Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 November	7 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whelen 4000 Series[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN.--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable product. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Lemnaminor (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 05:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whelen WPS 4000 Series[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deete - not notable. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Lemnaminor (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niat Qabool Hayat Kakakhail[edit]

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

No sourced indication of notability. The only information I can find is in mirrors of the content of this article; I see nothing in reliable sources. Ultimately fails WP:GNG. Possibly created by someone familiar with the subject (i.e., a relative), based on the author's username. Kinu ^t/_c 20:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the suggestion that there might be a conflict of interest here. The user appears to be creating articles based on a family of people sharing the name Hayat. I've brought the user to the attention of ANI where I am awaiting some sort of resolution, as the user keeps removing deletion templates from articles and has submitted copy/pasted content. In this case, the subject's notability does not yet appear to be established per WP:POLITICIAN, which I am assuming is the appropriate criteria, since it is very difficult to understand who this fellow is. The article suggests he was a village head of some sort, but village-level politics doesn't seem to be on the radar of WP:POLITICIAN. No results either at Google News or Google Books. Also appears to contain copy/pasted and/or closely paraphrased content taken from here for example. Note the content about moonlight polo. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming good faith, I'd delete this NN person. He fails WP:42. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 12 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 per established notability, though article needs work Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Hearn[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you Google this guy before you nominated the article?
Keep. Multiple published sources in both media [1] [2] [3] and books [4][5] .--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I did (per WP:BEFORE). I don't think that sourcing is sufficient for GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the sources you have provided clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Matchroom Sport. He's possibly notable himself but the coverage and the content here indicates a merge to the company. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matchroom Sport The coverage of him seems to consist mainly of passing mentions or be related to his promotions and fighters. It's questionable whether or not there's enough coverage to show he's notable enough for a separate article, but redirecting to the promotion company is a good idea. Papaursa (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ He doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG independent of his work as a promoter. All of the coverage I saw does not provide significant coverage of him, but rather passing mentions of his work with various fighters. Papaursa (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here are two such sources (there are many more on Google News):
1. Ingle, Sean (2014-05-29). "Eddie Hearn's road to Froch v Groves II started with Audley Harrison - David Haye smashed up his client in November 2010 but it was a key stepping stone in Eddie Hearn's domination of British boxing en route to Saturday night's Wembley showdown". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
  The article notes (bolding added for emphasis):
  Three and a half years later, Hearn is British boxing’s dominant promoter. He has an exclusive, 23-fights-a-year deal with Sky until the summer of 2016. Many of the country’s best talent have flocked to his Matchroom stable. And on Saturday night comes his crowning glory, Froch v George Groves II, in front of 80,000 people at Wembley.
  This article provides substantial coverage of the subject.
2. Lewis, Richard (2014-05-30). "Froch-Groves II is the making of Eddie Hearn". Daily Express. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
  The article notes (bolding added for emphasis):
  Eddie joined Matchroom Sport in 2000 after working in the sponsorship and event management industry and in a short space of time has become arguably the biggest boxing promoter in Europe.
  ...
  "Eddie has coped despite the albatross around his neck of being Barry Hearn's son," he says. "He is no longer Barry Hearn's son. He is Eddie Hearn, a stand-alone performer, and that is his biggest achievement."
  This article also provides substantial coverage about the subject.
I do not support a merge because there is substantial coverage about the subject himself rather than just about the events he organizes. Excessive information about Eddie Hearn in Matchroom Sport would be undue weight in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eddie Hearn to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that I'm not seeing coverage about Eddie Hearn that doesn't relate to his duties at the promotion company. I'm not seeing a reason (or supporting evidence) for two separate articles. Papaursa (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are five sources that discuss Eddie Hearn's early life and personal life.
Brown, Oliver (2014-05-27). "The motto for Barry and Eddie Hearn, the first family of sport and Essex: We are relentless". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2014-11-18. Retrieved 2014-11-18.
Nothing expresses the essence of Barry and Eddie Hearn’s relationship quite like the tale of what the father was doing when his son, heir to a sporting dynasty and now frontman for the biggest fight in British history, came into the world.
Far from tenderly clutching wife Susan’s hand in the delivery room, the incorrigible Hearn Snr was embroiled in battle at Romford Snooker Hall.
“It was 1-1!” he protests. “I was playing my mate Crunchy Warne for 50 quid. She has still not forgiven me after 44 years of marriage.”
Even as an oblivious newborn, Eddie was being steeped in the family’s uncompromising sport-first ethos. His dad’s eyes dance with mischief at the memory.
“Someone at the hospital rang to say, ‘Your wife’s in the final stages of labour’. I mean, I was there as quick as I could.
"I potted the blue, we shook hands, Crunchy paid me.
"I got to the hospital, saw my wife on a trolley and said, ‘Best of luck, darling’. She looked back and said, ‘That’s great. I had him 20 minutes ago.’”
Hearn père et fils cut a disparate pair here at their sprawling Brentwood mansion, where their Matchroom company offices have been carved from the same rooms in which Eddie and sister Katie grew up.
...
"Eddie and Katie were both schooled to think in terms of the family business. That’s why, when he was 12, I started taking him to the gyms, to the shows, much to his mother's distress."
...
“I’ve had it all my life,” Eddie says. “All the time I was playing cricket for Essex, or boxing in Billericay, people would say, ‘Oh, you’re only in the team because of your dad’.
Keevins, Hugh (2014-02-27). "Premier League Darts followed by Big Fight Night.. promoter Eddie Hearn packs crowds in for Glasgow double header". Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
Hearn knows what makes Burns tick because he once tried to start a career in boxing.
He said: “I had three fights as an amateur before I said, ‘Thank you very much, that’ll do me’. I didn’t have Ricky’s hunger and I didn’t have the desire the kids off the council estates had.
“My dad always instilled a working-class mentality in me but I knew I wasn’t good enough to be a boxer.
“I did play cricket for Essex up until Under-19 level. But now I’m older I want to protect a family dynasty in my business life and happily taken on that mantle.”
McRae, Donald (2011-02-18). "Barry Hearn: Apart from Leyton Orient, everything is turning a profit". Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
His laughter is contagious, as is his resolute assault on snobbery, but Hearn provides insight into the way his family works. "This will end up sounding like a Monty Python sketch, but I do bang on about working-class values. I remember taking Eddie to the gym and telling him I was going to show him the difference between a working-class bloke and a rich kid. I was 48 and he was 16 and we were meant to spar three rounds. It was a proper fight. I nailed him in the first with the best shot I've ever thrown. He took it and dropped me twice in the second round. We never had the third. That was the last time I ever put the gloves on because I liked his attitude. Katie looks after logistics and she's fantastic. And, while I'd never say this to his face, Eddie might even be better than me."
Hubbard, Alan (2013-03-10). "Frank Warren: 'I'm not worried about Fast Eddie. Do me a favour'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
Fast Eddie Hearn
Has established British boxing's largest stable of over 20 fighters, headed by super-middleweight Carl Froch. Kell Brook, Tony Bellew and George Groves have all moved from Warren's stable.
Went to public school in Brentwood and boxed as an amateur.
Son of multi-sports czar Barry.
Ridley, Ian (2011-10-22). "Out for the count: What does it take for a British boxing underdog to have a tilt at a world title in Atlantic City?". The Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
‘My old man fell out of boxing because he was dealing with too many a***holes,’ says Eddie, 32, who went to his first fight at the age of nine, his father’s promotion of Frank Bruno v Joe Bugner at Tottenham’s White Hart Lane football ground.
Hearn junior, who boxed as a teenager at Billericay Boys Club in Essex, loves it though and was drawn back. Even his ill-fated promotion of Audley Harrison failed to discourage him.
From these sources, we know the following information about Eddie Hearn:
1. He was born to Barry and Susan Hearn.
2. The story of his birth.
3. He was 32 in October 2011, meaning he was born in 1978 or 1979.
4. He attended public school in Brentwood.
5. He and his sister grew up in a "sprawling Brentwood mansion", where he now works.
6. He attended his first fight, Frank Bruno v Joe Bugner at Tottenham’s White Hart Lane football ground, when he was nine.
7. His father brought first brought him to the gym and to shows when he was age 12.
8. His father said he was raised with working-class values.
9. The boxing match between him and his father when his father was 48 and he was 16.
10. He played cricket for Essex until Under-19 level.
11. He boxed at Billericay Boys Club in Essex as an amateur when he was a teenager.
12. He boxed three times as an amateur upon which he stopped boxing because he knew he was not good enough.
13. He joined Matchroom Sport because "I want to protect a family dynasty in my business life and happily taken on that mantle".
This information about Eddie Hearn's "early life" cannot be included in Matchroom Sport without being undue weight in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight.
Allowing Eddie Hearn to remain a stand-alone article will allow editors to add non-Matchroom Sport, non-boxing promoter, information to the article. Mandating a merge would discourage editors from adding such information.
Cunard (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm now convinced there's enough coverage of Eddie Hearn to meet WP:GNG, although I would urge Cunard to add some of the above information and sources to the article because it still looks woefully short on references. After reviewing these articles, I now question whether Matchroom Sport has enough significant coverage to meet GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure)Dwaipayan (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sena Nhavi[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant mentions in online sources. A few book may passingly mention the name. So, perhaps does not meet WP:GNG. However, there may be sources available in Marathi language. So, bringing this up in AfD for broader community consensus. Dwaipayan (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator During this AfD, appropriate references were added to the article, helping to prove the notability of the subject. So, I am withdrawing this nomination per WP:WDAFD.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep He is a well known Hindu saint in Maharashtra. Have added references. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Redtigerxyz for the edits in the article. Yes, now the article has proper references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it then. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Bar and Restaurant[edit]

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

PROD was declined, but I still don't see what makes it notable. It's a good restaurant that shows Australian sports. I am unable to find any 3rd party coverage beyond mentions of its existence. StarM 01:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:N. After several source searches, I'm only finding this article which discusses Australians congregating there, but not much about the establishment itself, passing mentions (e.g. [6], [7], [8]) and blog entries (e.g. [9]). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (maybe). I think the SMH source is pretty good and there are slightly-more-than-passing-mentions in articles like this. Tellingly, the venue has played host to "semi-official" events like this one. I don't know... the best arguments I could make would be on an "its interesting" or "I like it" basis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 3 sentences and 3 sources. One source is about Australian coffee shops in NY. One sentence (on menu) is not referenced and looks like publicity of a beer brand. I can't see much notability nor content around. It looks like if we don't accept the "menu" as a reliable source and add information from there, we don't have too much encyclopedic material either. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE per sparse particlpation after two relistings. Deor (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Singh (singer)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, only one reference does more than mention him in passing. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator that this singer is not notable in any sense of the word. Op47 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's and St. James'[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Murry1975 (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator that this school does not meet the requirements. I cannot even find references for the awards. Op47 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also fails WP:V. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect to Old Europe (archaeology). It is admitted both in the article and in this debate that Danube civilization is a synonym for Old Europe. There is thus no doubt that this article has to go, Wikipedia never has two articles on the same subject. If there is more than one accepted point of view they are both covered in the same article. I have a slight reservation about this in that Old Europe (archaeology) explicitly states that its scope is the theory of Marija Gimbutas. If there is a broader, or competing, understanding of Old Europe then there is scope for expanding that article and changing its scope, or even possibly having a separate article leaving Gimbutas' theory as the original article.

The only issue outstanding is whether this page should be deleted before redirecting. Since several contributors to the debate thought there was something salvagable from it, I have chosen not to delete. Dougweller felt that this would leave the door open for Lactasamir to copy the contents wholesale into the Old Europe article. I strongly advise Lactasamir not to do this. Any material added should be supported by reliable sources that discuss a complex of sites as a unified culture or civilisation. It is not acceptable to refer to several disparate archeological sites and point out similarities ourselves. That has to be done by reliable sources first before we draw that inference.

Much was made in this debate of the sources not being archeologists. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy prohibiting covering the views of none experts on an expert subject. However, that view has to be notable and covered in reliable sources. Further, if it is in conflict with the accepted scholarly position then it must not be presented as fact. Rather, it must be presented as the views of that (non-expert) minority. Further, such views must not be given undue weight. SpinningSpark 18:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danube civilization[edit]

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

This is original research. Most of the sources do not mention a "Danube Civilization. I note the first line says "Danube Civilization or Old Europe", and Old Europe links to an already existing article Old Europe (archaeology). As an example, a search for "Danube civilization" and "Cucuteni-Trypillian culture" on GBooks and GScholar turns up nothing. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should absolutely be no deletion! The Danube civilization are mostly located in former east block countries and therefore the term are not well known in the western world. The term Danube civilization are just a newer name for the older term "Old Europe". The reason why the term Danube civilization are not used in every book or article about e.g. Trypillian culture or Vinča culture are that the civilization are spread all over south eastern Europe and archaeologist in e.g. Serbia will focus on the Vinča culture, and Ukranian archaeologist will focus on Trypillian culture. Different countries with different languages. As i said before most of the civilization are even today unknown for most people in the west. Claming that there are no sources for Danube Civilization are not true! Harald Haarmann are one of the most predominant scholars in the field. He is a leading figure in linguistics. Have in mind that it is linguist who decipher old scrips e.g. (Michael Ventris who deciphered Linear B).

Harald Haarmann - Educational Background - Habilitation, qualification at professorship level, Trier University with a two volume study on linguistics of Balkan languages. Ph.D., Linguistics, Bonn University with a study on Celtic Latin language contacts. University studies at Hamburg, Bonn, Coimbra (Portugal), Bangor (Wales). Fields of study General linguistics, Romance philology, Slavic languages, Finno-Ugric languages, and archaeology. Institutional Affiliations - Vice President and Director of Institute of Archaeomythology. Member of the research team of the Research Centre on Multilingualism Brussels. Member of the EU scientific committee supervising Euromosaic III. So there are no reason to doubt his expertise, in short he is a linguist who also studied archaeology.

