Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 January 15 January >

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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. Ryan Stradal[edit]

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

Limited evidence of notability. Article seems to have been created to support launch of a book. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2015 (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. Article has been improved above my expectations (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Vincent[edit]

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

First off, fails WP:BLP for lack of sources. Second, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO (again, mainly due to lack of sources). Third, article is written like a biography instead of an encyclopedia entry. It will be easier to start from a blank slate rather than hack and slash what's currently there to shoehorn it into conforming to Wikipedia's standards. In other words, BLOWITUP. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT it. Unless it's improved before the AfD is over, the current COI editing, lack of sources, and improper tone would make me think it's better to start over from a clean slate - when an editor with no COI writes about him. — kikichugirl speak up! 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Sources are being added and that was the main weakness. Improvement is in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boozybuckeye (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this might be a sockpuppet or possibly a meatpuppet. No contributions except to this question. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 22:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I object to the claims this entry should be considered for deletion.

There appear to be no lack of sources. There are multiple citations throughout the entry. All sources meet Wikipedia's criteria as acceptable for citation. In addition to 25 other citation sources, the subject is being used as a self-published source, meaning specifically the subject's personal website is a credible source for citation. The self-published website meets Wikipedia's criteria for acceptability because it is not self-serving, does not involve claims about third parties, does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, there is no reason to doubt its authenticity, and (MOST IMPORTANTLY) the Wikipedia entry does not rely on it as a primary source.

Also, as to the claim of Conflict of Interest, this entry does not promote self interest; there are no sales links or tour dates. The entry accurately and dispassionately outlines the artist's life and work. The POV is neutral, the information contained in the entry is verifiable, and original research is not presented or cited. It appears the burden of evidence has been met by the editors of this entry.

As to the claim of this entry reading like a biography, here is a clip from Wikipedia's entry on that topic: "a biography presents a subject's life story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experience, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality." This entry does not present the subject's life story and there are no intimate details or discussion of personality. The entry in question reads more like a CV and contains only verifiable information regarding the artist's professional work. In fact, I would offer that most encyclopedia entries contain much more personal information (i.e. early life, marriage, children, controversy, etc) than the one we are debating here. Furthermore, biographies of living persons are acceptable entries. Wikipedia's guidelines dictate biographies need to be written in a conservative and respectful manner with consideration of the subject's privacy. This entry does not include contentious material and makes no specious claims. The subject's privacy is not violated.

If additional citations are suggested, please respond with specific content. It is easy to make claims more citations are needed and simple to cite an entire wikipedia guideline page as support, however, based on the seriousness of the suggestions to delete the page, it seems actual examples with specific support are called for here. Thank you. Silverline72 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)silverline72 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverline72 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silverline72: Please read the Articles for Deletion process. The "calls to delete" that you request be stopped do not exist. This is a single discussion that will last for at least 7 days. At the end of the 7 days an administrator will determine if a consensus has been reached, and either keep or delete the article based on the consensus of editors. If the administrator does not feel a consensus is reached they will let the discussion continue until such time as a clear consensus exists and then action will be taken. No amount of insisting that the process stop will be successful. Once an AfD has been started, it will be allowed to reach its conclusion based strictly on the policy. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 03:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wtwilson3: Hi Bill. Thank you for the advice. I have stated my objection. Do i understand correctly that I also need to remove a deletion tag? If so, would you explain how to do that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverline72 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
No, as stated in the deletion tag, "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". Once a decision is reached, if the result is "keep" then the tag may be removed. But not before. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 15:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Improve — Bad writing in and of itself is not cause for deletion. The article needs improvements in tone and writing style, but it's not so horrible it needs to be nuked. Some ref improvement has already happened (although some are to primary sources). I just don't agree that this is a lost cause. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 16:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly needs some improvement in the writing and format, but putting it up for deletion based on a lack of verifiable sources doesn't seem to hold any merit. There are bountiful references, many of which do seem to fit with Wikipedia guidelines. Keep improving it and keep it up. W.A.A.S. (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2015 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeAreAllStars (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. There seems to be a consensus (although not unanimous) that the office of public safety commissioner is not in itself sufficient to push its holders past the notability bar. Downs might also potentially be notable through the WP:GNG, but among those that commented on the sources in the discussion, the feeling seems to be that the references are not substantial enough or reliable enough to pass muster. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. Earl Downs[edit]

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

A well-written article; the problem is that there is nothing inherently notable about being elected to public safety commissioner for a medium-sized city. Further fails to meet WP:NPOL as there is no significant, in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions. Afd was disputed by creator. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don_Jones_(Louisiana_politician). OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - blogs and lots of family genealogy stuff, not a lot of significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. St★lwart111 22:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A public safety commissioner is [was then] a city-wide position, no longer in use in Shreveport but still used in a few cities outside the South. In Shreveport and in other cities with the commission form of government, the commissioner exercises both legislative and executive duties, on the city council and as a department head. This position should not be confused with a county commissioner, most of whom were and still are elected by single-member districts. County commissioners are the "legislators" of a county (called parish in Louisiana), with the county judge normally in the role of the "executive" head of the county. In Louisiana, the executive of the parish can be the police jury president, the president of the parish, or a parish "administrator", depending on the structure of the parish government. City commissioners could not be chosen on a district basis, as their administrative duties affected the entire city. African Americans were not then elected to city government in most parts of the South. Soon an outcry in the civil rights movement raised legal challenges to the city commission governments. The public safety commissioner, which Mr. Downs filled for eight years, is equivalent to the mayor in this case. Mr. Downs is also part of a five-member Louisiana political family. He is a pre-Internet figure. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, none of those positions are likely to be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Mayors are not inherently notable (even if we consider the position to be equivalent), CEOs/Directors of regional authorities or agencies are not inherently notable, city-wide administrators are not inherently notable (even for major cities). Subjects do not inherit notability from notable family members (even if that were established). What we need is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. St★lwart111 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Becoming a public safety commissioner does not a person notable make. The notability criteria in this instance do not appear to have been met. KDS4444Talk 10:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Public safety commissioner was a significant office in cities under the commission form of municipal government. The commissioner over fire and police and sometimes sanitation was equal to the mayor in most cities under this plan; indeed each commissioner functioned as an administrator and as a sitting member of the city council. Some cities had three commissioner; others like Shreveport five; still others, seven, always an odd number to lessen the likelihood of tie votes on the city council. In some cities the mayor was technically the "commissioner of administration." Shreveport had a pubic safety commissioner from 1938 to 1942, Jimmie Davis, who became governor, first, in 1944. No Shreveport mayor has ever been governor but Sam Caldwell while he was mayor ran for governor and lost in 1944, to eventual winner Davis. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)In Alexandria, Louisiana, the mayor was also the public safety commissioner under the city commission government, which ended there in 1977. Some medium-sized Midwestern cities still have the commission government.Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Another point: John McWilliams Ford was mayor of Shreveport for about four years in the prior to 1922 but for 35 years as the commissioner of finance. It was in the later position that he was most noted. Shreveport had separate finance and utilities commissioners; Alexandria had a combined finance and utilities commissioner. All of these officials cited are co-equal to the mayor; or the relationship might be defined as that of an associate justice and a chief justice or by the phrase "first among equals" for the mayor.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is participating in the discussion. Some five days have passed since the article was challenged, but there have been no participants.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Four people have commented here. The arguments you've put forward aren't at all based on policy and while you're entitled to your personal opinions, such things are likely to be disregarded by a closing admin. There's not much point discussing those ideas further. Without better quality sourcing to consider, there isn't much more to discuss. St★lwart111 02:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see three names in opposition to the article and none in five days.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean no participants, or no participants supporting your POV? I'm not trying to be facetious. The discussion will be re-listed if an admin reviews this discussion with a view to closing it and determines there hasn't been adequate participation. But the consensus among everyone but the article creator (you) seems fairly clear at this point. St★lwart111 06:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Public Safety Commissioner is not a position which confers automatic notability upon the office holder as per WP:POLITICIAN. I am not convinced the subject would pass WP:GNG based on the sources provided . --Enos733 (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There still seems to be confusion over what a public safety commissioner is (or in most cases, was), as the office has fallen out of favor with the decline of city commission governments. He was elected citywide (never by district), co-equal to the mayor in that both had equal votes on the legislative city council. In some cities the mayor WAS also the public safety commissioner. In others, the mayor was "commissioner of administration". Here is a public safety commissioner from Birmingham, Alabama, with his own Wikipedia article; his notability went beyond being public safety commissioner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Connor One should not confuse public safety commissioner with public service commissioner, an office still functioning in many states and one that regulates public utilitities and/or oil and natural gas. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real Time Action Technology[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Real Time Action Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • A requested speedy delete as advertisement was queried by this message to me: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Anthony, I see that you have deleted my article on real time action technology. Although I have been using wikipedia as a reader for several years, this was my first contribution as a writer. There has recently been a surge of content regarding implementations of real time action technologies but there is no content on wikipedia. As such, I attempted to write an article on it but it keeps getting deleted. I have rewritten the article in a more academic tone and am ready to resubmit but I'm not sure what the process is as my initial posting was flagged and subsequently deleted. Any guidance you can give would be greatly appreciated.B2Btechguy (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, speedily and with a vengeance. Article creator has done nothing to address the concerns raised in the first AfD. Of the five references, three are to the one company which uses this term, and the other two don't mention the term at all. There is still zero evidence that the term itself has any sort of notability, and as User:AllyD pointed out last time, the content largely overlaps that of existing articles. In addition, the page creator's claim that the tone is "academic" is absurd – you'd be hard-pressed to find a more promotional tone. This article was speedily deleted on its way to a snowball AfD, and it's still in a speediable state – User:Anthony Appleyard's decision to restore it (without even notifying the creator) was inappropriate and a waste of everyone's time. He could have restored the article to draft or userspace at the creator's request; his decision to restore to mainspace is mind-boggling. —Swpbtalk 13:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG with poor quality spam references and original research. Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again: Repeating my position from the previous AfD that was curtailed by a G11 deletion: A WP:SPA article whose references are either to a firm which uses this term or to generic coverage of other terms. There is significant overlap with existing articles on Decision support system and Customer relationship management and I am not seeing anything indicating distinct use of this term outside the one firm who have this as a trademark term. AllyD (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2015 (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) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Manross[edit]

