ShulMaven (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that I also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Netanel Arami, a similar article made by User:ShulMaven, and that article was deleted, Huldra (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sigh True enough. However, I believe the deletion of the Netanel Arami article to have been ill-judged, Article was about a work accident in which construction worker suspended by ropes, fell to his death. Public clamor ensued with politicians claiming that police were failing to investigate possible hate crime. Rope was found to have been cut. Inter-ethnic hate crime is suspected, but press coveerage temporarily halted due to a gag order pt in place by Shin Bet. It is likely to regain notability when the gag order is lifted, as occurred with the Murder of Shelly Dadon.ShulMaven (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This attack has has been very widely covered nationally and meetings the WP:GNG criteria. Lack of other articles is not cause for deletion of an article. - Galatz (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Galatz and because impact of the killing on political developments is esablished in the article.ShulMaven (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a bad-faith deletion request. Terrorists are not victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.239.168 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 13 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, eye pee, your pee oh vee is showing... Carrite (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Galatz. This attack was also unique because it happened in broad daylight, in a major train station, deep within Israeli sovereign territory. Also note that Huldra didn't even make any policy-based arguments in this deletion request -- just a naked example of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The absence of a bunch of comparable spam articles on Arabs who were killed is ultimately not relevant, but Wikipedia is not a news source and if the event proves to be notable by attaining persistent coverage or having a significant effect, the article can be re-created. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except WP:NOTTEMPORARY.ShulMaven (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out to you at the other AFD, it would have to be notable in the first place for "notability is not temporary" to be relevant! And that link in fact specifically explains that WP:NOTNEWS and the WP:EVENT notability guideline still apply. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Huldra: This seems a typical case of "I don't like it". Just for the record, Kheir Hamdan was killed while attacking a group of policemen with a knife without previous provocation, in this case Almog Shiloni was an innocent victim of a clear terrorist attack. He was speaking on the phone to his girlfriend when he was murdered. It belongs to the long list of atrocities perpetrated by Palestinian terrorist organizations and Wikipedia should not censor this information, which is supported by reliable sources like known newspapers.--Keramiton (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- He bangs on the door of the police van, then he clearly backs away. Then he was shot. Watch the video. These later attacks have all come as a response to this first police killing, however, that isn´t even mentioned. Insanity, indeed. Huldra (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is just one in a long, long list. Take Armanious family massacre: horrible as it was, the only reason that it got an article on Wikipedia was because one speculated that Muslim extremist were behind it. If one had known from the start that it was just horribly drug-related murders, I doubt it would have been notable for Wikipedia. (Read the earliest versions of that article to see.) Huldra (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Galatz, ShulMaven, and Plot Spoiler. There exists an article on basically every terrorist attack that resulted in deaths. Why should this be different? Inkbug (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Huldra.--159.130.70.71 (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with above reasons to keep. - Joxemai (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per GNG. Quis separabit? 21:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somedifferentstuff is hounding me after a disagreement on another Palestine-related article.ShulMaven (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTTRUECRIME. Ordinary death in a never ending civil war. Carrite (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er @Carrite: What is WP:NOTTRUECRIME?? Also, this warfare is not a civil war by any stretch of the imagination. Quis separabit? 00:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Headlines around world meet WP:GNG. Ongoing political consequences covered in article.ShulMaven (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
I know there has been a fair amount of discussion here, but there's no real consensus yet. The issues here are serious enough that I think it's worth talking about for another week to see if a clear consensus one way or the other emerges.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but we cannot keep relisting indefinitely until consensus is reached. Sometimes there will be no consensus. Quis separabit? 16:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this AFD to, for example Shooting of Michael Cho which underwent a brief AFD before being speedy kept or to articles such as 2014 Queens hatchet attack, 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack and Murder of Lee Rigby none of which was proposed for AFD, while articles about deadly attacks on Israelis such as 2014 Jerusalem tractor attack get put through AFD not once, but twice, does make it appear that some editors hold Wikipedia articles related to Israel to different standards than articles regarding murders in English-speaking countries.ShulMaven (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a consensus (focusing on !votes of established editors), but have no problem with further discussion. The sourcing in the article has only gotten stronger since the discussion started. Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 10 times as many Palestinian civilians killed any year as there are Israeli Jewish people killed. Yet on Wikipedia there are more articles about Israeli Jewish victims than about Palestinian victims. Why is that? Why is an Israeli Jewish victim "worth" 10+++ times more attention than a Palestinian victim on Wikipedia? Different standards, indeed. Huldra (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So go write some appropriate articles on those events that are notable by wp standards and not covered. And read wp:otherstuffexists. Which addresses your point. Saying specifically:

"The claim of "Other Stuff Exists" most often arises in article deletion debate, where it is often used in a poor manner. Examples:... Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt!".