Marija Gimbutas called it Old Europe, so i will definitely support it if the whole article gets relocated to the Old Europe (archaeology) article. I still belive that the term Danube civilization are right, but the term Old Europe are much more used, even if it is the same thing as Danube civilization. But i would prefer to keep the article with the current name - Danube civilization. Lactasamir (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that the Danube civilization are original research are simply not true! and the sources where Dougweller claims there are no mention of Danube civilization or Old Europe instead shows that there are plenty of sources.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - look in news, books and scholar.

We cannot ignore highly regarded scholars like Marija Gimbutas, Harald Haarmann, Shan M. M. Winn, Marco Merlini, Mihail Videyko - see [10] And institutions like New York university (ISAW) Institute for the Study of the Ancient World or Ashmolean Museum and the Brukenthal National Museum - see [11]

Whatever the term are, Danube civilization or Old Europe is a fact, and cannot be disputed. So the article should absolutly not be deleted. Lactasamir (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Harald Haarmann seems to be on the fringe of these subjects, claiming that Noah's flood happened 9,000 years ago. He is certainly not an archaeologist and we should be looking to archaeological sources for archaeological articles, not a linguist/philologist. As for the searches, a lot of them quote Haarmann or Gimbutas, some are about something more modern, some have a full stop between Danube and civilization, etc. The issue is what mainstream archaeological publications recognise this as an entity. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As i earlier explained you Dougweller, Haarmann does bot advocate for the biblical flood, but for the Black Sea deluge hypothesis which it is agreed that the sequence of events actually did occur almost 8,000 years ago. Haarmann believes this event perhaps is the root to the biblical Noah's Flood referred to in the Book of Noah and in Gilgamesh.[12]

Claiming Harald Haarmann seems to be on the fringe of these subjects are absolutely not true! he is also a student of archaeology and as the Vice President and Director of Institute of Archaeomythology he works in cooperation with many other shcolars. In 2008 he was part of a large exhibition and symposium in Romania. The institutions involved were - Brukenthal National Museum, National History Museum of Transylvania, National Museum of History, Bucharest, Institute of Archaeology, Iasi, Braila Museum of Archaeology and History, Braia, Department of Archaeology, Cuza University, Iasi, Museum of History and Archaeology, Piatra-Neamt Museum of Banat, Timisoara, Museum of Banat Mountain Area, Resita.[13] The Institute of Archaeomythology and Harald Haarmann and Mikhail Videiko (Trypillian culture expert) Institute of Archaeology National Academy of Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine were also a part of it. This is just one example. Lactasamir (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the Eftimie Murgu University in Reşiţa, Romania, collaborated with the Institute of Archaeomythology, Euro Innovanet SRL, Italy, and the Romanian Academy, Iaşi, with Harald Haarmann and Marco Merlini in an international symposium in 2011 in Romania. The symposium was organized around two main themes: The evolution of the Vinča culture, and the significance of the Tărtăria tablets for the Danube Script.[14]

In 2004 Haarmann was among the scholars at the interdisciplinary symposium held in the Novi Sad Branch of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.[15] So he is far from an isolated scholar, but highly integrated in the Balkan scholarly world. Lactasamir (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harrmann is not an archaeologist. Nor is he qualified as an expert in writing and ancient scripts. He's not qualified to discuss archaeological subjects.[16] The Institute was founded by Joan Marley[17] who worked with Gimbutas and is also not an archaeologist - her academic credentials are a community college credential valid for life and an MA in Archaeomythology probably taught by yet another member of the Institute, an art historian who also has no qualifications in archaeology.[18]

Mihail Videyko - why when I search for him and "Danube Civilization" do I come up empty? Same problem with Winn.

If you look at the articles for the cultures mentioned in your article, unless you've added it I haven't found mention that they are part of this "Danube Civilization". And a search on this DC shows that most of the references are discussing writing, scripts, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will not recognize any of the sources? I think that if you read the sources there will be no doubt. You will not recognize serious people working on the subject. You will not recognize that the terms Danube civilization and Old Europe are the same thing, just different names (depending of the scholar). You make it sound like it is me trying to make up some kind of fantasy?

Mihail Videyko is a leading expert on Trypillian culture and are employed at Institute of Archaeology National Academy of Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine. Do you not recognize him when he writes about Old Europe (the same thing as Danube civilization).[19] In this source called "When we were in Old Europe"

Quoting him -

"Let’s start with the fact that “Old Europe” was initially constructed not by political scientists, politicians or even by journalists, but… by archeologists. This term has existed for a few decades and it is applied to quite different territories of our continent and in terms of time cultures which are considered to belong to Old Europe are separated from modern times by lots of time which amounts to six or eight millenniums. The civilized part of that “first” Old Europe included the eastern part of the Apennine peninsula, the Balkans, the territory of modern Hungary, the CzechRepublic, Slovakia, Romania, Moldova and part of the territory of Ukraine from the Carpathians to the Dnieper. Its separate oases also existed beyond the mentioned above borders and were connected, first of all, with the expansion of the bearers of the Neolithic culture of Linear Band Pottery. The Cucuteni-Trypillian civilization which is more known in Ukraine as the Trypillian archeological culture was part of Old Europe" On page 17 you can see a map of Old Europe with the different cultures. Do you not recognize the Brukenthal National Museum Sibiu[20] where they write about the Danube civilization several times? One needs to understand that this civilization are known under different names, Old Europe or Danube civilization, Danube valley cultures and it consisted of many sub cultures like the Trypillian, Vinca, Varna and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lactasamir (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Old Europe (archaeology). There is a fair amount of reasonable material in this article, but it is mixed up with some more dubious stuff and speculation presented as fact. Moreover, it is written in an overly promotional style - with great emphasis on how advanced South East Europe was compared to other places in the world. We don't need this peacockery. The article's author Lactasamir himself seems to acknowledge that it is the same thing as Old Europe. He repeatedly says so above. So clearly there should be one article. Clearly, again, as acknowledged by Lactasamir, the term Old Europe is by far the most common one. So really the main question is already answered and there is no real debate between Dougweller and Lactasamir about this. The only question is whether the content should be retained. I think there is a lot of scope for expanding the Old Europe article, and some, at least, of this material is adaptable to it. Paul B (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment There is scope for enlarging the Old Europe article, but we need to be careful about sources. Sources must discuss either Old Europe or the so-called Danube Civilization, and they need to meet WP:RS - so far as I'm concerned the Institute is not a reliable source for anything but its own ideas, and not for archaeology. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul B :) I also think a merge into Old Europe could be a solution, if there is consensus I will be happy to relocate much of the Danube civilization article into Old Europe and then tone down the overly promotional style. Lactasamir (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Old Europe (archaeology). My first reaction was slight surprise, as I was fairly sure that I had met "Danube civilization" fairly frequently as a synonym for Old Europe (a term which itself tends to be associated with Marija Gimbutas, even though it seems to have been widely accepted as a term for this particular complex of cultures). However, a Google search shows it turning up more rarely (and more recently) than I had thought, and I may have confused it with V. Gordon Childe's Danubian culture, which itself tends to overlap quite a lot with Old Europe. As things are, I doubt that we currently need separate articles for this and Old Europe (archaeology), but there is useful verifiable information here that could be usefully added there. However, some care does need to be taken - I am rather wary of the claims of being earliest or particular claims of influence on other or later civilizations, even though, for a long period, Old Europe does seem to have been on roughly the same level as the contemporary precursors of the Sumerian and Egyptian civilisations, and contact seems quite plausible. The claims are by no means impossible, and some may well be true - but equal claims from elsewhere or alternative possible influences seem to exist in most cases, so any such claims to need to reflect a well-verified general current consensus rather than the enthusiasm of archaeologists about their certainly significant finds. PWilkinson (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the newer term to the older, better sourced term. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A redirect would be ok. Paul B, PWilkinson, my concern about a merge is that Lactasamir is likely just to copy over the badly sourced material, so that all of the problems with this article would simply be moved to that one. Of course he could do it with a redirect but 'merge' seems to suggest doing that. Enhance Old Europe article by all means, but with archaeological sources that discuss it. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't see what's so terribly wrong with much of the content. Yes, there were statements that the Danubians worshipped the Great Goddess, as if it were an undisputed fact, but most of the content does not seem to me to be obviously fringe. In any case there is case to be made for discussing in more detail the Gimbutas model of Old Europe, describing it and placing it in the context of competing arguments. Paul B (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul Barlow - basically two things - lack of archaeological sources discussing either "Old Europe" or "Danube Civilization", and use of sources from the Institute of Archaeomythology who are not archaeologists. And of coures PWilkinson's concerns. I'd also be happier if there were well sourced statements in the articles of the named cultures that show a consensus among archaeologists that these were part of a "relatively homogeneous pre-Indo-European Neolithic culture", a peaceful, matriarchal culture. Note that in this article Gimbutas is only mentioned once - it's written as though there is a mainstream consensus about this. Sure the Gimbutas model can be discussed in terms of competing arguments and should be.I want to get hold of this.[21] Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zahed Mannan[edit]

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

Article about a Bangladeshi academic that fails both GNG and WP:PROF. All online coverage I can find is self-generated, and the subject's works have no holdings and no citations that I could find. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence the subject satisfies the relevant notability guidelines. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:38, 1 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, does not seem notable enough for inclusion, many of the citations are non RS and one just points to the webpage of the company where the article claims he worked (looks like an advertisement) .--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should include: I am from Bangladesh and personally verified the sources used in this article. All citation is correct and some reference/citation looks like non RS because these sources have no proper link. I don't know why Crystallizedcarbon is thinking that linking with a website where this person worked before is like an advertisement. Is it mean we shouldn't link any company website where we work?
Delete - assistant and other non-tenured professors are very common and are rarely notable. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. This debate has been marred by some sockpupetting and lots of irrelevant comments. I was ready to close this as delete, but then came to the comments from SpinningSpark. I recommend that the sources unearthed be added to the article as soon as possible to show notability. No prejudice against a re-nomination of this article after 1 or 2 months. Randykitty (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armeena Khan[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)

PR puffery trying to create notability for an utterly non-notable "actress and model". The article has obviously been created by a PR agent, and was full of fake/bogus references before other editors started cleaning it up, leaving only a single reference even mentioning her, an article that has nothing to do with her being an actress or model, only a run-of-the-mill "fashion designer". Or to sum it up: the article not only fails WP:NACTOR but also falls short of passing WP:GNG by a country mile. Thomas.W ^talk 18:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am one of the original editors of this article. I came it across in through google search. I am not her PR agent or any such like. Your assumption is misdirected. At best the article needs improving and at worst it is subjective in its written form in places and needs to be referenced. But so are many other articles on here but they evolve over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinsage10 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Merlinsage10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Comment~~Delete As it is in its current state, it fails to adequately establish notability. The only Google News article I could find is this, which is a passing mention that she's going to be in a TV film. I don't find anything significant at Google Books. There are some interviews [22][23] but those are WP:PRIMARY. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed position from Comment to Delete. I don't see that there has been any progress in establishing her notability. Further, I'm getting the sense that there is a coordinated attempt to retain the article, which makes me suspect paid editors and thus an agenda to promote the subject. The argument found below from Merlinsage, "I got over half a million results from google just from her first name" is laughable. And there are numerous other Bollywood actors all around Wikipedia. Claims that there isn't a lot of coverage of Khan because of censorship is absurd. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", and WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable third party sources", so a passing mention in a single article doesn't help. Thomas.W ^talk 19:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't make a credible claim of notability under any of our subject-specific inclusion rules, and doesn't cite nearly enough (or any at all, really) reliable sourcing to get over WP:GNG instead. In fact, I would frankly have considered this outright speediable, as either "advertising" or "no explanation of significance", had I seen it before the nominator did. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD-discussions are archived, while there's no record of speedies other than under what criteria it was deleted, in my experience re-creations are also easier to get rid of if the article has been deleted at AfD (CSD G4). Thomas.W ^talk 20:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cannes: http://simplybhangra.com/news/latest-updates/6525-she-cannes-she-has-armeena-khan-writhes-into-

KEEP.

I am not sure what you guys searched but I got over half a million results from google just from her first name. This stuff is pretty note worthy if you are a user in South Asia or Middle East.

cannes.html#.VFNZEkvaNuY

Bollywood:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_F14gHZwNY

Lollywood:http://galaxylollywood.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/yalgaar-to-bring-swat-operation-in-light/

http://www.tv.com.pk/celebrity/Armeena-Rana-Khan/319/biography

Next film: http://www.dawn.com/news/1125718

Next film after that: http://reviewit.pk/farhat-ishtiaqs-bin-roye-aansu-coming-soon-on-hum-tv/

Her clothing line: http://www.fashionsrunway.com/armeena-rana-khan-designer-lawn-collection-2014-gohar-textile-mills/

More clothing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8hrEsxId9g

Unfortunately wikipedia is western-centric and currently most of the editors are seemingly based in N. America and Europe. I read lots of "notable persons" on wikipedia who I and most people have never heard of. Hopefully this situation will improve. Merlinsage10 ^talk 10:07, 31 October 2014 (GMT) — Merlinsage10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So you got half a million results when doing a Google search on "Armeena"? Nice, but it only proves that there are a lot of people named Armeena. If I do a search on my first name, "Thomas", I get 1.6 million results. So can I have an article, please? On a more serious note, the first link is about a thoroughly non-notable short film, and thus doesn't count (see my comment above about what is required per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG), the fourth link has Armeena Khan as one of several people in a picture, but doesn't even mention her name in the text of the article, providing no connection between her and the film the article is about, so that doesn't count either; the second to last link is already in the article, and has been mentioned further up in this discussion, and the rest are blogs, Youtube-links etc that are not reliable sources, and can't be used as references on Wikipedia. Leaving nothing. Thomas.W ^talk 10:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can have an article. I will do one for you with some choice words. Seriously though, there is a bit of an issue here. I understand where you are coming from but the way the media works out there is different. There is heavy censorship, especially with the problems of religious fanatics etc. So youtube is banned and wikipedia is not widely known. But Facebook is used heavily - so we know that she is in this film and if I ask someone from that part of the world who watches cinema and film about her then I will get a difference answer than I would from someone in Canada (ironically no one knows her there). This is the official FB page of the film https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/yalghaar so I know she is starring in it opposite the lead male. Now looking at Mila Kunis' page for example I see future projects are cited yet future projects are an issue with the page I am editing. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinsage10 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if you read WP:GNG you will find there is no pass allowed for "places where the media 'works differently'". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos and Facebook posts and WordPress blogs do not constitute reliable sourcing for a Wikipedia article under any circumstances — mainstream media censorship doesn't have any bearing on that, as nothing in this article suggests any reason why this person would have been singled out as a victim of that. And they still wouldn't count as sufficient sourcing even if it did — for example, even if she were actually being targeted for government censorship in that way, that wouldn't prevent international sources such as the BBC or The New York Times from reporting on that censorship as a story in and of itself.