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

No sources are cited. Article thus fails WP:V. Subject appears to fail WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR as cited books appear to be trivial works with no indication of widespread use. Subject also appears to fail WP:PROF. The article is highly promotional in tone. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed that this article is vague (no sources) and very promotional in tone. The subject does not seem notable at all. This seems like an obvious candidate for deletion.Wobzrem (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is not notable per se nor for accomplishments and article has no sources. Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The article appears to be claiming notability for his activities as a pollster rather than as a former academic, so WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR would seem to be the more appropriate criterion to use than WP:PROF. But it doesn't make much difference because we don't have evidence for any of these. And I agree with the nominator re the promotional tone; even if notability were present this would require significant rewriting. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaniv Brik[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2015 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bias_disorder[edit]

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

Bias disorder was considered to be included in DSM-IV, but it was left out. Now, the DSM-V has been published, still with no reference to or consideration of Bias Disorder. It has been a full six years since the article was last rejected for deletion. In the time since, no notable new secondary sources have been published regarding Bias Disorder. According to WP:NOTABILITY, Notability is not temporary. Since the interest in Bias Disorder appears to be temporary, I propose deletion. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources mentioned on the page do not refer to it as a disorder, rather just as "bias" or "extreme bias". BakerStMD T|C 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fringe that never gained traction. Pax 01:12, 21 January 2015 (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; well reasoned. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Nițu[edit]

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

While technically meeting WP:NSPORT, in my opinion, this falls under the part in the lede of that guideline, that says meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (Emphasis theirs.) He only has two fully pro league appearances, the last of which was eight years ago, with no indication that he will make more any time soon. More importantly, he has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's a well-established consensus in favour of deletion if the subject technically (or only just) passes WP:NFOOTY but comprehensively fails WP:GNG. I've not seen any evidence that consensus has changed and this case would seem to fit squarely into that consensus. St★lwart111 23:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per GS, consensus is that a grace period is given to young players once they make their first fully professional or senior international appearance in part to avoid continual recreation / deletion of the article and also as it is anticipated that their notability will only increase from that point. Consensus also exists as shown above that if their level of notability does not increase then their notability is reassessed. In this instance, this is a player who has failed to progress. Whilst he is still playing and could become sufficiently notable to satisfy GNG, he is clearly not at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per precedents provided by GS above, technically meeting WP:NFOOTY is not enough without significant coverage to also meet WP:GNG. The grace period to meet GNG after meeting NFOOTY is long past. — Jkudlick tcs 05:46, 17 January 2015 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moses devoss[edit]

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

Wikipedia articles about musicians must satisfy the relevant requirements for inclusion: to get their own article, a musician must receive independent coverage in reliable sources, or demonstrate significance by winning major awards, being played in national rotation, etc. My searches (web, books, newspaper archive, Ugandan top music lists) found no independent coverage, only informal bios written by the artist himself. I propose that the article be deleted until more reliable coverage appears. FourViolas (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2015 (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 Sleep hygiene. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junk sleep[edit]

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

This is a neologism with little to no reliable sources. This was previously an uncontested prod that no one bothered with for 6 months.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a medical term, now being commonly used. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use is becoming common, if article is not going to be expanded it can be redirected to some different one. Have you got any idea? SamuelDay1 (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to sleep or sleep hygiene Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to sleep or sleep hygiene per DocJ Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, just merge to sleep hygiene. SamuelDay1 (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a commonly used term, so merge is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discussed in many reputable RS (reuters, bbc) since at least 2007. EggSaladin 03:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with sleep hygiene BakerStMD T|C 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to sleep hygiene. "Junk sleep" is not accepted medial terminology nor is it widely used by healthcare staff, although it does appear to be a term that has received some media coverage (and I can see that it is a catchy phrase, such as would appeal to journalists). Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as an obviously colloquial reference to a topic we cover much better elsewhere, as noted above. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge fad neologism, better covered in the encyclopedic article on the subject which deals with it, Sleep hygiene. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2015 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezer Crummett[edit]

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

Another hoax, detected and flagged by the indefatigable 66.177.64.39. Searches find the usual mirrors, including translations to German and Italian and "books" recycled from WP. There are other references suggesting that there may have been one or more people with this name, but no independent confirmation of what the article says.

The article gives three references. I do not have physical access to the first two, but Amazon provides "look inside" searches for both, and there are no hits for "Crummett" - see article talk page for details. I do have access to the third reference, the collected papers of Alexander Hamilton in 27 volumes, which has a cumulative index, a fat volume in itself. There is no entry for Crummett. I have also checked other relevant books including "Who Was Who in the American Revolution" without result.

Conclusion: fails WP:V. No confirmation + false references => deliberate hoax. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Yes, it is very convenient that the Hamilton papers are listed as a source (for the alleged correspondance) and that his papers are searchable online. I repeated JohnCD's search for Crummett (and Ebenezer) here and came up empty. Very nicely crafted article though, as far has hoaxes go. —Noah (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One bits of evidence JohnCD didn't mention in the summary above is that the three accounts that contributed to this article worked exclusively on this article and no others. —Noah (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This person does appear to have existed and as a soldier in the War. So, not technically a hoax, at least not on the name basis. (I do not have any evidence that the links above refer to the same person, as more than one could have shared the name in the same era and location.) However, the article is at present failing to establish notability per WP:SOLDIER, needing better sources. Pax 01:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, one or more people by this name existed, but all the stuff about being decorated for bravery, saving Lafayette and quarrelling with Alexander Hamilton is completely unverified - in fact, worse than unverified: plausible sources are cited for it which would confirm it if it were true, but which do not in fact mention it at all. That's why I call hoax. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I also noticed Pax's other Ebenezers, but even if one of them should be the same as the subject of the article, we would have a hoax superimposed over an otherwise non-notable 18th-century soldier. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:03, 21 January 2015 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oncodynamics[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable term (search engine does not return many results), apparently coined by only source used in the article. Brambleclawx 17:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering in India[edit]

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

This really isn't a reference article on engineering in India. Rather, it's an essay on the narrow topic "Considerations in the Pursuit of an Engineering Degree in India Today". —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of technology-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Title itself is notable, if it is problematic right now then it has to be written from start. SamuelDay1 (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't keep articles based just on their titles. If we did, we wouldn't have speedy deletion under WP:CSD A3. See WP:TNT for additional commentary. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed everything that was inserted before, I have inserted new material. Article should describe the importance of engineering throughout the history, the modern times, the culture and more. I have not spent much time, but we can turn this into a lot better page. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2015 (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. — MusikAnimal talk 05:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sundicators[edit]