It's not cause for you to nominate for deletion articles on notable events, which articles cover matters that your POV wishes wp would not cover. Epeefleche (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine in theory, but in reality we both know that one side is actively recruiting to Wikipeda, and the other is not (AFAIK). I find it peculiar that only murders committed (or possibly committed ) by Arabs to be counted noteworthy by some editors. I saw a horrible story about a litte Jewish girl murdered in Israel, alas, as she "only" had been killed by her (Jewish) father: no Wikipedia article for her! Huldra (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. I second @Epeefleche's comments. I think it's time to close out this AFD as no consensus -- is is now generating far more heat than light. And @Huldra, in re Palestinian victims -- if you can find individuals who qualify as notable, then as per @Epeefleche: "So go write some appropriate articles on those events that are notable by wp standards and not covered". Go create. And if the individuals genuinely qualify as notable they won't be AFDed. Quis separabit? 00:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately it's just one in a series of similar attacks in just a few weeks. Nothing special to seperate it from the sequence of events. DGtal (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user DGtal, this is not a vote or poll, it is an attempt to establish policy by consensus. For this reason you need to give a policy-based reason for deletion. Many notable things happen in series of similar events in a few weeks: Broadway openings, earthquakes, sex celebrity sex scandals - we judge each event discretely , according to whether it meets GNG.ShulMaven (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Galatz, ShulMaven, Plot Spoiler and Inkbug. It's not WP:NOTNEWS. as for somebody here, but important event of terror for Israel with its significant consequences. In my opinion it's aleady enough. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I made the mistake of reading through this AfD discussion. While I can see why some parties may consider a "no consensus" closing more pleasing (i.e., the article will be de facto kept), the only real policy arguments I see are that WP is not news (Drmies's previously linked rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Netanel Arami is useful here), which leans the opposite way. I'm going to recommend that those arguing that this topic "meets the GNG" actually use those GNG sources to explain why this killing transcends just "news", ideally with quotes that mark this case as particularly notable over the regular killings in the news. czar ⨹ 16:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The events that journalists refer to as "ordinary murders," the tragic killings of family, friends, and lovers, along with such events as bar brawls are personal tragedies, but they are rarely notable. Criminal killings are similarly mostly not notable, unless the crime or one of the involved parties is notable. But this murder was an act of terrorism, it has ethno-national implications, such killings are of inherent and ongoing interest to many people, which is why it received widespread and intensive press coverage, and why it meets GNG.ShulMaven (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get that GNG argument but I'm asking whether those GNG sources can be used to show that the case is notable, such as through quotes and journalist commentary within the sources (that would be what would show this to be more than just "news"). czar ⨹ 18:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Impossible to compare to random crime. The sources in the lede are indicative on why this event has international and long term ramifications. I invite proposer to renominate in 6 months to a year if they are proven correct and this does not have long term notability. I don't understand how anyone can know now that this will have no long term notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:35, 1 December 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. Not a huge turnout for this discussion, but other than the WP:SPA who created the article, the delete sentiment is unanimous -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Cleaner[edit]

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

Failed to establish notability

Notwithstanding this article has been deleted in the past, we were unable to establish that "Yet Another Cleaner" is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Every single "source" in the article is thin at best; The strongest reference from cnet is indeed a paid listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobusVP (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I have made the argument at the article's talk page that the article is promoting malware masquerading as free software. Evidence that it is malware can be seen at Virustotal, a highly reputable source owned by Google. Virustotal reports that 32 out of 46 users have judged it as malware. While Virustotal reports that most of the antivirus programs failed to identify YAC as malware, two top-ranked antivirus programs, Avira AntiVir and ESET NOD32 succeeded in doing so, with the latter identifying YAC as a variant of ELEX.Q. Googling ELEX.Q returns a great many sites that unanimously judge it to be a virus. Evidence for the reliability of AntiVir and NOD32 can be found by following the sources given at ESET_NOD32#Reception which says "[NOD32] stood above competitors like Norton Internet Security and ZoneAlarm but below Windows Live OneCare and Avira AntiVir." Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing whether it is malware is nonsense if one already has its judgement. Regarding to virustotal, why did someone just take the analysis result generated more than three months ago as an example? I downloaded the latest program from the site and tested it using virustotal, and the result is [23]. I will not judge if it is a malware here. But obviously, the editor, Vaughan Pratt, had already shown his prejudice. Besides, I am about to add two or three sources to complete this article, so I suggest the deletion of this article be put off. Heavy Punch (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Insufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability. -Pete (talk) 21:32, 23 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 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ Not notable and should not be included on Wikipedia. JakobusVP (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your nomination is your !vote. And the CNET ref is an Editor Review, not a paid listing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually the CNET ref is affiliate marketing and hardly an in-depth review, but you can see my views on this on the article talk page. JakobusVP (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Struck duplicate !vote from nominator above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete On the edge of notability with the CNET reference but not quite there. Needs another in-depth review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 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.