Also, just for the record, notability has nothing to do with what you have or haven't heard of. I've heard of lots of people who don't qualify for Wikipedia articles (e.g. friends, family, the constituency assistant to my MP, the band that plays my local pub on Saturday nights, etc.), and am wholly unfamiliar with many people who do (I couldn't personally name even one current member of the German Bundestag if I tried, for example, but that doesn't make them not notable). Notability is a factor of reliable source coverage, not of anybody getting an automatic entitlement to a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to prove that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON unless some sources are found. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. After a second look, I may have acted too hastily. These sources (already mentioned) are plausible: [24], [25], [26], [27]. Reliability of a couple of those is arguable, but they are more than just facebook and wordpress as was implied above. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, I'm not seeing it. If Merlinsage10 has found reliable sources, where are they? Why aren't they in the article? Claiming that there's lots of censorship in South Asia is garbage: India has a huge press, and they're film-fanatic. There should be a zillion English-language sources: if this lady is the real deal. (And if she's supposedly Canadian-born and works out of the UK, what censorship?) Sorry, show me some good reliable sources first. Nha Trang 22:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NukeThePukes: Well, she is based in Dubai, not India, so the censorship claim is plausible. Nevertheless I don't think we ought to write articles solely based on Facebook and similar media. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims she's based in Dubai, but according to IMDB, her works are in Hindi, for the most part, and this Hum TV mentioned now in the article is in Pakistan, and she seems to be ethnic Pakistani. You kinda think that the Emirates aren't where her oeuvre is being marketed. Nha Trang 19:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Upon searching I don't find much details about this model/actress not much popular or notable - Krutim 11:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP.

Hey! reading through these discussions I’m a little perturbed by the number of commentators from the western world discrediting Armeena as just a ‘fashion designer’??!!! – but have no knowledge of South Asian cinema.

I’ve personally watched several of her films, and if Wikipedia has any form of credibility then it should take control of allowing certain commentators who specialise in certain areas of knowledge access to accept or delete articles on a particular subject.

Please can we have commentators who specialise in Bollywood/Lollywood determine the fate of this article.

Armeena is an up and coming actress who’s played star roles in many films already as well as major roles on other shows, and serials. This actress is also becoming very popular in the British Asian scene. Please retain this article. The whole world doesn’t revolve around western cinema or Hollywood alone; there are actors in Bollywood who command fan base multitudes greater than the most famous of Hollywood actors. Yes my dear American/European commentators – there is a greater world out there beyond your shores, and Wikipedia is meant to be a world encyclopedia!

I have to admit I'm starting to get a bit annoyed with Wikipedia these days, really there needs to be more control on the controllers. You often find there isn't enough detailed information on actors/actresses from other cultures, as they are 'foreign' and therefore irrelevant it seems. Then how do you expect people to fund and contribute to such a biased encyclopedia.

Also someone above mentions, in this particular case that they found 'nothing' on Google about Armeena? - Can they even use a search engine? I just typed 'Armeena Khan' and can see several photos of her and various links to her interviews, and movie clips.

If you're not qualified on the subject, you have no authority on its existence.

EddyJawed(talk) 11:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's not how Wikipedia works, guy. You don't need to know squat about a subject to decide whether or not it's covered at significant length in reliable, independent, third-party sources. If I see feature articles about her in major newspapers, then she passes the GNG, whether I know jack about Bollywood or not. If you can't (or won't) demonstrate that those sources exist, then she fails the GNG, whether I know jack about Bollywood or not. I mentioned it uptopic that South Asia is swarming with print and Internet media, and they all love Bollywood: the Times of India has the largest circulation of any English-language daily in the world, and India alone has 12 other papers in the world's top 25. If this gal is as important to South Asian cinema as all of that---where are the sources? Nha Trang 20:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think his name is Guy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you Sammy for correcting 'Nha Tang' who thinks my name is 'Guy'...and thinks Armeena is 'this gal'. I don't know where you have been looking but there are numerous sections of her periodically appearing on bollywood magazines. I'm sure I've actually found her on Stardust. I'll come back to you later with a link to a mag that's online. I'm Eddy by the way. EddyJawed(talk) 20:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our standards for verifiability through reliable published sources at this time. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete too soon, no significant coverage in reliably published sources. the only reliable source in the bunch above is Dawn - and in there her name appears in a photo caption, but she is not even mentioned in the text as a participant in the film. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(double vote struck) Link to magazine [28], she's on front cover... EddyJawed(talk) 22:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.101.93 (talk) [reply]

Thanks to Eddy for that. This should be an easy keep now. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. A front cover wouldn't necessarily establish notability any more than any other passing mention would. If there is an article about her, that would be a different story. But simply being mentioned by a magazine, or appearing in a photo, does not qualify as "significant coverage". And the fact that it is an interview, makes it a primary source anyway, not the "reliable secondary sources" we expect. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And presuming this Ink Magazine is a reliable source, and presuming the "exclusive" inside talks about the subject in "significant detail"---and presuming there are multiples of these sources. Anyone got a link to that ARTICLE, not to the photo? Got to admit that Ink Magazine not having a Wikipedia article isn't a great sign. Nha Trang 19:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NukeThePukes: The magazine is the magazine of the radio station City FM 89 which does have a Wikipedia article and (despite its atrociously promotional article) does appear to be a significant broadcaster, part of the Dawn Media Group. I think we can safely imply that there is some editorial control, and the articles are not user submitted. SpinningSpark 01:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have just found a whole bunch of references which I will upload in the next couple of days. Kikboy (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)— Kikboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I wonder if there's a family gathering here. The comment above was made by an IP, and then signed by a brand new user account, the only edit made by either of them. One of Eddy Jawed's two KEEP !votes was also made by an IP, and signed by Eddy Jawed, with both Eddy and that IP also being single-purpose users, interested only in Armeena Khan and this AfD. And on top of that both IPs geolocate to Manchester, UK, Armeena Khan's home town... Thomas.W ^talk 19:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kikboy, you should upload them ASAP, not in a couple of days, since the AfD process isn't going to wait for you. Thomas.W Thomas, I too detect fishiness from the SPA. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ... the guy's pulling a fast one here. If it smells like fish, it's probably a fish. Nha Trang 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK I'm getting fed up of this. I only got to this page the other day, when in Manchester at my parents house in Crumpsall, which uses the Victoria Park internet exchange (so I hope you wannabe Sherlock's, you know who, deduced that one). I was commenting on her with my family, as we saw her on an Asian television channel in an interview. I then went to this page to find out about her, and noticed the deletion tag. I do not know her personally or her family, and am not in any way affiliated to her so am extremely angry about this false accusation.

I'm absolutely fed up, especially when searching for significant celebrities of the South Asian community, getting told by Wikipedians whose name I can't even pronounce properly determining their opinions of a celebrities level of popularity. Sure, deleting her really doesn't bother me. However it just reaffirms my belief that Wikipedia is culturally biased encyclopaedia and therefore impartial probably on many other elements of current affairs and thus holds little value. Why should I financially donate a contribution to keep this site running sponsor free when its so biased because its not correctly regulated?

There's other notable celebs that I keep seeing with deletion tags, such as ZaidAliT - another Canadian South Asian comedian whose made a massive following through making home made videos.

In Armeena's case that very interview, plus dozens of commercials and other interviews, movie trails can be spotted all over youtube and dedicated Bollywood film sites. There's also a large audience and fanbase for Bollywood even here in the west from Asians and non Asians alike, and i feel those who know about Bollywood should determine the existence of articles like these.

As for my location, have a look at my IP today. I am in Durham which is 120 miles away from Manchester where I live and work everyday. You can ring my workplace if you like or meet me every week at the local MMA gym for a good sparring session? Get the full evidence first, then make accusations. My parents living in Manchester, and her being from there is pure coincidence - Greater Manchester is a very large region of England, soon to have its own mayor!

EddyJawed(talk) 22:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As previously pointed out, there are numerous articles related to Bollwood at the English Wikipedia as well as numerous articles related to various cultures. This is not a popularity issue, this is entirely a notability issue, and the relevant guidelines are WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. If the contributors, or you, can establish that the subject meets either the criteria at GNG or NACTOR, then you should talk about that, not about bias and MMA gyms, as none of that stuff will help to bring the article up to standards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The transparent redlink sockpuppetry (or at least offsite canvassing) had me all set to call for delete on this one (Merlinsage10, do you really expect us to believe that you randomly found this article in a Google search less than two hours after it was created?). However, after actually looking for sources, I am finding so much coverage that this just has to be a keep. I will list some of them in a moment after sorting through them. SpinningSpark 11:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For her TV career there is;

Biography, tv.com.pk
Armeena Rana Khan – The New Sensation! Reviewit.pk

For her fashion career, there really is a LOT of coverage. This is just a small selection. I haven't checked these sites carefully for reliability, but there is just so much coverage that she just has to be notable for this at least;

Pakistani Model Armeena Rana Khan, Fashion Elan
Armeena Rana Khan shares her Personal & Professional Life Stories (Interview) Viewscraze.com
Pakistani Model Armeena Rana Khan Biography Fashion Universe
Armeena Rana Khan Fashion Maza

For her film career, notability is a bit more dubious, but she does get some coverage in the Times of India, a lack of which was exercising some commentators. Sorry, some of these articles are probably available online, but I found them through InfoTrac which requires registration so I can't give a link.

Three articles in the Times about Pushkar Jog's film give some coverage to her as the co-star;

"Huff! It's Too Much: A candyfloss romance with a real touch", Times of India 8 November 2013
"Pushkar locks lips with Brit model", Times of India, 6 November 2013
"Marathi actor Pushkar Jog marks his B-Town debut", Times of India, 28 October 2013

Another Times article gives her some coverage prior to release of the film (she is the cause of the delay which the article is about) and is named as the star;

"Pushkar Jog's film delayed over a year", Times of India, 24 July 2013

She is also named as the star in

"Every film has its own fate", DNA (Daily News & Analysis), 24 October 2013

And finally, another article found on Infotrac, but about her fashion career rather than film,

"Armeena Khan collaborates with Gohar textile mills for spring and summer collection", Regional Times (Karachi), 8 March 2014.

SpinningSpark 12:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have no horse in this but just wanted to add that some of above news articles that are mentioned by Spinning are available online:

Candyfloss: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Huff-Its-Too-Much-A-candyfloss-romance-with-a-real-touch/articleshow/25383114.cms,
Brit model: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Marathi-actor-Pushkar-Jog-marks-his-B-Town-debut/articleshow/24776975.cms
B-Town debut: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/marathi/movies/news/Pushkar-locks-lips-with-Brit-model/articleshow/25260822.cms
Delayed: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/marathi/movies/news/Pushkar-Jogs-film-delayed-over-a-year/articleshow/21276032.cms.
DNA article is available here: http://dnasyndication.com/dna/City-Pune/dna_english_news_and_features/Every-film-has-its-own-fate/DNPUN63568.
Here's another article I was available to find from the Lahore Times which does have a wiki on here. http://www.lhrtimes.com/2013/03/05/armeena-khan-in-pakistans-happily-married-151728/
I think the Mills article was a press release as I found a similarly named article here: http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/03/06/business/armeena-khan-collaborates-with-gohar-textile-mills-for-springsummer-collection/ where it is categorised as a press release.
Hope this helps whichever way this Afd goes. Cowlibob (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still having difficulty seeing the "significant coverage from reliable independent secondary sources" aspect of the GNG being met. Of the sources I've seen, including the ones just added above by Cowlibob, most seem to be brief interview pieces, which aren't exactly "significant coverage" and are probably considered primary sources anyway. Press releases are primary sources. Spinning, help me see the light. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:BIODELETE gives me some latitude here, and the promotionally and sourcing of the article as it stands is seriously a problem j⚛e decker ^talk 20:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Soltani[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. The article is based entirely on primary sources and, according to the author herself on the article's Talk:Omid Soltani, "There are no more available resources for omid". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:51, 30 October 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's worth noting that the same user, User:Victoria Herrera 08, also made a number of pages for every single album by the artist (also relying on primary sources), which you can find linked on the artist page. --V2Blast (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Dally[edit]

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

Per WP:BLAR, I'm obligated to nominate this article for an afd. I previously redirected to Chandler:_Red_Tide, but was reverted just recently by an IP. I'll just assume the good faith of that IP and say that I do not believe that this is a notable character outside of the aforementioned book article. They have no individual notability and should instead be redirected to the main book article. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 31 October 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability. I have no objection to leaving a redirect as suggested by the nom after deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Character does not appear to be independently notable. My check suggests they don't pass GNG. A Google search brought up lots of social networking-type sites for real people with this name. Google Books turned up one book - a crossword answer book. Google News also turned up one article, about a high school sporting event. We can set up a redirect afterwards, but it doesn't seem especially necessary. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luthien22 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Vasiliadis[edit]

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

This article serves the purpose of self-promotion. Wikipedia is not Linkdin. It might be better suited for Greek Wikipedia. [[29]]. Politis (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD. ansh666 20:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 October 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks to me like the subject fails WP:GNG. None of the references in the article pass that guideline, and I was unable through Google to find one that did. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any third-party sources, and not one of the references is about him. His articles do appear in Google Scholar, although it appears to be a small field with limited scholarship, so the highest citation number I found was "2". LaMona (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hands of Time(HOT)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BAND in it's entirety. There's a claim of notability - nomination as "one of the most significant representations of the european independent Rock scene" - which is not cited and cannot be verified. No reliable sources whatsover. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The item in question as been removed. And updated on the page. —Lastknownent

Speedy delete As the author has removed the sole claim to notability (based, presumably, on the inability to verify said claim), the article now makes no claim of notability at all for this band. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:19, 7 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G10 (attack page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Robert Greacen[edit]

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

WP:NOTEBLP and WP:ALIVE don't pass. Sources are not provided. 115ash^→(☏) 11:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (PubMed indexing is through PubMed Central), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article de-PRODded with a claim of "historic purpose" as "the first academic journal from India focusing on the discipline of family medicine and primary care exclusively", which is a clear misreading of NJournals#3. Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Wiki Page needs to stay.