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

Non-notable product. No independent sources to be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other then it exists there is nothing to show that it is notable - Pmedema (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no independent sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a manual. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: product spam by new SPA editor whom I would assume is the same "ALev310" advertizing on Twitter thus (you may have to tap "SHOW OLDER" a few times at the bottom of the screen to reveal the evidence): " @ALEV310 Alexandra L. RT @PRNAlert: .@SunscreenBands from @JADS_InterNat Allow Families to Practice #SafeSun While Measuring UV Exposure prn.to/1dPN4al ". Edit comment at article creation reads "Wanted to add a page about this product to Wikipedia as a Press Release will be submitted within the next few weeks," which more or less confirms that this person is associated with the company (how else would they know about an upcoming-but-still-unreleased press release?). In their defense, editor appears to be new to Wikipedia rather than an experienced sock. Pax 07:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage from independent sources to support notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:36, 22 January 2015 (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) Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna wannabe[edit]

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

Since nearly every celebrity has the so called wannabes I believe there's no reason to have a full article dedicated to the wannabes of one particular case. If more articles like this appear on Wikipedia, it will turn into a website filled with details about how some people try to impersonate and look like their favorite celebrities. WERSDF112 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article is solidly referenced, covers a documented cultural phenomenon, appears exceptionally well supported by further reading and citation material, and is neutrally written. Since its creation in 2006 there don't appear to have been corresponding floods of Madonnabe wannabe articles. Appears to be a good faith nomination by a very new editor who perhaps does not understand a lot of the rules of Wikipedia yet. Mabalu (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This is a well-documented and academically analyzed article. A search of the term wannabe with the singer Madonna indeed returns much academic entries. And i agree with the other points mentioned by Mabalu. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:20, 14 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emin Amiraslanov[edit]

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

Was prodded nearly seven years ago, but now there is no consensus that The Azerbaijan Premier League is fully professional, player fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amil Agajanov[edit]

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

Was prodded nearly seven years ago, but now there is no consensus that The Azerbaijan Premier League is fully professional, player fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Looking at his number of appearances, the number of clubs he has played for and his appearances / club, seems the very definition of a non-notable journeyman footballer. Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Abdulov[edit]

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

Was prodded nearly seven years ago, but now there is no consensus that The Azerbaijan Premier League is fully professional, player fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Abbasov[edit]

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

Was prodded nearly seven years ago, but now there is no consensus that The Azerbaijan Premier League is fully professional, player fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orkhan Mirzaev[edit]

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

Was prodded nearly seven years ago, but now there is no consensus that The Aerbaijan Premier League is fully professional, player fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2015 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Morris (voice actress)[edit]

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

not notable per WP:NACTOR. Had 3 acting credits between 2002-2003 LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly per nom. Also, a biography shouldn't only be sourced to IMDb. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. Fails notability.Wobzrem (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage from reliable sources to support notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:47, 22 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Javad Mirzaev[edit]

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

Was AfD'd three years ago, but now there is no consensus that The Aerbaijan Premier League is fully professional, player fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2015 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dilts[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. The few ELs on the page are either associated with the subject, are dead links or are of dubious provenance. This page is (self-)promotional as far as I can see. No improvement in almost two years of being tagged. Previous discussion reached no consensus. Famousdog (c) 14:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajee Narinesingh[edit]

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

Contested PROD (possibly by article subject?) Fails WP:BLP1E; in that all sources discuss subject's surgery issues. Television show has some coverage but nothing that satisfies notability for this person. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Treasures of Swat[edit]

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

No claim to notability. Lots of commercial links masquerading as references; lots of non-references even after a cleanup effort. Article smells like self promotion as book's publication date was just a couple days before the addition of the article. Mikeblas (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is dildarswat, Thanks for your kind effort • Gene93k,(talk). Kindly provide some assistance regarding my article. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dildarswat (talk • contribs) 12:28, 21 January 2015 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Morrison (actress)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NACTOR. Has only done 1 movie and voiced 3 episodes of a tv series. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet GNG or NACTOR. Voicing a minor character in a film and another minor supporting character in a TV show does not meet notability. Seems to be another tacked on article of a sibling of a notable actress. Cowlibob (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage from reliable sources to support notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:46, 22 January 2015 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Devata Island Stadium[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Yogwi21talk 13:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't even verify if it exists because there are no reliable sources to verify anything. - Pmedema (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Possible hoax. A search finds absolutely nothing other than Wikipedia mirrors. Given the stadium's size, if this really was being built, there should be tons of coverage. But there isn't any. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:11, 16 January 2015 (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)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minamoto no Yoshiari[edit]

Minamoto no Yoshiari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm technically neutral on whether this should be deleted, but I have my doubts and so I'm putting it forward for the community to decide. Neither of the Japanese encyclopedias I usually use (MyPedia and Britannica Kokusai Dai-hyakkajiten) have articles on him, and looking him up on Kotobank brought up only two bare-bones biographies. A fair few Japanese university websites appear to mention him, but several only in relation to the obviously more famous colleague, the god of scholarship and poetry, which seems to imply he fails WP:NOTINHERITED. The present article contains material previously cited to the English version of a Japanese archery association's website, but said English version no longer exists, and the Japanese website doesn't mention him once.[1] (Take from that what you will, though, when said website only mentions one member of the Minamoto clan.[2]) He appears to have been involved with the compilation of one of the court histories, and the Michizane and (possible) yabusame connections are interesting but I'm not entirely convinced. His name appears 31 times in the Sandai Jitsuroku, so enough information appears to exist for us to build an article, but the same could probably be said for dozens of other Heian courtiers who don't have independent articles in the majority of print encyclopedias and don't get articles here either. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It seems to me that for historical figures, and moreso for people from the Heian era, the notion of "notability" doesn't really apply: if they have made it thus far, they must be notable. If the content seems dubious, compare with the ja:WP article, and unless it is wildly different, keep it, if it is wildly different reduce to a stub. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was an archive of the English archery page, so I restored it. Googling [流鏑馬　源能有] gets lots of hits, so he does appear to be the canonical founder as passed down by tradition. Also the Japanese article has him as the de facto leader of the government for a period, which in this period should be notable. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Imaginatorium and VMS Mosiac. I do not know Japanese or much of theri history, but their arguments convince me. In dealing with remote periods of history, we cannot expect the sources to be as good as for modern times. He sounds much more important that many of the sports stars of yersterday who get articlers without question. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person is now historically notable. Noteswork (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2015 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euan Anderson[edit]

Euan Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than a few passing mentions of him refereeing this or that game, I can't really find anything to show that he's particularly noteworthy as a referee. There are a few local papers that talk about him ([3]) and one that is brief but slightly more in-depth ([4]), but not really enough to show that he's a particularly notable referee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be shown that this ref has had more than local coverage, or refereed fully professional games as required by WP:NFOOTY. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Been a 'Tier 1' referee since the age of 15...?! GiantSnowman 21:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has been a referee since 1998 (age 15) and registered with SFA since 2006. The Scottish Football Association promoted him to be a category 1 referee in May 2011[5] and please note that there are only about 20 people currently refereeing at the category 1 level in Scotland. He has certainly been a referee for many fully professional games (i.e. teams in cup and league competitions), although I don't see that he has been a referee for a Tier 1 international fixture yet which is the (high) standard required for notability using the WP:NFOOTBALL criteria. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not exactly sure why WP:NFOOTY criterion #2 excludes referees when they are included in criterion #1 (I wasn't around for that discussion), but despite officiating several Scottish Championship matches over the past two season he still fails NFOOTY as presently written, and definitely fails WP:GNG as I can't find much beyond WP:ROUTINE match coverage. — Jkudlick tcs 04:42, 17 January 2015 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of India[edit]

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

sources are not adequate for notability DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -neither I'm seeing any sort of sources that would help subject to meet the inclusion standard. There are some trivial mentions of them in few reliable sources but they simply do not help. It fails WP:ORG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage from reliable sources to support notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. This should not be at AfD. Seems to be an actual place called Andugulapadu. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kothapalem or andugulapadu[edit]

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

At least one name should be selected for a village Dan Koehl (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator's concern can be fixed with a page move and a redirect, not deletion. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM applies. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kothapalem. We already have an article for this village. The Kothapalem page may have to be moved since there are at least three villages by this name in India. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Andugulapadu. I'm changing my comment after a closer look at available sources. Some sources call the place Andugula Kothapalem. The existing Kothapalem article appears to be a different village in the same district. Andugulapadu with a possible redirect from Kothapalem, Vinukonda seems to be the option of least confusion. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -Move to Andugulapadu -Firstly, it should be discussed on article's talk page or related WikiProject talk page not at AFD (see also, WP:BEFORE). Coming to the existence and validity of these two village names, "Andugulapadu" does exist and article should be moved to the correct title. I'm pretty much sure creator meant this village, as all what they've written about village perfectly matches with Andugulapadu and there surprisingly are no other villages named "Andugulapadu" in India. The other article, "Kothapalem", a village in Guntur district in Andhra Pradesh, does not exist. There are however at least eight other villages named "Kothapalem" that exists in the same state but in other districts ([6]). Fixing both article, please move this one to "Andugulapadu" leaving no redirect. Nominator is requested to withdraw nomination in lights of presented facts and improvements to the article and to save the community time. Thank you. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain about the other village. That may or may not exist or have been renamed (officially). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:22, 16 January 2015 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Ghent apartment siege[edit]