1. It meets criteria of WP:NJournals it is indeed indexed in Pubmed. Please see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Journal+of+family+medicine+and+primary+care If you can click on any article you see that it has a PMID as well as PMCID. I guess one checked the NLM catalog which still says the older status " PubMed: Coverage to be announced " But indeed is is coveredin Pubmed as well as Pubmed Central. Those journals that are in PMC only do come up in Pubmed searches but they do not get PMID. They get a PMCID only. JFMPC has both PMID and PMCID NJournals does not require it to be in MEDLINE necessarily 2. It also meets the third criteria of WP:NJournals since it is the first medical journal from India as well as South Asia on family medicine as a reference to this has been put already. Also a NLM catalog search proves this fact to be true.

Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I have tried to explain to Drsoumyadeepb on their talk page, PubMed coverage is automatic for any journal included in PMC. PMC accepts all OA journals in the life sciences and is not selective in the sense that NJournals uses. NJournals#3 is being misinterpreted. Being the only journal in a specific subfield published in a specific country is not really what is meant with "historic purpose or significant history". The reference is not independent, it's a gushing announcement on the website of an organization to which the society publishing this journal belongs. --Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This journal does not presently meet the criteria outlined in either WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Pubmed listing does not indicate notability. -- Scray (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 6 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. SpinningSpark 12:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very Busy[edit]

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

Unreferenced and not much more than a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album was one of the Top 10 Selling Mandarin Albums of 2009 in Hong Kong (see article and the added ref), and the Chinese article lists 4 additional awards. On a side note, I would encourage the nominator to read WP:MUST and WP:NOREFS: the arguments listed in the nom (unreferenced and too short, i.e. "article needs to be improved") do not, by themselves, justify a deletion. Finally WP:NALBUMS states "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." At the very least, the content of this article should be merged, but not deleted. Olivier (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Criteria in nomination appear invalid.Becky Sayles (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not invalid. It needs references, but being without references is no reason to delete. However, WP:NMUSIC states that an article that's noting more than a track listing can be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read "merged", not "deleted" on WP:NMUSIC. Or am I wrong? Olivier (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're wrong. It could be merged, but definitely not kept. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Very Busy" is not mentioned in the single reference - "A TIME FOR US" is. That said, to avoid systematic bias based on his popularity as a Cantonese singer, I would lean towards a merge with Joey Yung. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 09:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Very Busy" is in fact mentioned in the single reference, under the name "Hen Wang" (I know it should be "hen mang"...) under "List of Ten Best Sales Releases, Mandarin (Order in Chinese Stroke Counts)". Looking at the Chinese version of the source [30] confirms that it is indeed the "Very Busy" album. Olivier (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point, Olivier, I missed the 很忙 connection, my bad. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - 没有问题。 Olivier (talk) 20:47, 8 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. Nomination withdrawn due to recent prior AfD. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Porn Culture[edit]

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

Not notable. All references but one point to the organization's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobbsaladin (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 November 2014‎ Cobbsaladin

Comment: I have no opinion on notability yet, but I am somewhat concerned at how the article is written- it is a little buzzwordy. On a side note, I'm not entirely sure that this should have been brought back to AfD so relatively quickly, as the prior AfD closed about 3 weeks ago. I'd probably recommend that you flesh out the AfD rationale to show why you felt that the last, recent AfD did not represent policy and guidelines, as multiple editors voted to keep the article based on the sourcing and at least one editor (User:Cirt) is someone that I've come to view as a pretty good editor and one that's very familiar with policy and sourcing- you'd have to show how their argument was faulty, in other words and since I view them as trustworthy that's a steep task. Considering that your only edits have been to nominate this page for deletion, I'm very tempted to close this if @Cobbsaladin: does not return to the page and give a good reason as to why the prior AfD was faulty. Just to note, a source can have a link to the organization's website but still be considered independent and reliable. With today's internet culture it's actually fairly expected that news articles will link to the subject in question if a website exists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah- I think I see what you mean. I thought you were referring to the references given at the prior AfD. The article does need cleaning, but a lack of non-primary sourcing on the article does not automatically mean that an organization is not notable. Again, I'm not arguing for or against notability. I would even go so far as to say that it's not impossible that the organization may not necessarily fail notability guidelines, but we do need some argument other than saying that the sources in the article are primary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure what there is another attempt at deletion so soon after prior AFD. Please see sources mentioned previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop Porn Culture. Also, WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. — Cirt (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep SK2c may apply if "immediately" is construed as "in less than a month", but regardless, notability is the same concern as the previous AfD, which was snow kept on October 11. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also add that the nominator is an WP:SPA created just to create this nomination. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)--— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm new to editing, I didn't realize this article had recently been nominated. If experienced editors suggest it's too soon to re-nominate, I accept that. But I don't understand the WP:SPA criticism, isn't every first edit a single-purpose edit? I'm still becoming familiar with your wiki-conventions. Tokyogirl79, thank you for your thoughtful comments and investigation. I hope I have closed this AfD appropriately. Cobbsaladin (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - frivolous nomination. @Cobbsaladin: People generally make SPA accusations when new accounts go immediately to deletion discussions and other contentious areas, because the overwhelming majority of such people have an ulterior motivation such as self-promotion or political views. But, there's no harm done. Go make some constructive edits to articles and you'll never hear it again. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:36, 6 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. Clear consensus after relisting. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Sostre[edit]

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

Per WP:BIO; the subject is not worthy of notice. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh666 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Huh? Care to explain what about the subject isn't "worthy of notice?" Nha Trang 21:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The subject has written one book, possibly started some companies (there are no references that I can find to back this up), and may have authored some articles (not referenced). Unfortunately, the article was initially authored by user "Psostre". It has never had more than 4-5 sentences, but is now down to one. I can't see a way to save this one. LaMona (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a case of WP:TOOSOON. Unable to find significant coverage of this person to meet either WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Valenciano (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as sources do not establish notability. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 06:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlam Hamed Younes[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article that does not show how the subject meets a notability guideline such as WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:ACADEMIC. Looks more like a résumé with some peacock terms thrown in than an actual encyclopedia article. Note: foreign-language sources might exist; any input on those is welcome. Kinu ^t/_c 21:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I attempted to make this a bit more readable, but there were sections I could not understand. The article unfortunately lacks specific references, and I can find none in English, making improvement impossible. LaMona (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:28, 6 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. Cunard's extensive list of citations clearly puts to rest any idea that this is insufficiently sourced. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popmoney[edit]

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

Nominated for procedural deletion with the following reason: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." However, article does contain some reliable sources which suggest it is/was a challenger to Paypal. Bringing to AfD for a wider opinion. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (prod nominator). This statement is sourced to a single ref - an article in American Banker, which briefly (in four paragraphs) discusses the competition to PayPal and mentions Popmoney as one of the emerging competitors. American Banker seems to me like a niche source, if reliable - but its coverage of Popmoney seems rather short, and I don't think it is sufficient to make this article a keep. Popmoney may be emerging as a competitor to Paypal, but based on the presented sources, it hasn't emerged yet - and thus hasn't gained required notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

reliable sources

Roberts, Ed (2012-03-01). "Fiserv Combining Popmoney and ZashPay P-to-P Services". American Banker. Archived from the original on 2014-11-07. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
Wolfe, Daniel (2011-06-21). "Ally Offers CashEdge's Popmoney". American Banker. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
Rapport, Marc (2012-02-29). "Fiserv Melds P2P Services ZashPay, Popmoney". Credit Union Times. Archived from the original on 2014-11-07. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
Marte, Jonnelle (2009-06-23). "Dad, Can You Text Me $200?". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2014-11-07. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
Jonnelle Marte wrote:
A new service by CashEdge Inc., which provides online banking services for financial institutions, would let users send money to friends and family through a text message or email — further cutting down on our need to stop at ATMs or write checks when we owe people money.
The article provides several more paragraphs of coverage of Popmoney, noting that "But POPmoney’s key feature is that it will allow users to send money directly from one bank account to another."
Pilon, Mary (2009-12-17). "Mobile-Payment Services Grow". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2014-11-07. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
Mary Pilon wrote:
This week, Popmoney, a service from CashEdge, went live. It’s currently available at only two financial institutions, but will expand to seven in coming months, Neil Platt, Popmoney’s senior vice president, said. (CashEdge already has various institutions as clients elsewhere, including Bank of America and Citibank.)
Popmoney lets users send money to recipients via text message or email. The recipient receives a code that he can use to receive the cash, even if he doesn’t have a Popmoney account. It’s the first service allowing bank customers to send money with nothing more than a friend’s email address or cellphone number, Mr. Platt said. Although many online banks offer free transfers and PayPal functions, Popmoney will bear a bank’s branding.
“We think this will be part of every checking account in a couple of years,” he said.
Fees for using the service are determined by the bank. First Hawaiian Bank, one of the first to offer Popmoney, charges $1 per transaction. Some banks might adopt tiered pricing approaches, waiving fees for select customers or on a promotional basis, Mr. Platt said.
Marte, Jonnelle (2010-07-11). "Use Phone, PC to Pay Others". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
Jonnelle Marte wrote:
About 170 banks offer Popmoney, a service that lets you transfer money from your savings or checking account online to another person's account at any participating bank. You just need the payment amount and the person's email address and phone number. If your bank doesn't offer the service, you can't send money, but you can receive it by entering your account information at Popmoney.com.
"Visa lets people use plastic to pay one another". The Washington Post. Associated Press. 2011-03-16. Archived from the original on 2014-11-07. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
the Associated Press wrote:
About 200 banks, including several of the nation's largest, already use CashEdge's PopMoney service.
Salmon, Felix (2010-12-01). "Transferring Money Gets Easier". Seeking Alpha. Archived from the original on 2014-11-07. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
Urken, Ross Kenneth (2012-11-05). "Will Peer-To-Peer Payments Rescue the Mobile Wallet from Fad Status?". Daily Finance. Archived from the original on 2014-11-07. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
Ross Kenneth Urken wrote:
Perhaps you've seen the commercials for Popmoney, a service that allows a customer to send money using the recipient's phone number or email address. Currently available through 1,700 financial institutions, as well as to any individual user who downloads its app, it has a lot of people jazzed by their ability to pay the babysitter or settle their portion of the dinner check with a tap on their smartphone.

reliable sources

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline

reliable sources

independent

Cunard (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If 175 American banks are offering this, including some large ones, it suggests small-n "notable". Anyway, here's another report, NPOV an' all:

10. Yardena Arar & Tony Bradley (2010-10-11) "PayPal Alternatives That Let You Shop Around", PCWorld
: Noyster (talk), 14:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hanaa Naguib[edit]

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

No indication that this subject meets the notability guideline for academics. No reliable sources that show how WP:GNG is met. Most of the provided "references" are either dead links or do not even mention subject of the article (based on a rough translation); those that mention the subject are passing mentions and are insufficient on which to base a WP:BLP. Contested PROD. Kinu ^t/_c 21:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Similar to the article on Esmat_Yahia, this one lacks references, and the links provided are not in English so I couldn't check them. I did some editing of the article for comprehension, but I do not think this passes WP:NOTABILITY. LaMona (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 6 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 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to meet notability standards for either academics or ballerinas. Deb (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Op47 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SoGoSurvey[edit]

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

Online survey software company does not appear to meet the notability criteria for web content or organizations. Current sources in the article are PR or come from the organization's own website. An attempt to find reviews of the product or their organization in reliable sources was unsuccessful. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Avono♂ (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software/web article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search turned up blog coverage including [31] but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esmat Yahia[edit]

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

While the subject of this article might be notable as an academic, there are no reliable sources that demonstrate WP:GNG is met. Most of the provided "references" are either dead links or do not even mention subject of the article (based on a rough translation); those that mention the subject are passing mentions, which is insufficient for a biographical article. Contested PROD. Kinu ^t/_c 21:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a bit of cleanup of the article and checked all of the links. None of the links in English had any mention of him, so the remaining links are all in Arabic, which I cannot check. There were two of the links that appeared to have photos of him. I can find no references. Note that there is an article for Higher_Institute_of_Ballet that includes his name as professor. One option would be to redirect to that page, and include the small amount of information about him on that page. (That page, too, needs considerable work and has no references.) LaMona (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Op47 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Sultan Muhammad Khan Jadoon[edit]

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

Page seems insignificant, there appears to be no or little information on Google about the person, and the page has been tagged for over 3 years with no improvements. It is of no help to anyone. Kiwuser (talk) 01:19, 30 October 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 October 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If someone can provide a reference my opinion would be Keep regardless the length of the article. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Anyone know if this person exists in any of the Indian language-wikis?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously not notable. Op47 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local chieftains are not notable. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 12 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. No quorum (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David E Woodley[edit]

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

The subject appears to fail WP:BASIC (our general notability criterion for biographies) and, I suspect, all secondary guidelines as well. No sources currently presented in the article appear to even verify the subject exists, and all I could find online was IMDB, which I could login and edit if I wished (hence it fails WP:RS). VQuakr (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not a good quality article, but the person definitely exists and is a minor, but notable enough, actor. I looked at the WP article about his Home and Away character Joel Nash, and that has two reliable source references for him. Witty lama 20:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wittylama: the two sources at Joel Nash are [32], a primary source from the show's website; and [33], a book on Australian soaps in general. I do not have access to that book online, but it supports no information about Woodley whatsoever in the Nash article. Neither one meets the requirements listed at WP:BASIC. VQuakr (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Intimate Evening with Dream Theater[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:NMUSIC and WP:NCONCERT. An editor is creating a bunch of concert/tour articles for this band, (see Category:Dream Theater concert tours), all of which are based on fan forums, and all should be merged to a List of Dream Theater concert tours. I don't know how to nominate multiple articles for simultaneous discussion, but it'd be great if someone could. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources don't support this needing its own article –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with commenters above that this does not appear to be notable. Op47 (talk) 18:13, 8 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. SpinningSpark 12:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bentley (producer)[edit]

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

As I mentioned on the talk page there isn't anything notable about this Michael Bentley page to deserve an encyclopedic entry. Nothing is credible here.Sowhatchawant (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Renominated on behalf of User:Sowhatchawant. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a look over and removed some of the more problematic text but it's not clear if this person actually raises to the level of notability for a standalone article, I'm thinking a redirect might be more appropriate but then again it may just squeak by the GNG. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete. No credible sources.Sowhatchawant (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: the above was struck by User:Hell in a Bucket (diff). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - producers are extremely common; they almost always fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I don't see anything different from that general rule. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 12 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. SpinningSpark 12:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Shrestha[edit]

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

Delete, sources provided d not show that subject meets the guidelines for inclusion. Was thinking about deleting as blp prod but the two sources provided shows he exists buyt not much else. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the people who have been given authorization to keep/delete the article should be more serious in their works. It seems that some administrator belives that everything other user post should be a spam. Or perhaps they should take a holiday to freshen their mind. nirmal (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I {{prod}}-ed this one earlier -(diff.), at that time, it was an unsourced blp article. However, two sources has been added to the article since then, no one appears to be a reliable one though. Looking at the article and reading its contents the subject appears to be notable, -but in present shape given the lack of multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, -it doesn't meet the standard for inclusion for sure. I guess, there must be some sources in the Nepali media that Google doesn't index properly. Creator is requested to find and update the article with reliable sources having significant coverage of the subject, to save the article from deletion. If he really belonged to popular music band Crossroads in 90s and produced many popular songs, -he is supposed to have been written about -in contemporary newspapers or magazines. Subject is also said to have affiliation with a notable political party (Rastriya Prajatantra Party) and contesting the assembly election, -it gives me another clue that he was published in multiple reliable sources. One just needs to find them and update the article. Creator as a native(?) of the country of the subject may be able to perform to do this job. If none could be found around this time, the article unfortunately has to go. One may re-create it on availability of the the same. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I found links in itunes. But the website of Rastriya Prajatantra Party has not kept the list as candidate.nirmal (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Running for office doesn't grant automatic notability nor does being part of a band. There's a lack of significant independent coverage. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. But problem is to find the reference from the past articles espcially from country like Nepal.nirmal (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- It seems his music was of some significance. According to this scholarly music journal Echo published by UCLA, Greene, Paul D. (Fall 2005). "Echoes in the Valleys:A Social History of Nepali Pop in Nepali's Urban Youth Culture, 1985-2000". Echo. 7 (2). University of California at Los Angeles. ISSN 1535-1807. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), Shrestha was noted for fusing western and Nepali music. Although the paragraph about him is only 9 sentences, it suggests there is probably more substantial coverage in Nepali sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: CactusWriter's sources and views require further discussion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 17:50, 6 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sagal[edit]

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

fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability per nom. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing sources which would evidence notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:17, 14 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meade Kincke[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Played an uncredited role in 22 Jump Street and a bar patron in Knucklehead. No noteworthy roles. page was created by a user MKincke - possible COI Gbawden (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is weird. With the exception of the IMDB link, all of the 7 sources are related to Kincke as a mixologist. 4 of them are blogs. The other 3 are from food writers at The Times-Picayune, which might be of interest, but the articles are all just lists of recipes, doesn't really comment on the notability Kincke or of the drinks he's made. Cannolis (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT with no truly notable roles. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katarína Manová[edit]

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

The only real credible claim of notability for this person is that she won a non-notable pageant. None of the other pageants appear to be notable in themselves. I do not see how she passes general notability guidelines otherwise - I do see some articles in the Slovak press on Google, but quick translations suggest they are not much use as sources. Mabalu (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the main thing is that she is the 2006 winner of the Miss Intercontinental Pageant, which is not very notable, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2 see also the page in another language cs:Katarína Manová Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first time I've ever seen a snow delete AFD used as evidence that something is "very notable." Just because she has an equally poor page on Slovak Wikipedia (which I see is tagged for lack of source—s/verifiability) is hardly evidence of notability. Mabalu (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Kierzek (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry, but this model seems very run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Tobin (activist)[edit]

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

Basically unsourced biography of a living person. Five of the six references point towards the subject's own website, and the other ref is an ABC Chicago report that barely mentions him. The few points in his biography that might merit notability (worked at the Federal Reserve? Taught twenty years at Elmhurst College?) are unsourced. bender235 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As currently written he lacks the sources required to meet the GNG and being a candidate does not automatically guarantee notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't think we should go by the article as written. If we believe he has done notable things and those things are likely in the public domain, we should keep his article. His google news search results suggest that he is likely notable regardless of the state of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He gets a fair number of mentions in newspapers (and presumably other media that don't show up in a keyword search). According to this ad against his organization: " “Taxpayers United” is actually a tiny organization based in Chicago. It has only one full-time employee: its president, James Tobin, a former Elmhurst College economics professor who reportedly founded the organization back in 1976." I would think that if people take out ads against you, you are probably notable. I'd leave the article but with a "needs sources" banner. LaMona (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he has enough notability in reliable sources to qualify for an article, then I'd like to see somebody actually either update the article with better sources, or at least show some of them in this discussion — it's not enough to just assert that a topic has reliable source coverage without showing some concrete evidence of that. When I do the same Google News search that Tony the Tiger suggested, I get just two pages of hits, most of which aren't even about this Jim Tobin but about other people who merely happen to have the same name (the dominant ones being a VP for Monsanto and a university football coach) — and if I switch to general web search instead, I get mostly primary source hits and don't see evidence of enough RS coverage to pass WP:GNG. It's certainly possible that there may be better sources lurking in subscription news databases that I don't have access to, but there ain't much just sitting out there on Google as claimed. And at any rate, deletion at AFD does not create a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article — if someone can write and properly source a better article about him in the future, then they are allowed to do that regardless of the AFD result. So I have to go with the delete as things currently stand — without prejudice against the creation of a better version, citing better sources, in the future. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Brown, Mark (2011-09-24). "Isolationist's message can't be ignored - Tax foe's conspiracy theory is nonsense, but be ready: We'll be hearing it again". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
  The article notes:
  For 25 years, he has run a group called National Taxpayers United of Illinois, using that position and his newsletter to attack tax increases, seek tax cuts and decry wasteful spending.
  He claims to have the second-largest taxpayer group in the Midwest, with 10,000 members and 200 local affiliates around the state. That's probably exaggerated, but he's definitely not alone.
  Tobin gets his name in the newspapers a lot because if somebody proposes a tax increase, we can depend on him to be against it. We sometimes call him a conservative, but he prefers to think of himself as a libertarian. Either way, I'd say he's from the right of the political spectrum.
2. Hayward, Mark (2012-10-03). "State pensions called lavish by taxpayer group". New Hampshire Union Leader. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
  The article notes:
  Tobin also took issue with non-uniformed public workers, most who can retire at 60 and earn a pension of $12,474 for the average worker; $21,321 for teachers. They would also receive Social Security benefits, which are a maximum of $22,000 a year.
  “These are pampered government employees who get outrageous pension benefits and salaries,” he said. “My personal case is, I’m going to have to work until I drop to pay my bills, plus their lavish salaries.”
  Tobin said he founded Taxpayers United in 1976. It has an annual budget of about $300,000, a mailing list of about 30,000 members and a staff of eight.
3. Karlin, Rick (2012-03-21). "Public Pension 'Millionaires' Club". Times Union. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
  The article notes:
  "If we don't have (pension) reform, the checks will stop coming," Tobin said.
  This is the group's first trip to New York. It was created in 1976 by Christina Tobin's father, longtime anti-tax activist Jim Tobin, who in 2002 ran for Illinois lieutenant governor on the Libertarian line. The group has a long history of tangling with the public sector in that state: Last year, it went to court in a failed effort to block a near-doubling of tolls on Illinois highways.
4. "Tobin's take on international relations makes you wonder". The State Journal-Register. 2001-09-27. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
  The article notes:
  Over the years, JIM TOBIN has received a fair amount of ink in Illinois, playing the role of anti-tax crusader and sometime candidate - including an attempted run for governor as a Libertarian in 1998.
5. Ford, Mary Ann (2013-02-13). "Reformer touts ideas to pension 'activists'". The Pantagraph. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jim Tobin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:02, 15 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 to delete, and perhaps no consensus that the person even existed. Article may well wind up back at AfD, but it seems there is sufficient doubt at this time. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio DeVity[edit]

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

Artist that does not seem to meet WP:ARTIST or claim to significance. Only References to be found are from his galleries website or auction houses and art galleries selling his paintings. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 21 October 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 01:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly a prolific artist in his time, and has one work in a Liverpool collection [34] but while that could contribute towards WP:ARTIST criterion 4(d), it is insufficient. Happy to revise opinion though if someone can identify works in prominent public collections or critical coverage. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mind you, I saw Northamerica1000's relisting and I was going to just delete this, but thought I'd do a little snooping. It's quite amazing: there's next to nothing about this guy but his paintings are for sale all over the place. I found this here, which I was prepared to discard, but I read the page and developed some faith in the website's author. It's still no much but it's something. Let me ping the local art experts, Mandarax and Johnbod, who may be able to find something related to this sofa artist. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only ref is a no return dead link. Started by 1-edit account with apparent COI. I'd never heard of him. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep/Neutral - I found a few more bits of coverage, the best result of which is his birth name which gives another search term. I added the material in a way to help future researchers as I don't think this will survive AfD. The Oregonian doesn't indicate their sources for a Q &A and I'm not familiar with the Gallerie Molinas to know if it meets RS. I won't have time to dig on the name this weekend but I think we warrrants more digging. If I don't get back to this before it closes, please userfy for me. If I can't bring it up to par within a reasonable amount of time, I'll delete. StarM 03:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ - The artist seems to be a notable producer of that brand of artistic kitsch- "wet Parisian streets". A diurnal, low-rent John Atkinson Grimshaw. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Artist may not exist- the name appears to be the trading name of an "art studio" trading from the 1940s or 1950s. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that make it more fun? Drmies (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Saturday Night[edit]

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

Non-notable: no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Ibadibam (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Source examples include: Billboard magazine, Pitchfork, Huffington Post, Vice magazine, CMJ, Time Out (New York) (shorter article, 3 paragraphs). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good finds. Added to article's talk page. Ibadibam (talk) 22:53, 21 October 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 01:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per good finds by NorthAmerica1000. If no one else does, I'll try and add this material to the article in the next week or so. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Johan Neerman. a merge to Johan Neerman seems the best solution for now, with no prejudice against re-expansion to a separate article if things develop . doncram, you seem to understand the situation, so would you please do it? DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) (This also applies to Johanson3 scooters.) DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johanson3[edit]

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

This is a failed IndieGoGo project. It probably never should have been created anyway. The information that was in the article before I revised it was machine translated as well as extremely poorly sourced. I am also nominating the following related page because it is basically the exact same article:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightgalrs (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you are not there to put a personal statement. Articles have all necessary proof from verified sources listed below and for your information Company has registered branding, patents and concept and manufacturing the products now.Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I would really appreciate if before editing notes or making groundless opinion you would rely on reliable sources without violating content. Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 24 October 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 01:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The only more or less reliable source is a BBC blog, other refs are either dead or copy press releases. Lemnaminor (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johanson3 articles[edit]

I cannot not agree with Lemnaminor as articles have more than BBC blog. Please have a look at http://www.gizmodo.de/2014/09/09/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter.html http://www.techfieber.de/2014/08/31/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter-video/ http://goodcrowd.info/post/93407293659/belgian-transport-designer-johan-neerman-announces http://www.industrie-techno.com/le-velo-solaire-qui-veut-remplacer-la-voiture.32282 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/innovative-approach-personal-mobility-launches-111400050.html Also check company data at http://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/toonondernemingps.html?ondernemingsnummer=837049028 Johanson3 product holds several patents on innovation and technology. You can find this information by doing your homework on google. This proves the uniqueness of the product and its originality. Before expressing unvalid statements and give personal opinion please do your research on the subject. I would like to encourage you also to have a look at the story of this company and their background http://archives.lesoir.be/neerman-dans-le-metro_t-20000819-Z0JKRZ.html/ http://archives.lesoir.be/100-vagues-a-lames-l-irresistible-legerete-de-l-alu-les_t-20030307-Z0MWVF.html http://neerman.net You can find more information in the books, journals, printed editions and archives noted at the page of the owner of the company as it was created in 1967 and internet at that time was not so popular. Nominator Brightgalrs appears to have no expertise in the field and seems to focus on ( please follow the link) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brightgalrs which makes his statements suspicious of any decent contribution to the page - Regards, - Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johanson3 and related articles[edit]

I am really keen on removing AFD template and closing this discussion. For the following reasons:

It was open for more than 7 days already and didn’t receive any negative feedback from the other editors (In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days to allow interested editors adequate time to participate)
Written article has all necessary proof of trustworthy; also status data of the company is currently available on internet and the state website. If nominator Brightgalrs cannot find it I encourage him to have a look at http://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/toonondernemingps.html?ondernemingsnummer=837049028 (A "speedy keep" outcome is appropriate when the nomination unquestionably is an attempt to vandalize or to otherwise create disruption)
I see just negative erroneous that they indicate that the nominator Brightgalrs has not even read the article in question.

I also would like to ask the administrator to close this discussion and relist article. Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please: don't take these discussions personally. Going through your sources:

[35] shows that the company exists and is registered in Belgium - that in itself is not sufficient to indicate notability
neerman.net is a primary source
both lesoir articles do not mention Johanson3 at all
the gizmodo and techfieber articles are largely identical and appear to be German translations of the press release announcing the company's indiegogo campaign
the yahoo 'article' is that same press release
goodcrowd.info allows anybody to submit articles 'in the form of a standard press release': it does not seem a reliable source
industrie-techno.com is basically a French translation of the company's press materials. The article is placed in their design and mockup section, indicating that there is no real product yet.