2014 Ghent apartment siege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per Wikipedia is not news. Non-notable event, no deaths, not terrorism, gained higher exposure because of timing to Sydney event, but proved to be unrelated. Orphan with very small chance for a link in any meaningful way. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 05:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2015 (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) –Davey2010Talk 00:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy[edit]

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

No coverage in independent, reliable sources meeting WP:GNG. A PROD was contested with the edit summary citing lots of Gnews hits (linked below). I see ~70 hits, some of which are news stories that mention articles in the journal, but no significant coverage of the journal itself. VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no cleaned the article up and added some content and references. --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. The link that has been listed in the article goes to the International Association for Hydrogen Energy webpages which don't seem to have been comprehensively maintained. Over the last few years the journal has maintained a significant impact factor across a number of areas of science in this IJHE impact factor summary. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! How can you suppose that this journal doesn't exist? Where does the impact factor come from? It is listed in the web of knowledge. In 2013 it was cited not less than 35,721 times in scientific journals which should be enough independant and reliable coverage meeting WP:GNG. In fact it was the third most cited journal of all energy journals. Andol (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PLease calm down, nobody says that the journal doesn't exist and, in any case, existing is not enough to be notable. Neither is the number of citations very relevant, but the fact hat the journal is in the Science Citation Index is and should be sufficient to keep the article. --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I have to clarify myself. I didn't want to offend anybody. I am no native speaker, so maybe I just didn't find the right words. I am sorry if my statement caused some confusion. This wasn't my purpose. Andol (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2015 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas from the Morse Family[edit]

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

Non-notable self-released album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Neal Morse or Delete. Looks like there's around 100 Google hits, none of which are professional reviews. That's rare for a modern album released by a musician from a famous band, and it leads me to believe that it is not notable. If any professional reviews are ever located, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2015 (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 on Kemp, with no prejudice against speedy relisting due to most participants here overlooking him, Keep on Morrow, and Delete on Ellenbogen. This is a good example of why it's generally not a great idea to bundle biography articles together unless they're all on very similar subjects.. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Herbert Kemp et al.[edit]

William Herbert Kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ian Morrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Gershon Ellenbogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These people were failed Liberal candidates in the United Kingdom general election, 1950. Two of them finished third with 8% each (not a significant percentage) and the third one finished third with 16%. Apparently none of them ever had a significant professional or even political career, as it looks like none stood for parliament again. The Theosophist (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All The articles are put together from minor primary sources, censuses, election results, Who's Who, etc. There is no secondary coverage, or assertion of notability.Borock (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All The articles are put together from major primary sources, censuses, election results, Who's Who, etc. There is secondary coverage and assertion of notability. (Author, Knight of the British Empire and Lord Mayor of Stoke) Their notability does not rest on their parliamentary record, so the details relating to their candidature are irrelevant beyond the point that they were failed candidates. Graemp (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do all authors, KBEs (which, by the way, is not referred to at the article) and Lord Mayors have an article? Many people write books and they are not notable, many people every year are awarded membership to British Orders but are not necessarily article-worthy and the position of Lord Mayor is, in most cities, held by people who are only locally notable.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Theosophist: The Morrow article clearly refers to his knighthood. I think I can safely say that all authors, KBEs and Lord Mayors don't have an article. Graemp (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Members of British orders are not necessarily worthy of articles. But commanders/companions and above (including knights, of course) have always been held to be. Only a few dozen knighthoods, at the most, were usually handed out every year (and fewer are now). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Morrow and Ellenbogen for certain as failing WP:BIO. As Borock has noted, the sources are of very poor quality, e.g. Who's Who of 475 Liberal Candidates fighting the 1950 General Election. Not sure about Kemp, but probably delete as well. Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent is a "largely ceremonial" position; is having been a member of the Stoke-on-Trent City Council sufficiently notable? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Morrow. The article's so poorly written, it devotes one lousy, cryptic line about what he's really noted for, but obituaries in many major newspapers testify to his worthiness. I'm going to do a proper revamp, so that people will have at least a clue as to his significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Clarityfiend: I note your uncertainty about Kemp. Please can you explain why you think Morrow fails WP:ANYBIO and Ellenbogen fails WP:AUTHOR. Thanks. Graemp (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Morrow fails ANYBIO because a knighthood or membership to the Order of the British Empire are certainly significant awards, but they are held by thousands of people, not all of whom are sufficiently notable to have articles. I also do not see any significant contribution of Morrow to business or of Ellenbogen to legal literature. He has written law books, certainly, but are they notable enough to warrant an article for him?--The Theosophist (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to seconding The Theosophist's comments, I've already noted that there are no solid references for these people to show that they've reached the required level of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Theosophist: If Morrow fails, he does not do so on the basis of WP:ANYBIO. The article clearly states what he received it for and this is properly sourced. I note that you are uncertain about the notability of the law books written by Ellenbogen. Graemp (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I regret to say that the mere fact that one was created a Knight Bachelor for x reason, does not necessarily mean that he made ″widely recognized contributions″ to his field.--The Theosophist (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Clarityfiend: Please can you explain what you mean by "solid references"? Morrow's knighthood is referenced to Who's Who perhaps the premier reference source in the UK. Kemp's position as Lord Mayor was referenced to the 1950 edition of The Times House of Commons, a nationally recognised reference publication. Ellenbogen's authorships are not currently referenced in the article but these are confirmed by the relevant link above. Graemp (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mere mentions don't help much, especially if they just confirm simple facts. Kemp's lord mayority(?) is an unnotable fact. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: It is Lord Mayoralty, for your information.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of drivel. Of course it does. And it clearly meets WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Morrow. The man had a knighthood, for Christ's sake. That has always been held to easily meet WP:ANYBIO #1. Any claim otherwise shows an utter lack of understanding of the British honours system. And he was managing director of that little-known company Rolls Royce Ltd! He also has a very substantial obituary in The Times and we have always held that an obituary in a major national newspaper proves sufficient notability for an article. Neutral on the other two, although leaning towards delete as neither have Who's Who entries or obits in The Times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I usually boast that I understand the British honours system more than most people and this is why I know that many times people of secondary and tertiary importance receive honours. Just look at 2015 New Year Honours. Still, the Rolls-Royce argument may be sufficient but then we should create an article for all other Rolls-Royce MDs too.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also Morrow had obits in the Guardian and Telegraph. Though Ellenbogen's obit did not make it to The Times he is mentioned in 80 articles according to The Times on-line archive. Graemp (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is also probably worth noting that the Morrow article contains a portrait of him that is held by the National Portrait Gallery, linked to their website for everyone's convenience, the significance of which should not be lost to anyone who knows about such portraiture. Graemp (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get 80 articles from? I see only one, and it's not about him.[7] Clarityfiend (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Times digital archive http://find.galegroup.com/ttda/basicSearch.do access only for subscribers or certain UK library card holders. Graemp (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Morrow obviously. Rolls Royce is (or at least was) a company of grand strategic national importance to the UK, and its managing director is an important position. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Morrow, Weak Keep Kemp, Delete Ellenbogen. I can't see the notability of Ellenbogen. None of his publications were every notable. With Kemp, I'd say his position as Lord Mayor along with being Alderman for somes years and a Justice of the Peace is possibly enough to carry him on when combined with his political candidacy. Morrow as MD of Rolles Royce is immediately notable in my view, especially when combined with his political career and knighthood. The Times obituary notes he was also a Financial Director and then Managing Director of Bush Electrical Engineering. He was also Chairman of Kenwood, see here. JTdaleTalk~ 02:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, "the position ... is largely ceremonial. The role of Lord Mayor is decided upon by a vote amongst the elected councillors," not the general public. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is not correct, as Graemp pointed out. It does not matter if an office is ceremonial or indirectly elected. What matters is whether an office is important. Most Lord Mayors of Stoke-on-Trent do not have their own article because they were simply local magnates who were selected to lead a year′s city parades and (maybe) sign council documents. This why they are not notable solely on the basis of being Lord Mayors of Stoke-on-Trent.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not just local magnates, but long-serving councillors (who may also be local magnates, of course). People aren't just parachuted in as mayor - they're elected from the ranks of the council. But I agree lord mayors are not notable by virtue of their office. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Theo and Necro. I would also point out that the role of lord mayor would also include a number of important non-ceremonial functions, such as chairing meetings of the full council, the most senior policy deciding meeting of the council. However, I don't agree that "lord mayors are not notable by virtue of their office". WP seems to distinguish between the importance of the authority, valuing strategic and regional significance. For example, the List of Lord Mayors of London provides evidence of notability of that particular office. Stoke is not London but its regional significance as the centre of the UK pottery industry led to its status and that of its civic head being elevated in 1928. Graemp (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have to remember that Lord Mayors of London are a special case. They are usually prominent figures in the business world and are also almost always knighted on vacating their office (indeed, it used to be traditional to appoint them to baronetcies). Whereas lord mayors of other cities can be complete nobodies outside the council chamber. And let's face it, in general who knows who their mayor is? It is certainly true that many mayors, even of relatively small towns, have been knighted (or even appointed baronets) for outstanding (and usually very long) service to their towns, and these are obviously notable, but others must be judged on their individual merits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I said 'weak keep'. Stoke-on-Trent is not a tiny city, he was an Alderman and then Lord Mayor. I think on its own, definitely not notable, but his political candidacy, chairmanship of local political branch, justice of the peace status. Here is also some more info on his chemist success; [8]. JTdaleTalk~ 13:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ JTdale: Some good points. I note that you can't see the notability of Ellenbogen and appreciate that as a non-UK resident, you may be handicapped by lack of access to UK sources such as The Times Digital Archive. Graemp (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Graemp. That is probably true. JTdaleTalk~ 13:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: When it comes to notability, I don't think that this point is that valid as according to UK Monarchy the role of Queen is also ceremonial. The fact that the post was not directly elected by the public did not in itself reduce the responsibilities of its holder. Graemp (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, of course, is that the Queen is sovereign for life, whereas the Lord Mayor is elected every year! I don't think we can assume non-executive mayors or lord mayors of British cities are ever notable simply for being mayor. They must have other achievements as well. Any long-serving councillor is pretty much guaranteed to be elected mayor eventually. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are of course many differences between a British Queen and a British Lord Mayor. I've not been able to locate anything that indicates length of tenure to be a determining factor on notability. But as Necrothesp points out, most Lord Mayors are likely to have had a long career in public service anyway. Notwithstanding the point I made above about Stoke, I agree with Necrothesp, some Lord Mayor's would probably struggle to meet a sufficient level of notability. Graemp (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2015 (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. KTC (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vamsi Paidipally[edit]