That leaves the BBC blog as the only more or less RS and leads to the conclusion that this company and its proposed product are not notable. In addition, Julia Williams123 seems to be a SPA with a very close connection to the subject: this user almost exclusively edits articles on the Neerman family and companies, or inserts pictures of the Johanson3 into vaguely related articles.--Lemnaminor (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with you. LeSoir article is destined to speak about the creator behind the johanson3 series. If you do understand French you will see that the inventor has notable background by designing various transport systems in Europe which is recognized worldwide. The Name of Johan Neerman is clearly identifiable in this article. You can also follow that the same person is the creator of the range of the johanson3 e-bikes and the creator of the company. The link to Website provided proves that the company exists and in good standing. It is not a company directory that you may consider not verified it’s a government website with all data registration. Regarding articles in Gizmodo, Techfieber, Yahoo, Industrie–techno, photovoltaic and others they were all written by different editors. You can find the name of the editors. Yes indeed they all talk about johanson3 like a new way of transportation but they are not like you call identical as they are put by different editors and in different languages nothing to do with a copy of press release. All links provided above proves the information to be only of a professional nature with no personal point of view. It seems that you keep disliking professional publications for more personal reasons than professional ones as you have not read them thoroughly. Regarding comment of “not notable”. Company and product johanson3 own several international patents. Do your homework on google it will give you some more thought. Among of all reasons for deletions I cannot find any that will be related to the articles. I see just a person giving his personal views by trying to impose weak conclusions about the company. Facts are there. Apparently you did not check good enough the reliable sources that I have provided you. I understand that may be you have your personal opinion and strong feelings about and the inventor. It would be greatly appreciated if you would try not to violate content.

Regarding my close connection to the subject I’m quite happy that you understand that I write always in the same field of transportation also please note that nor Brightgalrs nor Lemnaminor (talk) have no experience in writing in the field of transportation or any close related field. See bellow

List of predicted dates of the end of the world or similar events
List of people who have claimed to be Jesus
Forest swastika
Calculator spelling
Manhattanhenge
Arcaicam Esperantom
James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher
Dick Assman
I, Libertine
Naked Came the Stranger
Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D
Wilhelm scream
Ferret legging
Small penis rule
Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan

Regards, - Julia Williams123

First, it doesn't really matter who actually nominates an article for deletion. Second, the references are utter crap end of story. The first sentence of the article "Johanson3 scooters are made of a range of 5 light electric stable (trikes)with 4Kw maximum that have high payload capacity and the natural extension of the pedestrian due to its high sitting position." is supported by [36] and [37] as references. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 04:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the BBC blog counts towards notability (after having jumped through hoops to view it as BBC Worldwide is not accessible from the UK, apparently we are not part of "the world"), but by itself it is not enough to establish notability per WP:N — "multiple sources are generally expected". All the rest of the sources are company listings or PR fluff. This may be notable one day, but right now it is WP:TOOSOON.

I would also like to comment that the long diatribe by Julia Williams123 against her opponents is just not acceptable here. It is cluttering the page and doing your case no good. It is the strength of policy based arguments that count, not what articles the participants have been editing, or anything else about them personally. SpinningSpark 19:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.I don’t like to repeat myself but I would like to explain you once more regarding this issue of notability. Its notable simply because never anyone delivered a product like that before despite notes from Brightgalrs. Please note it’s not a designer’s concept or just idea. These are 5 engineered products by johanson3 company.

List of the articles listed below has nothing to do with PR fluff. They are from wellknown proven international resources. I like the way you guys critisize my article but you don’t know what you are talking about. Also regarding your comment about “diatribe by Julia Williams123 against her opponentsis just not acceptable” I consider that I have my right here like the author of the article to explain my work by adding valid arguments. If you do have an issue with innovation in mobility why using Wikipedia for it? You can complain to its inventor who owns intellectual property on his innovations. You seem to be rather desperate in trying trying to push always the same song by trying to impose personal views and issues with the topic which has nothing to do with the quality of the content of these articles which brings all the necessary proof of their reliability. Here is some statement of notability 1. This range of products are significant involvement by a notable person (in our case Johan Neerman ) and is a major part of his career. I think it will be totally insain to challenge work done in the past by Johan Neerman and company Neerman Consulting which designed major transport systems worldwide. The product represents a unique accomplishment in the field as it was never creadted before. More over its patented for various technologies. Please pay attention its not passing along random gossip like you may say it’s the famous publications and reputable independent media sources. And article complies fair and balanced Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. They are not advertising a product their just tell why its notable and innovative. Before Writing just about BBC look at http://www.gizmodo.de/2014/09/09/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter.html http://www.techfieber.de/2014/08/31/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter-video/ http://www.industrie-techno.com/le-velo-solaire-qui-veut-remplacer-la-voiture.32282 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/innovative-approach-personal-mobility-launches-111400050.html Vorsatz William (October 2014). "Dreirad mit Solardach". Photovoltaik 99: 96. I hope this time I answer your questions and I dont see the point to keep going with the same idea as article contain not just BBC source. Read it carefully. If you don’t like the article or the product please note its not a reason to not recognize notability. Also the last but not the least note. Look at Notability there stated: “Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.” Please keep in mind that also. Best regards, your devoted Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Its notable simply because never anyone delivered a product like that before", that's not how Wikipedia defines notability and is not a valid argument for keeping a page. Please listen to what other people are telling you, no one is proposing deletion because they don't like the product, that is irrelevant and another pointless attack on fellow editors. Lemnaminor has already made an assessment of your sources and I am going along with that until there is some evidence to the contrary. SpinningSpark 21:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (struck duplicate !vote).Please read ones more definition of notability by Wikipedia and its connection with my subject :

1. This range of products are significant involvement by a notable person (in our case Johan Neerman ) and is a major part of his career. I think it will be totally insain to challenge work done in the past by Johan Neerman and company Neerman Consulting which designed major transport systems worldwide. 2. The product represents a unique accomplishment in the field as it was never created before. More over it’s patented for various technologies. Please pay attention its not passing along random gossip like you may say it’s the famous publications and reputable independent media sources. Also the last but not the least note. Look at Notability there stated: “Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.” Please keep in mind that also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Williams123 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“Regarding pointless attack on fellow editors )))” Its what I see in my case. I just replying to justify and protect my article nothing personal. “This is a failed IndieGoGo project. It probably never should have been created anyway” Brightgalrs “In addition, Julia Williams123 seems to be a SPA with a very close connection to the subject” Lemnaminor

I see just negative erroneous and my fellow editors don’t look at the facts. Who is attacking? Best regards, your devoted Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and Lemnaminor's compelling analysis of the sources. Note: It appears that the same account was used to vote keeep twice. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with Lemnaminor's point. LeSoir article is destined to speak about the creator behind the johanson3 series. If you do understand French you will see that the inventor has notable background by designing various transport systems in Europe which is recognized worldwide. Following that some statement of notability This range of products are significant involvement by a notable person (in our case Johan Neerman ) and is a major part of his career.

The Name of Johan Neerman is clearly identifiable in this article. You can also follow that the same person is the creator of the range of the johanson3 e-bikes and the creator of the company. The link to Website provided proves that the company exists and in good standing. It is not a company directory that you may consider not verified it’s a government website with all data registration. Regarding articles in Gizmodo, Techfieber, Yahoo, Industrie–techno, photovoltaic and others they were all written by different editors. You can find the name of the editors. Yes indeed they all talk about johanson3 like a new way of transportation but they are not like you call identical as they are put by different editors and in different languages nothing to do with a copy of press release. All links provided above proves the information to be only of a professional nature with no personal point of view. [[User:Julia Williams123 |Julia Williams123] — Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge, probably to Johan Neerman or to a new section Johan Neerman#Johanson3 and leave redirects behind, and possibly protect the redirects from editing by non-administrators. The product seems pretty cool. However it is wp:TOOSOON to be covered separately in Wikipedia, as there seem to exist only press-release-type coverage, not reliable source (wp:RS)-type reviews by others. If the product is so great (which it does look like it might be, in my non-professional opinion), then it will eventually get wp:RS type coverage. But Wikipedia needs to follow, not lead, in giving out info, and should generally state what secondary/tertiary sources say about something. The main characteristic of the product is that it has a great design, attributed to designer Johan Neerman, and asserted by Julia Williams123 above to be "a major part of his career". So, why not create a section about this great design in Johan's article. And redirect from Johanson3 to there, for now, at least until separate notability of Johanson3 becomes established. This preserves edit history, better for the record if/when notability is established. I then suggest that Julia Williams123 or other editors plan to create a future, better article in the Articles For Creation wp:AFC process, in the future, to replace the redirect, eventually, assuming reliable sources are given so that AFC editors will approve the new article. I think this is best... --do ncr am 00:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with the "merge" suggestion. This particular product is not yet out of the starting gate, so adding the information to the page for Johan Neerman (where other products are also listed) gives it a holding place for now. Should the product gain notability, it can be separated out. LaMona (talk) 23:29, 12 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. Delete all except Summit Series (conference) SpinningSpark 12:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Leve[edit]

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

fails WP:BASIC UW Dawgs (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Each of the individuals are represented as being affiliated with the Summit Series. All are articles are lightly sourced, edited by a handful of Editors/WP:SOCKPUPPET, and written in a self-promotional style. Taken together, it has the appearance of puffery and marketing material, against WP:NOTADVERTISING.

Additionally, the Pete Gross article was created by moving the established Pete Gross article to Peter R. Gross. Similarly, Jeff Rosenthal was created after the establish article was moved to Jeffrey S. Rosenthal. While this AFD is not a page move (or DAB) request, those will likely follow pending the outcome of these AFDs. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have only considered Ryan Begelman, which is part of WP:CHICAGO. His bio is really a summary of the companies he is involved in rather than a true biography. Unless sources can be found to present biographical details, I am in favor of Deleting the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I have no opinion about the articles focusing on individuals, as I have had no involvement with these (and was not even aware of their existence until tonight). However, Summit Series (conference) was my research and writing effort, and I am confident that it both easily passes WP:GNG and, at least as of the last time I contributed to it, had no WP:NOTADVERTISING issues. Even if such issues have arisen since then, this would be cause for cleanup, not for bringing to AfD. Disclosure: I initiated the creation of this article in December 2011 as an outside consultant for Summit Series. An uninvolved editor reviewed, approved and moved it at the time, as I explained on the article's Talk page. Once live, I made only cosmetic changes to the article directly, however this predated Jimbo's "Bright Line" advisory and I would not make direct edits again. Given the preceding, I request that this one AfD nomination be withdrawn, so that discussion may continue regarding the others. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 03:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, withdrawn. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gross, Bisnow, Rosenthal, Begelman per WP:BASIC,~~GNG~~, also appears to violate WP:NOTADVERTISING and PROMO. The rationale of @TonyTheTiger applies to all four individuals whose articles are (customized) boilerplate copies of one another. Quis separabit? 21:45, 26 October 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 01:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the five biographies, which rely on trivial/promotional mentions in material relating to the mens' businesses. Notability is not inherited from their businesses. One can't ignore the self-advertising aspect, either. The fact that Jeffrey S. Rosenthal and Peter R. Gross were both arbitrarily moved is a clear sign of promotional intent with no respect for Wikipedia's purpose. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriel1981: Quite a well-worded argument. Quis separabit? 18:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¡Gracias! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No hay de que. Quis separabit? 23:42, 17 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. Most of this debate has pointlessly been taken up with a procedural wrangle over the propriety of renominating. My ruling on that is that the first AFD was closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination so this AFD is perfectly proper. I note that the first AFD could have legitimately been closed delete on the sole recommendation of the proposer at the discretion of the closing admin. This AFD has had little more (constructive) participation. Nevertheless, what there is, is for delete. No prejudice against recreation if acceptable sources come to light. SpinningSpark 13:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arina Avram[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first AfD was a dud. Let's hope this one isn't. Aside from the fact that neither of the two links recently added bolster a claim to notability (a publisher's blurb and an Amazon sale page), I have nothing else to add. The arguments for deletion were thoroughly explained at the first deletion discussion, and I encourage participants to read through them before making up their minds. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is one of those subjects with sources in predominantly non-English sources that gives the impression of notability (between the sources themselves and taking a look at her own work) without clearly meeting any of the notability criteria based on what I have the capability of assessing. Holding out on !voting weak delete to see what else comes up (hopefully someone with more knowledge/experience with Romanian). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close This topic has already been at AfD since October 5, and the community has spoken. WP:NPASR is not a reason to tongue-lash the AfD volunteers for not doing more work. @Northamerica1000: Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The original AfD failed to draw any !votes other than the nom's. In such cases I believe a speedy renomination is pretty normal (and/or accepted), but I could be wrong. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around AfD long enough to know that leaving discussions open for three weeks is a recent development. If after three weeks the topic needed more discussion, why was the AfD closed? Answer: it was time to make a decision and move on. AfD counts are at record levels, and (I think it is User:DGG who has said that) participation is dropping. What is so urgent about the current discussion that it couldn't have waited for two months? Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a serious lack of input, the close for the first AfD discussion was a textbook case of invoking WP:NPASR. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if so, then go on, what have you got? Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: You intended "a textbook case" as a figure of speech, not as a WP:V reference. There is no textbook, so your claim is unreferenced. To the extent you are claiming yourself as an authority, this is the appeal to authority fallacy. Unscintillating (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Unscintillating: Per WP:NPASR, "If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Common options include, but are not limited to:"....."closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR)". (Underline emphasis mine). WP:NPASR is the "textbook" in my "textbook case" metaphor. My close of the previous discussion was quite reasonable. I feel that the speedy renomination of the article is warranted in this case per the previous close I performed relative to the lack of input at the previous discussion. If you want the article retained, please consider providing guideline-based rationales that qualify the subject's notability, such as independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Thanks. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any reason why a renomination couldn't have waited the conventional two months.
I also see a procedural conflict here if the 1st AfD closing is overturned by the closer, an administrator, or taken to DRV. What happens to the current discussion? Any argument on the merits is now confounded by the 2nd AfD.
Opining that I work on the nomination's agenda is off topic and IMO dismissive. In the context it is also supporting the nomination viewpoint that the AfD community did an inadequate job in the first AfD, which IMO is not support for building an encyclopedia.
The comment to save the article hearkens back to the WP:ARS viewpoint that nominations create rescue opportunities. Articles are not born needing to be saved, because in general as per WP:AGF, we assume that they meet our guidelines. Unscintillating (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: Thanks for the reply. The logic is pretty simple that if the topic at the 1st AfD needed more discussion, you could have relisted it, which you did not do, and IMO for good reason. These reasons are discussed at WP:RELIST. WP:NOQUORUM also provides for a No Consensus closure without WP:NPASR, which I hope is a point that you will now consider. Unscintillating (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems like the abstract discussion above has run its course, so hopefully we can get back on track and discuss relevant issues, like why this article should (or should not) be deleted. To that end, allow me to address the point raised by Rhododendrites.
In evaluating the subject's notability, it's natural to turn to WP:AUTHOR. I think it's pretty clear the subject fails to meet points 1, 2, 3 and 4 a, b and d; I certainly see no indication to the contrary. As for 4 c ("has won significant critical attention"), I think she fails that too. We have here a mention of one of her books, although only one sentence in that brief paragraph directly relates to the book. And here, in a source that is at best marginally reliable, we have another brief review. And that's it. By no impartial standard can this be considered "significant critical attention".
(If you'd like to see what "significant critical attention" means in the Romanian context, have a look at the reviews for Ioan T. Morar's Negru şi Roşu, here and here and here and here and here and here and here. That is significant critical attention, not what Avram managed to garner.)
Moreover, the subject utterly fails WP:BASIC: "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." In spite of diligently searching, I, a Romanian speaker, have managed to unearth no quotable sources about the subject.
I understand that Avram seems notable, a perception perhaps augmented by the similar articles foisted onto fr.wiki, es.wiki, it.wiki and sv.wiki by the single-purpose account who spammed this project too with an article about her. I just hope I've shown why, in fact, she isn't. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that you decline to withdraw your renomination for two months? Why is that? Unscintillating (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you're trolling. I'm going to ignore you as long as you troll, and so should everyone else. Of course, if you have a constructive comment to contribute on the question of Arina Avram's notability, I will be glad to engage you in dialogue. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all convinced by the strength of your argument that there is a reason that this discussion cannot be postponed two months. Unscintillating (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: You've not responded to my comment of 14:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC). One of the points there was WP:RELIST, which says, "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended". This topic has been at AfD since October 5. Why did you relist? Unscintillating (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JTdale and Rhododendrites, could I perhaps prevail upon you both to register a clear vote, whatever it may be? I believe I have set out a fairly tight case for deletion, and that you should take this into account. I will also note that in the month this has spent at AfD, only the feeblest objections to deletion have been made, and certainly no convincing indication of notability has emerged. Finally, if you do both take part, this discussion will close and we won't have to put up with Unscintillating's trolling anymore. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, I didn't receive a notification for the ping above. The above was the first relisting for this discussion. The previous discussion was closed after two relistings as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination, which User:Biruitorul subsequently performed. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator's extensive justifications on this page and the original AFD provide a compelling argument that this should be deleted on general notability grounds, not to mention the evidence that the article is promotional in nature. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centauros del pasado[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTFILM; this film has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is a single reference in the Spanish article that can be used to verify the film's existence, but even with the other external links (Cinenacional.com, Internet Movie Database) this is not significant coverage in reliable sources. The film is mentioned as one of the works of various people (for example: [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]), but those are biographies of people, not material about this film. The most interesting thing I've been able to find is what appears to be a photo related to this film.[46] I don't think this is enough. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh666 06:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It won the Silver Condor Award for Best Original Screenplay - surely that would equate to some notability? Dr. Blofeld and MichaelQSchmidt - thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added yestedray a source which mentions specifically the film, and also the award hints that there is notability. It is that we are lazy to go to a library and look at 1944-45 Argentinian newspapers which are presumably not online.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a suitable sourced stub article. Being an historical biopic written and released in Argentina during final days of World War II, this film would not receive coverage in countries with bigger issues filling their headlines, but as an important part of Argentine cinema history it has become part of the the written histories of Argentine film. Perhaps someone in Argentina collected newspapers in 1944 and saved them for 70 years. Also, it appears this film found its way into a National Archive to meet WP:NF through its "other evidence of notability#4" Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must say that, at the very least, the current article looks a lot better than when I nominated it. I didn't know about the award; increases its notability. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Award winning film, and notable for the reasons outlined by MQS above. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:51, 6 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 Red (Taylor Swift album) . While there was no argument for notability at all, there was also only one argument advanced in favor of, and none against, a redirect, and WP:ATD gives us a reason to prefer the redirect j⚛e decker ^talk 20:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ground (Taylor Swift song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS not only for lacking significant coverage from reliable third-party sources that aren't album reviews, but also for not having enough solo information to grow beyond a stub. WP:CFORK at best. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG completely. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album) per IndianBio and SNUGGUMS. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another song which has received no more than routine mentions in reviews of the album it belongs to. The album is obviously available to download track-by-track. But that doesn't mean that all the songs have the status of singles, as evidenced by lack of in-depth coverage. Weak content forks only water down Wikipedia. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:07, 14 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tocquigny[edit]

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

Non-notable agency. Orange Mike | Talk 01:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The agency holds a prominent local reputation as evidenced by its inclusion in a recent Advertising Age article detailing the growing advertising/tech industry in Austin. Advertising Age The agency's involvement in SXSW should also be noted on the page Zagat Chief Marketer to improve the notability. I've begun updating and citing the awards section to showcase some of the agency's more recent notable activity. - McPetersJ (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. The Advertising Age story and the Zagat article (which is really a promotional piece) linked above barely mention the agency. I don't see much in the way of anything that might meet WP:RS and that isn't routine local coverage. The awards, quite frankly, don't appear to convey any sort of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was a 65 person firm back in 2006, per the Austin Business Journal article (included in the article) about it back then. That is one substantial coverage article on its own. The awards do matter; they do establish notability. --do ncr am 17:38, 17 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 23:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Whittleman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player who fails WP:BASE/N and, though attempts have previously been made to prove WP:GNG, one believes such attempts were not sufficient. He never reached the major leagues, nor did he hold any roles at the major league level. Seeing as how he was a second round draft pick, one would assume there'd be at least one profile article out there or something significant, but nothing of note has apparently surfaced. Alex (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep' Last time, I said keep. This time, I'll soften that just a bit. I found sources last time (this, this, this, this, this, this, and this). Now I can add this, this, and this. It's not a helluva lot, but I still think he scrapes by. Maybe I'll actually add the sources to the article this time, if it isn't deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see the sources from Muboshgu above, but most of them seem like routine coverage. Doesn't pass GNG to me--Yankees10 16:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not play in a fully professional league, and the sources are not sufficient for WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Monte (racing driver)[edit]

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

Per WP:NMOTORSPORT Marcelo Monte could apparently in theory have an article because he raced once in the 24 Hours of Le Mans; however, per WP:BASIC ("A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.") he does not in the practice qualify for an article. To make matters worse, Mathias karl estress (the creator of the article) has been asked repeatedly on his talk page to add references to this BLP, yet he has ignored this request. But what makes this article fatally flawed is that it consists primarily of a copy-paste translation job of a blog entry in Portuguese created by the aforementioned Mathias Karl Estress, as can be verified here. A hypothetical article about Marcelo Monte would have to be created from scratch. Dontreader (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" I still believe that the article is fatally flawed, but in theory Marcelo Monte qualifies for an article on Wikipedia per WP:NMOTORSPORT, so I will take less drastic measures concerning the article than an attempt to delete it. Please close this discussion. Thanks... Dontreader (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esta pagina é baseada em fatos reais e o autor assim o comprovou, tambem pesquisei esse piloto e todas as informações do autor são verdadeiras, é um erro deletar esta pagina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavio Teixeira Prado (talk • contribs) 15:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Flavio Teixeira Prado, Você não é objetivo. O artigo vem de seu blog:

http://flaviossteixeiraprado.blogspot.com/2014/09/origem-wikipedia-enciclopedia-livre.html Como você explica isso? Você não compreende Inglés e Você não compreende a Wikipedia. Essa é uma receita para o desastre, se você quiser criar um artigo na Wikipedia Inglés. Dontreader (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with me being of Portugal, just use a translator, I met a child Marcelo Lot personally when he ran here in Estoril, don't put anything on my blog, without search, if it is proven that he ran LE MANS, that you too agree, it is obvious that he had to go through the other categories, he also appears in references of STOCK CAR BRAZIL, as stated in LE MANS, and can be checked, alias still in activity in the STOCK CAR BRAZIL, can prove if you want, many of the existing profiles on WIKIPEDIA has the EXTERNAL LINKS extracted from own WEB SITES that person being made the biography, its deletion has no basis whatsoever, I ask that you remove, not to harm nor my research nor the author of the pagethat's great career researcher and Austrian riders, I mean I understand English and also to Wikipedia, I'm not an idiot like you try to say, I'm a writer and I've never had confidence in my blog for writing things that do not match the truth, please use your talent for things more useful than deleting this page. Flavioss Teixeira Prado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavio Teixeira Prado (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Teixeira Prado, first of all, this is not Wikimedia Commons, where you can write in any language. This is the English-language Wikipedia, where you must write in English. If I want to contribute to the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, I must write in Portuguese there. I'm not saying that you are an idiot. I'm saying that you don't understand Wikipedia's most basic rules. I believe that what the Marcelo Monte article says is true, but Wikipedia has rules that must be followed, and you don't understand them. For example, read WP:UNSOURCED. There you will see this:

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

And do you know what a "reliable source" is? Read WP:SOURCES. You will find this:

"Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

That's why Mathias Karl Estress was asked to provide citations to reliable sources for the Marcelo Monte article, but he ignored that request. A person should contribute to Wikipedia for a long time, and learn the most important rules, before creating an article. Dontreader (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Karl Stress told me this bored and does not intend to further collaborate with Wikipedia, reliable sources in the post 3 passed, pilots Stock Car Brazil (picked up on Wikipedia), 24 hours Le Mans (picked up on Wikipedia) only external references that are from my blog, I've never had to remove any post for being fake, since they are the result of research and also claims that several external links from wikipedia are taken from web sites created by fans or by the own person this being written, I say dear Sir, with such evidence because you didn't remove the deletion. Cordially, Flavioss Teixeira Prado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavio Teixeira Prado (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Teixeira Prado, Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources. Read WP:WPNOTRS. It says:

"Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose."

And your blog cannot be used either. Read WP:USERGENERATED

"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."

As I said, you must learn the basic rules first. Dontreader (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[If the articles of Wikipedia (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose, so why you want to delete this article??? not condoning terrorism, not pedophilia because then???" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavio Teixeira Prado (talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If my blog cannot be used for both, for the Sir will not police and proposes deletion to the many pages of Wikipedia, use of external links to blogs and web sites for fans of the own person described??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavio Teixeira Prado (talk • contribs) 23:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Like I said, you have to learn the ground rules first, by researched all the rules were followed and whether the basic Sir check the history, there were many collaborations and now Sir comes wanting to delete and harm the work of new writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavio Teixeira Prado (talk • contribs) 00:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC) So for what Sir wrote the facebook page of Marcelo Monte can be used as external links??? Sir also said that this page does not follow the basic rules, so I googled follows all, Dear Sir please remove the deletion request, but we can continue to discuss the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavio Teixeira Prado (talk • contribs) 00:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Flavioss Teixeira Prado ( Portuguese - race car writer )[reply]

Flavio Teixeira Prado, external links serve a different purpose. It's OK for the article of a famous person to have an external link to his (or her) website. Read WP:EXT. Now look, I recently nominated another article for deletion, so don't take it personally. And I have tried to save some other articles from deletion. But I cannot nominate every bad article for deletion because I don't have time, and I cannot try to save many articles from deletion because I don't have time. Let me try to make this clear to you: if Marcelo Monte's article says that he takes painkillers (analgesicos), YOU MUST PROVIDE A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR THAT CLAIM. It's the same with many other things that are in the article. Where are the sources? Dontreader (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Teixeira Prado, this discussion is now closed because I am withdrawing the nomination for deletion. Someone will remove the deletion tag from the article in a couple of days (do NOT remove it yourself). I will take less drastic measures. Dontreader (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the analsegicos was known in an interview to Marcelo Monte in a Brazilian television talk show, not as check on Wikipedia, but I am VERY GRATEFUL for removing the DELETION, and help new writers of historical racing, sincerely grateful, Flavio Teixeira Prado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavio Teixeira Prado (talk • contribs) 13:50, 9 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. SpinningSpark 13:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wakes (band)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for musical groups. Only the fourth reference seems to be a substantial independent reference: The first two seem to be trivial mentions (or, if they're not, they may not be independent), and the third is not independent. There are no sources to substantiate the information about their musical style or influences. I cannot seem to find any additional sources. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of meeting WP:BAND. Virtually no reviews of their albums in reliable sources, for example. Jinkinson talk to me 01:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the improvements Dontreader has made to the article. While not all the sources in the article are reliable, enough are that I think WP:BAND is now met. Jinkinson talk to me 20:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have substantially improved the article, adding many references. Besides, when citing WP:BAND, don't forget this criterion:

"A musician or ensemble [...] may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: 5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." That criterion is met because they have released three albums on CD Baby, as you can see in the references now. The Irish Punk website that I found is not big but it's independent of the subject, and there's no reason to question its reliability, plus it addresses many of the previous concerns. Anon126 and Jinkinson, please examine the article now and reconsider. The band should be given some time to grow, and notability has been established already. Dontreader (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's one tiny problem with that: CD Baby is an online music store, not a record label. Other than that, I guess Punk.ie is reliable but the Guardian source only mentions the Wakes in passing. Thanks for your work, though. Jinkinson talk to me 20:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Jinkinson, I see that I was wrong about CD Baby. Thanks for pointing that out; however, I'll quote criterion #1 from WP:BAND:

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." And now I will quote from WP:GNG: 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. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

So let's see if we can agree on this matter. Here's my list of reliable, independent sources with significant coverage:

Irish Punk

STV

Schwäbisch Gmünd

Notice that Schwäbisch Gmünd mentions The Wakes several times, and Google Translate produces this text (for example):

Who said today's youth is apolitical: As singer Paul Sheridan midnight the song "Peat Bog Soldiers" intones one of the newest pieces from The Wakes, spontaneous cheers go through the "Esperanza". And immediately afterwards the mass singing of young guests the Irish version of "The Peat Bog Soldiers" with - the song with which in 1933 the prisoners wanted to do in Lower Saxony concentration camp Börgermoor himself courage. Since The Wakes set but the same two pieces on top of it derived from the Italian workers' movement and resistance against fascism during the Second World War: "Bandiera Rossa" and "Bella Ciao". "Irish Folk 'n Roll" called the band from Glasgow to their music style. With their newer pieces of punk rock are at least as strongly as from traditional Celtic music. But The Wakes have also ballads in the luggage, for example for social criticism football fans this evening. When The Wakes on stage in "Esperanza", may traditionally the St.Pauli-Antifa song "Pirates of the League" not missing. And in her new song "Colours" they sing their club "Celtic" and the stress of the city rivals "Glasgow Rangers".