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

Procedural AfD of duplicate of another article currently under AfD with a slightly different spelling. See Vamshi paidipally and AfD. Record nominator as neutral, as I don't know which spelling is proper, and the the film director has a half-dozen films with articles (merited or not, I haven't checked, and have little knowledge of 'Tollywood'). Pax 03:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I checked the page history on both pages; the other article was created almost 8 years after this one was. I think that the other page should be deleted, as that one is a clear duplicate. Never mind, I read your comment on the other AFD - I see why you brought this one up, now. I agree with the rationale on the other AFD, so my vote on this is delete. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on a quick glance at the shear volume of references in the article concerning his most recent film, this director ought to be quite notable; the question is over which article has his name spelled correctly. Pax 03:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've recently merged any useful info from the Vamshi paidipally article over to this article that's under consideration here. AfD probably isn't the place that these kind of issues should be cleared up though. Guy1890 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as satisying GNG. I've added some references such as [9], [10] and [11], though more editing is needed. Anyone who could add Telugu language sources would be particularly helpful. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Do we have the spelling here correct? If so, then without other objections I would (1) withdraw my nomination here, and (2) urge recreating the other article as a redirect to this one. Pax 09:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vamsi and Vamshi both appear to be common transliterations from Telugu. It might be worthwhile to list alternatives as we do for Vamsi (film): "Vamsi (also known as Vamsee, Vamshi, or Vamshee)". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. Pursuant to the conversation above, and with the deletion of the slightly different-named article, whose information has been merged into this one, along with other improvements, I am withdrawing this. Pax 00:49, 21 January 2015 (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. slakr\ talk / 04:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodan + Fields[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (talk) @ 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 20:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Size of company almost $200 million sales, and it being documented 3rd largest women-owned business in some area, etc., per sources in article, suffice for notability IMO. Relationship to Proactiv, developed earlier by Dr. Katie Rodan and Dr. Kathy Fields, should be further clarified. --doncram 01:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED: just because the principals also invented Proactiv, does not make this company notable. I'd like to see much better sourcing and less peacock language before I'd change my mind. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While WP:peacock language is grounds for a {{copy edit}} tag, it is not so for deletion unless the article is blatant WP:SPAM. This article is promotional in some aspects in tone, but not completely free of content. There are not a ton of sources, but a cover story in an industry magazine (Direct Selling News) and an article in Forbes are a start. Company did $200M sales and has a network of 50K "consultant"/salespeople. That is enough for WP:CORP. Gaff (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2015 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Morgan (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player. I'd be okay with a merge but it keeps being reverted for some reason. Looks like it might be a COI single purpose account too. Wizardman 03:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP

I feel that there are significant firsts that Gareth Morgan has achieved in Canadian baseball and amateur baseball that he is deserved of his own article. All references are valid. Siting C.1 and C.2 for AfD. The article can be improved with more content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkcmorgan (talk • contribs) 04:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Gkcmorgan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete or merge as per policy WP:BASEBALL/N. Article seems a promo at this point, written by WP:SPA account and concerns for WP:COI. The sourced biographical material for this budding young athlete can be merged to the article of the minor league team.Gaff (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm gonna say delete here instead of merge primarily because a merge can be undone too easily and the article has way too many COI concerns, considering the user name of the primary author. Spanneraol (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since subject doesn't meet criteria for WP:BASEBALL/N, notability must be based on WP:GNG. Of the citations currently appearing in the article, only two sources (Toronto Sun and CBC) are appear to be independent of the subject; the other cited sources appear to be promotional websites of some sort. In my opinion, that's not sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. BRMo (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. You guys have a lot of work to do. Look at all the kids drafted this year into the minors that have articles. Don't see why this obsession with Gareth Morgan. Most did nothing more than played well in high school. Those 'promotional' sites referred to are the largest amateur baseball sites in North America and recognized by anyone familiar with baseball.Gkcmorgan (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC) — Gkcmorgan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment sorry, but you don't get two !votes...Gaff (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2015 (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Del Rio[edit]

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

I perviously tagged the article with a BLPPROD for only having an imdb external link. The article has now been deprodded but it was pointed out in its talk page that there wasn't any notability established in the article. And while there have been citations added onto the article, a majority of them do not seem to be reliable. So I do not believe that this article is notable enough to have a page on this site in its current condition. GamerPro64 00:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I even added a link for a video interview with Antony Del Rio where he personally discusses a majority of the biographical info listed on his wiki page. In addition, there are additional reliable citations, in addition to TVGUIDE themselves having his acting/voicing career documented. Therefore I find no need to delete this article as reliable references have been added and researched by myelf. Sorry I made this a great bio compared to what it was. You want citations, you got them. You might as well remove half the actors/actresses' pages on wikipedia as they primarily have imdb as primary citationss. Have a nice day! petsmartstar 01:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe you're right and maybe I'm wrong about wanting this article get deleted. I personally just think it might not meet the standards. I'm not stopping you from improving the article. If there is enough material to warrant it on this site. GamerPro64 01:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. Video games get a lot of google hits and this does not establish notability. We need to see sources discussing him biographically.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2015 (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) 01:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable secondary sources for the BLP material. There are a few user generated sources, which may be corrupt. The interview in the video game trade magazine is superficial and focuses on the game/role, not the person. So, fails WP:GNG for BLP. Gaff (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2015 (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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Ford[edit]