Plus we have other strong sources with passing mentions but that also increase notability. And back to criterion #1 from WP:BAND, I quote: "This criterion includes published works in all forms". This does not exclude videos, so I'm adding this video to my list of reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. Do you agree with my list? If so, that's enough to establish notability, together with the passing mentions. Dontreader (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the video is a copyvio. If that's really the official account of FC St. Pauli, it's rather dilapidated. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anon126, who cares if it's a copyvio or not? That is not relevant to this discussion. Are The Wakes performing in Germany in that video in front of many thousands of people, who are clearly enjoying their performance, or not? Is it a reliable, independent source with significant coverage, or not? Or are you saying that this video was doctored? Dontreader (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dontreader, the copyright status is important, because linking to copyright-violating content is prohibited.

Leaving aside the copyright question, I believe it would be a reliable primary source, but only if it came from official materials. I would assume this is the case, based on the video's quality. But that is not certain, and if someone else took the video, it would not be reliable (having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"), nor would it be an acceptable self-source. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anon126, as I said, the copyright status is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about the survival of an article on Wikipedia which you wrongfully nominated for deletion. You wrote:

"There are no sources to substantiate the information about their musical style or influences. I cannot seem to find any additional sources."

Well, you clearly did not make the slightest effort to find additional sources before deciding to nominate this article for deletion. I found them very easily. And to make things worse, you are playing an obfuscation game with the video. The quote that you mentioned, having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" applies to written sources, such as the Daily Mail, tabloids, blogs, etc., but not this video. The video proves beyond any doubt that The Wakes performed before an enthusiastic crowd of thousands of people at a football stadium in Germany. If you think the video might be a hoax, feel free to invite some guys from Commons to this discussion. However, what really matters is that even taking the video out of the equation, temporarily, to annul your obfuscation tactics, we have three reliable, independent sources with significant coverage:

Irish Punk

STV

Schwäbisch Gmünd

Now tell me EXACTLY how many are required per WP:BAND since you're the expert and I'm the Novato. Oh, it doesn't specify that? Well, then why do you keep on insisting that this article should be pulverized? Plus some other sources that I found (again because you failed to make an effort) further enhance the notability of the band. Dontreader (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Dontreader: I believe there is some misunderstanding here, so I'll try to clarify some things:

It was not my intention to use the video as a proxy for notability as a whole, and I am not insisting that the article be deleted simply because the video is not included. I still believe that the video should not be included, but I recognize that there are other sources, and I apologize that I did not make that clear in my original comments.

I did make an effort to look for more sources. Clearly it was not thorough enough, and I apologize for that; however, I take offense in your claim that I "did not make the slightest effort." I appreciate your contributions to the article during this discussion, and the additional sources are pushing me towards keeping the article.

I am not "insisting" that the article be deleted. My opinion was not very strong at the beginning, and the additional sources further weaken my stance. However, I will not formally withdraw my nomination, because I believe others may have comments on the other sources.

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anon126, thank you very much for clarifying the situation. I became upset when after I listed several reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, you merely decided to question the copyright status of the video, without addressing the other sources. I apologize for stating that you did not make the slightest effort to find sources. That was inflammatory and uncalled for. I'm glad that you appreciate my contributions to the article. Thanks for saying that. I had never heard of The Wakes until I stumbled upon them in this AfD discussion. I have recently nominated a couple of articles for deletion, but I've also tried to save a couple. Anyway, many thanks again for your gracious comment, and I'm very sorry that I was rude to you. Dontreader (talk)

Comment. Anon126 and Jinkinson, after performing an advanced Google search in German, I found this article. The article discusses The Wakes exclusively, particularly in the context of one of their albums. The foul language seems to be part of the website's style, so that isn't a problem; however, please let me know if you think TRASHROCK MAG is a "reliable, independent source with significant coverage" (the key word here being "reliable"). The author of the article doesn't use his (or her) real name. The site's Facebook page has fewer than 300 likes; it claims to be "YOUR FAVORITE PUNKROCK-ZINE!!!" and "Trash Rock is the online offshoot of punk rock fanzines. The stretched middle finger." Thanks in advance. P.S. Please let me know that you are both watching this article, so that I won't have to ping you in the future. Dontreader (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also added this source to support content. Folk Punk is a German site but the author of this article also wrote it in English, which explains some limitations in terms of writing skills. There seems to be a printed edition. Anyway, in my opinion this is a "reliable, independent source with significant coverage". Agreed? Dontreader (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just added another German source (the official website of a German town). This article certainly is a "reliable, independent source with significant coverage". Dontreader (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jinkinson, you have not taken the time to make any improvements to the article. I don't criticize you for that, but you have ignored my attempts to reach consensus by ignoring the sources I have provided, even when I was directly addressing you. With so many articles in an AfD situation, I don't see the reason for having this one relisted a third time. Your voting rationale was based on the nominator's voting rationale. Since then, the nominator has admitted that his stance has been weakened by my improvements to the article. So how do you justify your delete vote (which was cast 19 minutes after the article was relisted) at this point in time? Once again, here's a list with possible ""reliable, independent sources with significant coverage":

I would very much appreciate your cooperation to try to reach consensus. Dontreader (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, and have a nice day. Dontreader (talk) 20:54, 9 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. Deor (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every Leaf[edit]

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

Appears to be a non notable album. If this was by THE Milla Jovovich then according to her bio her 2nd album (this one?) was never released. Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the complete absence of RS coverage, which is weird considering how notable Jovovich is, this might actually be a hoax. It seems like there's a song by her called "Every Leaf", but I could find no evidence at all that there was an album by her called this. Jinkinson talk to me 01:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The creator had a different article deleted for being an unsourced preview of a forthcoming album. I think we may presume that this was a similar case - a speculative project which never came to fruition... except on the pages of Wikipedia. If Jovovich had ever released the album, finding sources would be pretty easy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:49, 14 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Connan[edit]

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

I have looked for third party coverage of Connan but everything out there looks like promotion. Without detailed third party interest WP:GNG is not satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found some:

-what seems to be a Russian dance-music oriented blog: http://prophi-music.livejournal.com/431304.html

-interview with a writer: http://mshinafelt.blogspot.fr/2012/06/introducing-tom-connan.html

-a magazine music critique is available on IAE magazine (Wikipedia blacklisted site though). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinlived (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-and some DJ setlists playing some tracks: http://djallure32.podomatic.com/entry/2014-03-15T19_41_10-07_00 http://www.awesomedjproductions.com/trance.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinlived (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A blog is not suitable for a biography per WP:BLPSPS. An interview is a primary source, not a WP:SECONDARY one. A blacklisted magazine is not a reliable source. DJs playing tunes do not make for in-depth third party publications. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the interview was initially released on this website, and then on the blog: http://www.chorusandverse.com/blog.php?id=20120629A

Also, I don't think the Russian site is a blog, however I don't speak that language so it's a bit hard to know.

Eventually, "some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." (see WP:SPS). The previous link would fall into that category as for me.Justinlived (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Justinlived (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found another Russian website mentioning Connan's work, with a recent single: http://popforyou.ru/new/single/809-tom-connan-wanna-know-why.html Using Google translate, it seems that it's not a promotion, but rather a short critique. Justinlived (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also found a Vietnamese website mentioning what appears to be his last single -good comment, after using Google translate: http://nhacso.net/nghe-nhac/wanna-know-why.X1tUVkBcaA==.html Justinlived (talk) 20:43, 23 October 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 01:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. I'm correcting for format because the nominator used the wrong template to close it. Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Henein[edit]

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

This article was created shortly after it was announced that she had been retained by Jian Ghomeshi. She also represented Michael Bryant in a high profile case. Although these cases may be significant, the coverage has not been about her. The only coverage about her has been routine coverage of her cases and some coverage in an industry publication. She fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I'm now inclined to believe she meets WP:GNG.Tchaliburton (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. She is a lawyer, so the sources that call her notable are from Canadian Lawyer magazine. If an article for a musician was created, would you argue they failed WP:GNG because all the articles about her were from music magazines? Or an article about a scientist who had coverage in scientific magazines? I read GNG, and it doesn't disallow industry magazines as sources. Her coverage in the industry publication calls her one of the top 25 lawyers in Canada. P.S. I created this article OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that industry publications can't contribute to notability, I'm just saying there isn't enough here to satisfy WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional criteria: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times"; She won the Legge Award for Canadian women lawyers, which "recognizes women lawyers from Ontario who have exemplified leadership within the profession."

^[1] OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Many of the other lawyers in the Top 25 lawyers in Canada are in Wikipedia. None of the women are. Maybe the issue isn't that she shouldn't be included but, rather, one where the others should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicegw 001 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.lsuc.on.ca/laura-legge-award/

Oppose. The Ghomeshi nonsense is still sub judice and there's likely plenty more news to come out in mainstream Toronto media because of it. We should let that run its course. K7L (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Click on the "news" link in the template above yields an impressive amount of Gnews coverage that easily satisfies WP:BASIC. Prominently mentioned in Michael Bryant's book 28 Days, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Chyba[edit]

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

I have not found any significant quantity of notable sources that could suggest notability. A previous speedy deletion was withdrawn so that the creator and main contributor to the article could find better references, but the article still relies on a single primary source and on the web I've found mainly primary or affiliated sources. I've searched for this name in Google News and Yahoo! News and I have not found any citation. I'm opening an AfD so that other editors could contribute to ascertain the notability of this person. LowLevel73^(talk) 00:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

As this page is less than 24 hours old and the 5th was Bonfire night, I have not had a reasonable or significant time to add more sections to the page. I have been working on three other pages, specifically the Pirate Party Wales, Pirate Party UK and Bridgend (UK Parliament constituency) which currently intertwine so I would ask that more time be allocated so that their purposes become clear.

Here are some quick bullet points for why Andy is notable:

He is the prospective Wales Green Party Leader and there is a Green Party Surge in the UK at the moment
He is running for MP in Bridgend and there is a Green Party Surge in the UK at the moment
He was the lead candidate for Green MEP but stepped down to support an MEP from a different party - unprecedented and big news
His views on fracking is deemed news worthy by multiple sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drowz0r (talk • contribs) 00:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Chyba can be found in many places online. This will be a bit of a mess and in no particular order, so some sources will be better than others, I've not had time to sort them yet:

World View Show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPN7eLcmSBM#t=16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D3BTXyuRos

Green Party official blog:

http://bridgendgreens.net/

Bright Green:

http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/tag/andy-chyba/

Andy has a book published called "The Asylum of the Universe"

RT News Speak with Andy on anti-fracking

http://rt.com/op-edge/fracking-renewable-energy-policy-116/ http://rt.com/news/chevron-fracking-protest-clashes-884/

Andy Chyba "live" on RT news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ep1G8lSsJA (at around 2:21)

The Green Dragon:

http://agreenwales.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/we-are-backing-pippa.html Backing for Andy's opposition but quite a lot of mentioning on Andy here

Guardian (left wing news paper, big in the UK) news paper, one of the many people credited was Andy Chyba:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/26/green-party-immigration

Wales Online (Welsh newspaper, big in Wales where Andy is residing):

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/campaigners-raise-alarm-over-proposed-1855462

Obviously these will take time to go through to find the most significant parts. There are no doubt other links that I've just not really gone through yet.

Additionally perhaps more recognisable sources of information such as the BBC often do not give any coverage to The Green Party (the Green Party are currently threatening to press legal action because of this) so alternative sources are generally where you find information on them, such as independent blogs or alternative news channels like RT.

Another I found about Andy Chyba: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012514505415433.ht

The sources just need compiling into something more readable and in a better order... are are no doubt other sources, I just need more time to put them together. You'll see my edit history is rather large :)

Drowz0r (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drowz0r (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claims of notability present in the article are not things that get a person into Wikipedia — they boil down to candidacies for offices that the subject hasn't won, which fails WP:NPOL. And nearly all of the improved sources that Drowz0r offered above don't get him over WP:GNG either, as most of them are primary sources — and he's not the subject of the few that are properly reliable, but is merely namechecked as the provider of a short comment about something else (which doesn't confer encyclopedic notability either). And publishing a book isn't a free notability pass either — writers don't get Wikipedia articles until you can source them past WP:CREATIVE. So no, there isn't any substantive demonstration of notability here. No prejudice against recreation if and when he wins an office that would get him over a notability hump, but right now he's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When and if he's elected to one of these offices then we can reconsider. Otherwise he's not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, generally our practice is to create articles after a politician has been elected, unless they're clearly notable for other reasons (which it seems Chyba is not). I see no compelling reason to make an exception here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 14 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.

[1] ttp://www.lsuc.on.ca/laura-legge-award/

[1]