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

Non-notable sexy lady. damiens.rf 16:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2015 (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) 00:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." A bunch of those films/t.v. shows in the article are notable, click on the ones that are wikilinks to see.Vrac (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just clicked on them. She had just really small roles (if we can call that 'roles') in a few notable direct-to-tv and direct-to-video films like Casper Meets Wendy, Addams Family Reunion and Beethoven's 5th. --damiens.rf 15:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stuartyeates. Fails NACTOR and WP:GNG. The only reasonably notable film is the anthology Necronomicon, and she's only in one segment. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable star of B movies, meets WP:NACTOR, multiple main roles particularly in the first half of the 1990s, including several films (eg the Don Wilson's Ring of Fire saga or the slasher film Stripped to Kill II) which do not yet have an article but after a rapid source checking nevertheless appear to be notable. If Variety refers to her as a "B superstar" (see Arxiloxos' link above) there is certainly some merit in considering her notable. Cavarrone 07:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was like, "Who?" But then I realized that I've seen her in a few films. Yeah, I think comparing her to Julie Strain is a bit lopsided, but reliable sources disagree. The Los Angeles Times called her an icon. Arx's links show that the industry itself has taken note of her. She did have a pretty decent career in the early 1990s, and I can verify that these roles were named characters with speaking parts. It's a shame about her later career. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pax 12:08, 21 January 2015 (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. slakr\ talk / 04:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Saunders (photographer)[edit]

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

Appears to be notable only for starting Rock Against Racism; his role in that is covered in that article, rendering this one superfluous. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2015 (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) 00:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found a decent amount of coverage outside of Rock Against Racism, particularly for Hidden[20][21][22], enough that it seems like a separate article is warranted. Needs expansion and improvement per Bob of course. Artw (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Thomas-Garner[edit]

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

The individual is not WP:notable as Wikipedia defines it, and neither is her disappearance. I did a thorough search for coverage, and updated the article with what I found. This appears to be a routine missing-persons case; the police believe the girl is a runaway. News coverage has been almost entirely local and on social media sites. But Wikipedia is not the news, and it is not Facebook. MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing a fact. Her story was on NBC News, Also known as "National Broadcasting Company" @MelanieN:. Missing in America: Hannah Thomas Garner - NBC News -- CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)CookieMonster755[reply]
Yes, it was. It was also mentioned by the Huffington Post. In both cases, it was clear the contact/coverage had been initiated by the father, and was a "courtesy" report on a missing person. (And you will notice I said "almost" entirely local coverage.) I'm not seeing sustained reportage outside of the immediate local area; sustained coverage would be required to take it out of the category of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. And the subject doesn't qualify for inclusion under WP:CRIME, since there is no evidence a crime has been committed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry for yelling, its not appropriate. As much as I don't want it deleted, it should be deleted. Please delete it. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't/won't delete someone else's comment. If you want, you can change it to lowercase where appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: -- I mean the article, about Hannah Thomas-Garner. You're right, it should be deleted under WP:Notable. CookieMonster755 (talk)£
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hope she is found but she is not notable and Wikipedia is not the news. Any efforts focused on this page would be better used spreading the word on social media. Valfontis (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, however potentially unfortunate. Despite low turnout at this AFD, it probably could have gone without a relist, as both editors with significant contributions to the article (including the creator) now advocate for deletion, above. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad Delete as above. I wish the very best to this missing child, but we are not the world police. -Augustabreeze (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2015 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adryenn Ashley[edit]

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

Previously deleted article recreated by a now-blocked user. Subject has received passing mentions in articles about Yelp, but her only significant coverage comes from press releases and IMDB. Fails WP:GNG Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per previous deletion discussion. Current article (1/10/2015) has mostly WP:PRIMARY sources, a few mentions, much promotional content, maybe only one or two sources which are legitimate, but still not enough to justify inclusion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:43, 14 January 2015 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Davis (soccer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested by an editor without leaving an edit summary. — Jkudlick tcs 02:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick tcs 02:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 02:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 02:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Regardless of whether or not it's certain that the player will be notable in the future, Wikipedia does not operate around that. Right now the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2015 (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. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xenocentrism[edit]

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

The article is a dictionary definition of the word. There is no discussion of the thing itself. Is it a good or bad thing? What causes it? How common is it? What are its effects? There is no evidence given that the scanty sources even ask these questions, much less suggest answers. Borock (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources provided in the article do not seem to discuss the topic in depth, one was one page in a book, one 3 pages, and one was a book on a related topic. A search of Google books shows mostly copies of WP. A recent news story used the word incorrectly, probably meaning to use "ethnocentrism." Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like something someone invented that hasn't subsequently been used much by others. The "related topics" seems to only be related as the result of some not-very-clever synthesis. St★lwart111 06:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping. Also you've recycled the editing policy in countless AfDs, it does nothing to advance how an article for deletion is notable, I doubt any closing admin takes "editing policy" into consideration. LibStar (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid argument for keeping as it states "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.". WP:PRESERVE provides numerous suggestions for improving content as an alternative to removing it. See also alternatives to deletion. Admins certainly bear these principles in mind per WP:DGFA, "by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy". Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly merge, per Andrew D. --PanchoS (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also support a merge with xenophilia as an alternative to deletion. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I don't think there's enough significant coverage to merge a great deal of content across. St★lwart111 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google Books search brings up a number of sources that could be incorporated into a longer article on this topic. -- GreenC 14:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (relate) @ 14:29, 28 December 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) 01:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given that a Google book search turns up enough cites. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a couple of sources that certainly could be expanded upon. Certainly the subject Googles. Other people found hits in Google books.  :User:Stalwart111 should be ashamed of himself for accusing this of being made up without doing due research to make such claim. Such a misstatement could cause undue influence to delete an article that is appropriate to keep. What I added came up in the second page of a simple Google search. On a personal note, I was not specifically aware of this as an articulated concept until I read this, but I was trying to figure out the motivation behind the current Buick advertising campaign and why I and so many other Americans would not consider buying an American car, ever. Sure, decades of gas guzzling cars that fall apart give us a background rationale, but even as the American manufacturers might make better cars (so they claim), many people would not give them a second look because of Xenocentrism. Its a thing that actually answers my own question. I learned something today from wikipedia. Misinformed or short-sightedly killing this article would prevent other people from having that same opportunity. Trackinfo (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trackinfo, I'm not "ashamed of myself" at all and that's a pointless and baseless ad-hom given the content of the article, the quality of the sources provided and the fact that multiple others have expressed the same view. Everything is something someone made up one day; the question here is whether that something has subsequently gained enough significant coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable. Misinterpreting my statement doesn't make it any less true. There are, as pointed out, multiple passing mentions of the subject and a handful of more expansive paragraphs that all lead back to the same genesis. That's not "significant coverage" enough for me, though I've supported the sensible merge suggestion put forward above. Maybe read things a couple of times before shooting from the hip. St★lwart111 11:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have become more conciliatory suggesting "Sensible merge" but that still frequently means to kill the subject. It blends in with the merged subject, it gets chipped away in small edits and what do you know, after a year or so, its gone completely or maybe a passing mention remains. I've seen this too often in other contentious cases (this is contentious because it is an AfD) so I think merging is a bad option. It usually is, unless the goal is to make the subject go away. You already said "I don't think there's enough significant coverage to merge a great deal of content across." I don't suggest you had that ulterior motive, but you didn't do sufficient research when you said "looks like something someone invented that hasn't subsequently been used much by others." You spoke from an uninformed perspective and that is misguiding the consensus of this discussion. I drifted into my personal interest in the subject I was previously unaware of by name. More googling, it seems other people, common folk, have been using the term in the exact context I used it --ls1tech.com/forums/street-racing-kill-stories/406672-reasons-why-ricers-tick-me-off.html-- see here from over 8 years ago. That's not a wikipedia source, its not for the article, but it shows the term being used. I've added a few other sources, all from Google that show it in use is other academic research. The University of Florida includes it as a key term in their sociology class. OK, that is Florida. Here's a tip for doing a Google search. More and more, the top pages are being bombed by irrelevant results caused by sites paying for rankings. With that Google is less dependable (and are eventually headed for the same xenocentric effect of the auto industry, I digress). You actually have to look a little deeper before you determine that everything is junk. But simply put, if you get more than 10 pages of hits, there most likely is some gold in there. It takes some serious effort to read all those pages to say there is nothing of validity there. Trackinfo (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your unsolicited advice and non-apology but I know how to use Google. You say I "have" become more conciliatory as if your comment prompted as much. But my second comment was only hours after my first and more than a week before yours. Who didn't do "sufficient research" if one of us appears uninformed (but isn't) and the other didn't even bother reading the discussion. Your non-reference, if anything, supports my original assertion - that this was something someone coined that hasn't since received the sort of coverage required to make it notable by Wikipedia standards. Your bad-faith opinions with regard to merging are noted, but that doesn't make it any less a legitimate option at AFD (by long-standing consensus and WP:DISCUSSAFD). Guess I shouldn't hold my breath for that apology. St★lwart111 09:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are consistent with your handle. Enjoy humming your tune while you close your eyes and cover your ears. That isn't the way you learn. So all I hope is for other respondents to look at what is present in Google and base their "vote" on that. Trackinfo (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your response to getting called out for a baseless personal attack is to respond with another personal attack. Mate, we've all learned plenty from you today. St★lwart111 10:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Xenophilia. Google ngram search indicates [1] this extremely rare academic neologism first appearing in 1958 and then reappearing in only subsequent citations is already declining in usage and the exactly correspondent rival term xenophile has established a 5:1 historically stable advantage over its rival term. -Augustabreeze (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be elaboration on this by sources that could be deemed reliable. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It seems the typical thing one would look up in an encyclopedia. Xenophilia (love for-) vs Xenophobe ( fear of-) and Xenocentrism (preference for other-) vs Ethnocentrism (preference for own-). I may love native American culture, that doesn't mean I want to live in a wigwam. Just like Nationalism isn't fear of other cultures. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2015 (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. slakr\ talk / 04:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Walker[edit]

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

There's no indication that Walker meets the standards of notability for authors. All sources given in the article, and all others I've been able to find, are either the websites of organizations he's affiliated with, such as his American Spectator author profile, or interviews with Walker, usually on blogs or other publications of dubious reliability, not independent coverage of him. Huon (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<sarc>Of course not; Wikipedia is for porn now, not books. Pornstars survive their AfDs because the smut industry games Wikipedia's own "PORNBIO" notability rules, whereas authors are too busy writing to find the time to bestow each other with bogus, incestuous awards. Not that the press pays attention to anything except politics and Hollywood anymore anyway, and all the "content creators" are URL-blocked as references.</sarc>
Your call, gentlemen. Just have the common decency to throw some lilies on the casket before shoveling the dirt.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, the award requirement is not just an odd criterium of notability for pornographic actors, it is a basic criterium applied for ANY biography, including authors (see WP:ANYBIO#1), with the only difference that in porn you have to win an award, in the other professional categories a couple nominations could be enough. There are dozens/maybe hundreds of writers kept at AFD on the basis of their accolades. Cavarrone 07:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The smut industry knows what Wikipedia's notability requirements are, so they game your system to manufacture "award winners". That many authors survive AfD does not distract me from the (as I see it) problem of Wikipedia's ongoing elimination of obscure meritorious knowledge while promoting even more obscure meretricious knowledge (see my larger comment below). For every author who is submitted to and survives AfD, there are probably dozens of others in the encyclopedia whose articles are less fleshed out, and which I now do not dare edit for fear of attracting attention to them.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete - Seriously, I've not clue on this one. He seems to fail WP:AUTHOR sadly. I have to agree with the sentiment of Раціональне but as much as I think thats the case (we seriously have way to many pornbios) that's not what the policies say presently. JTdaleTalk~ 04:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly delete or userfy. I apprecciate the passion of the good faith article's creator, but apparently this fantasy novelist does not meet any notability guideline (WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO or other suitable SNGs). I sympathize with him because I think every article creator has a couple of favorite topics that sadly seems to be non notable enough for inclusion. I suggest him to work a bit on their articles in the sandbox before moving them in the mainspace, and to eventually ask a preliminary opinion to a more experienced editor, at least until guidelines and policies will not be crystal clear to him. I worked a lot in the sandbox before moving articles on obviously notable novelists such as Ercole Patti and Guido da Verona in the mainspace, and they are still stub/start class articles! Cavarrone 07:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gentlemen, if it makes you "sad" (so far, we have three "sad" people, if I may count myself among them, of the four who've weighed in, making the tally: everyone here so far, aside from the submitter, is sad), don't do it. This place has enough bureaucracy already that articles more noteworthy than this one are in perilous straits as well.
What are we here for? The purpose of the project is to accumulate meritorious knowledge. If a writer with 7 published novels, 20 articles at an influential magazine with a ninety year pedigree, 97 other columns at an institution which should have an article here (but which presently doesn't), an interview by a notable in-his-field with his own Wikipedia entry, and who has been cited as an authority in other Wikipedia articles, still lacks notability - while any interchangeable silicon bimbo who wins a prize for spreading her legs automatically has it (thereby demonstrating the difference between meritorious and meretricious knowledge) - then the problem isn't that the writer is insufficiently accomplished, it's with the encyclopedia. (I do not consider the fact that a Google scan reveals no "dead-tree" reviews of Walker's work as indicative of insufficient accomplishment on his part because virtually all reviewing of sub-genre topics has shifted to the internet, i.e., "blogs, over the last decade and a half. Being name-dropped in a three-inch-thick New York Times is something authors in the 1970s would have reliably expected, but not any more.) How many contemporary Viking historians are there with a greater command of the subject than Lars Walker? In fact, I can't recall any at all, living or dead. I'm sure they exist; it's just that they've written even less than Walker.
Every hour I spend here, I encounter multiple (usually older) articles of obscure personages (often authors) with less accomplishment than the one at hand, whose articles simply would not survive AfD today - and I make the decision, every time, to not submit an AfD. And I don't dare edit their articles either, because someone watching my contributions might notice. Reflect on that for a moment: a situation exists in which an interested editor refrains from improving an article for fear that it will be deleted.
A final word from notability criteria: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included..." In short, it's not iron-clad. You get to "vote your conscience".--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If he's important as a historian, then that should be supportable through citations by other historians (and I'm not saying those aren't there, they just haven't been shown.) If he's important as a novelist, there should be appropriate coverage. The claim "but internet!" skips over the fact that he's been a published novelist since 1987, well before the Internet replaced everything else. Not everyone who works for American Spectator should be automatically notable. The "7 published novels" claim is particularly weak one these days, as publishing a novel doesn't require getting by any gatekeepers - as with his latest novels, which appear to be just self-published ebooks. And the "but porn" argument is just sad - even if we were to accept that the porn bio requirements are insufficient (I've not particularly looked at them), saying that we must therefor lower our standards elsewhere seems to be an aggressive rush to the bottom, rather than seeking to be our best. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1987 was a typo; his first book was published in '97.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drawl) @ 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (pitch) @ 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:N. A good many people do good work everyday. Nobody knows who they are and nobody should care. Belle Knox, if she's good at anything, is good at getting attention and that's what encyclopedias write about. Your complaint should be against the secondary source literary critics that should give this guy more press. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People "good at getting attention" are what celebrity gossip blogs write about (fueling an incestuous cycle); Wikipedia should hold itself to a higher standard. My complaint isn't with the sources or even with girls like Knox. It's with what the Project here has apparently decided regarding what knowledge it considers worth keeping. I would argue that the purpose of Wikipedia is better served by having articles on more obscure persons of merit (and the fewer sources around them the better). The interested reader has no shortage of salacious sites fawning over Knox, but where will he go to find out more about who wrote Hailstone Mountain? Why does Wikipedia need to be a spigot of popular tripe? -That's what the rest of the internet is for. Even so, I wouldn't care if the place carried articles on porno "actresses" so long as the obscure author articles were retained; it's only when the encyclopedia retains the smut and deletes the authors that I wonder if the time I spend contributing is well-spent, because a "policy of cheapening" can only result in the marginalization of your reputation.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would like to rework the notability guidelines, this AFD discussion is not the effective place to do so. As for "where will he go to find out more about who wrote Hailstone Mountain?", since the only place this is being sold is Amazon, presumably he knows about that site and its About The Author Page... and even that will direct them to the author's website. Wikipedia is not meant to be every possible reference. This is not the white pages, it need not include everyone. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do not seek revenge starting in a few minutes a bunch of AfD against pornographic topics which seems incidentally almost all notable [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. This behaviour is considered disruptive and will not help your cause. Replying to one of your messages above, we don't have meritorious VS meretricious in Wikipedia, just notable VS unnotable. Ethical judgments and personal bias are not supposed to have a weight in our encyclopedia. Cavarrone 07:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added several more references, including one from a long-existent weekly newspaper focused on Norwegian-American topics, thereby satisfying, albeit minimally, RS source requirements. (The other refs, while less RS, are IMO informative. Of the dozens encountered while searching, I've chosen the most authoritative and professional in tone and appearance.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but. wWalker published at least four novels through a sigbificant trade publisher, Baen Books. World at shows thatat least some of these books are still held by a few dozen libraries, which is a pretty good survival rate for paperback original genre fiction from the 1990s, and suggests the author's contenmporaneous visibility wasmuch higher thanit is now. For most authors, notability is based on coverage of their books, and bookreviews are notoriously difficult to search for online, especially with the GNews Archive no longer accessible. GBooks turns up multiple references to Walker in a Gale reference-type work called What Do I Read Next?, another indication that Walker was a notable author whose popularity has faded. Yes, the article is rather cursory, but there is envidence of the subject's notability, andwhile the delete !votes show the article is inadequate, they don't really address the evidence ofnotability. This article needs improvement, but AFD is not for cleanup. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I think that ultimately the question is what readership do his books have. The amount of discussion this has generated suggest to me that he is probably notable, but I do not know and am thus not voting. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just don't see evidence of notability. Being in a handful of libraries means nothing in terms of notability. Being published through a significant publisher does not establish it either. What Do I Read Next? sounds like a directory of books. Chillum 18:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisting to gain clearer
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/userfy. The issue here is that I can't find anything to really show that Walker passes notability guidelines. It'd be nice if we could keep it, but there really isn't anything out there that would truly show that he passes AUTHOR. The thing about authors is that the guidelines are fairly high now: simply having published something through a mainstream publisher and/or publishing through notable magazines/outlets isn't enough. Stuff like that makes it more likely that someone will gain coverage, but it's never a guarantee- as we're seeing here. The thing about the whole idea of "ignore all rules" is that ultimately we do have to show some proof that the individual is notable in some form or fashion that would supersede the need for tons and tons of coverage. So far all we have that is even remotely usable is a brief mention in a newspaper article, an interview with a notable author, and a mention in a book that appears to be more of a list of stuff than a real in-depth look at the author or his work. If we'd had a good in-depth review from a reliable source (none of the other sources on the article are usable and all I came up with were blog hits) then we'd have some wiggle room here. I can't find anything out there and we'd really need some other coverage to be able to say that this author is more notable than any of the other hundreds of authors who have published through mainstream publishers yet never really gained any substantial coverage either. The fact that he has a fan following and that some recognize his name (WP:ITSPOPULAR, WP:ILIKEIT) can't give notability in and of itself - it just makes it more likely that someone will gain coverage. Even saying that he's the only or best of his type doesn't really do anything since we'd still require the coverage to back this up- and coverage is lacking in this instance. I say userfy this is anyone wants to do that and if/when more coverage is found, then it can go through DRV and (if approved) get restored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Found better source for Norwegian American review. This article now contains at least two RS, and should be kept. Pax 00:34, 25 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regal Cable[edit]

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

The subject is probably a hoax; it does not exist & uses www.regalfilms.com as its website, where there is no mention of the subject. The article might be a creation of one of Bertrand101's sockpuppets as the subject is pointing to Santiago City (the vandal's 'residence') as its headquarters. theenjay36 01:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. Regal sticks to films. If this were real it would be mentioned frequently in news reports. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any info aside from a directory listing. Other links suggest a cable splitter.--Lenticel (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage from reliable sources to support notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Film Critics Society[edit]

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

Virtually the same case as with North Carolina Film Critics Association. No reliable third-party coverage, no indication of notability. Emmagood 1995 appears to have created this article, and it's many stem articles (seen on the source page), purely to include them in film accolade listings. Please see this relevant discussion and this ongoing one (permalink) for more information on this subject. Sock (tock talk) 19:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This mentions that Judy Thorburn is the founder of Nevada Film Critics Society, but using that name in search queries, I could not find any sources about the background of the organization (which I would expect to mention her). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:40, 14 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA1000 23:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balesh Singh Dhankhar[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure of this person's notability. I did a Google News search, and mostly just found him quoted as a spokesperson. Google Web searches return self-published sources. That said, I might be missing something here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject fails to meet WP:BIO, looks like more of a promotional / advert, Nil reliable source to support any facts and above all the reason to be part of wiki. The article should be deleted. One life to live (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA biography on someone for whom Highbeam and Questia searches return nothing and Google search returns only primary sources. Fails WP:BIO. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - He is quoted in some news stories under the name given, or using an alternative transliteration of his name ("Dhankar"), e.g. [31], [32], [33] and [34], but I haven't seen significant coverage about him. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (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 Rick_Riordan#Magnus_Chase_and_the_Gods_of_Asgard. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Summer[edit]

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

Article about a yet to be published first installment of a future trilogy. It's too soon to see if it will pass WP:NBOOK. Vrac (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rick_Riordan#Magnus_Chase_and_the_Gods_of_Asgard. I have to make the same argument as the one for the series page: it's likely that it will gain coverage for an entry but that's never a guarantee. I've seen extremely well known authors with books that routinely hit the various bestselling lists have books that fail notability guidelines on Wikipedia. You'd think that it wouldn't be like that, but it does happen and until we get the coverage this should redirect to the author's page. It's just too soon here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tokyogirl79. There is a good deal of buzz on the net, but it's all based on the publisher's blurb. There are no reliable sources yet. WP:TOOSOON. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tokyogirl79. No reliable sources. APerson (talk!) 14:01, 14 January 2015 (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 Rick_Riordan#Magnus_Chase_and_the_Gods_of_Asgard. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard[edit]

Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a book series that does not exist yet. It's too soon to see if it will pass WP:NBOOK. Vrac (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Rick_Riordan#Magnus_Chase_and_the_Gods_of_Asgard. Right now the series has yet to release and so far there isn't nearly enough sourcing to really warrant an article. It's fairly rare that an unreleased book or series will gain enough coverage to merit an entry and while the odds are good that this series will gain the necessary coverage, we can't predict that it will due to the whole "law of diminishing returns" stuff. There is always the chance that a popular author's new work won't gain enough coverage for an entry, after all- happens all the time on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting this page will result in the loss of the image. Plus so many other articles about upcoming books and series exist and they're not being deleted. If you do decide to redirect it, after it's released can it come back? Esmost πк 17:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can always re-upload the image if it gets deleted, so that's not an issue. Uploading book covers doesn't really take that much time and if all else fails then I'm willing to undelete it or re-upload the cover when/if the book/series gains more coverage. As far as other articles go, the existence of other articles doesn't mean that those books actually pass notability guidelines (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - odds are that they just haven't been redirected or deleted yet, although once in a while you'll have a book that has gained enough coverage to merit an article prior to release (like Dan Brown or Stephen King). However the good thing about redirecting with history is that once the book releases and it gets the needed coverage (FWIW, I'm expecting it to) we can always un-redirect the article and add the new sources. It's not like deletion where the article history gets deleted and we'd have to start from scratch or request that the article history be restored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tokyogirl79. The author is dropping hints and his fans are speculating, but there isn't enough to go on yet. It's like spring training – an enjoyable part of the baseball season, but we don't have articles on spring training. @Esmost: Not to worry, as soon as the book comes out and there are some reactions to write about, it's very easy to bring the article back. Just undo the edit that redirected to the author's article. Anyone can do it. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2015 (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 Move back to user space. There is unanimous consensus that this should not exist in main article space, but opinion is split on delete vs. userfy. Iaritmioawp makes a reasonable point that the original author has been banned from editing on this topic, so it's kind of pointless, but it's also harmless. In general, if there's a reasonable alternative to deletion, it's usually worth taking, so that's what I'm going to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: also removing Hakomari and Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria, which are both redirects pointing here. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Empty Box and the Zeroth Maria[edit]

The Empty Box and the Zeroth Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BK for notability, so I'm nominating it for deletion. Until recently, this article had been in userspace and was moved by a separate editor to mainspace after the original author left Wikipedia. The Japanese Wikipedia article only cites a single primary source, so it doesn't help in satisfying notability. A cursory Google search of the titles The Empty Box and the Zeroth Maria and Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria largely reveal fansites and blogs discussing the series. The original title 空ろの箱と零のマリア mainly shows retail websites and more blogs, although there was this entry on a website with unconfirmed reliability, and therefore I don't believe would be enough to establish notability. Therefore, based on the lack of reliable sources, and the fact that the article in its current state is mainly in-universe information with a few cites from Amazon for the release dates, I believe it should be deleted. Or it could also just be moved back to userspace. 十八 21:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.--十八 21:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.--十八 21:42, 29 December 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) 00:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to actually demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to userspace as per Knowledgekid87; the article was moved from userspace to mainspace by another user without the original user's consent, and potentially in an unfinished state. This source was the only source I was able to find, so the article shouldn't be kept in its current state. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to original creators userspace per Satellizer and Knowledgekid. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject isn't notable which means the article will never be ready for publication, no matter how much work is put into it. Moving it back to the original author's userspace is thus pointless, especially since his/her indefinite topic ban would prevent him/her from editing it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2015 (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. slakr\ talk / 04:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Xtreme Wrestling[edit]

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

No notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion/training school. 5 years after the previous discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Xtreme Wrestling), but I don't see coverage (In fact, sources usually talk about WXW, a German wrestling promotion). HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 63 hits in reliable sources. However, many of the hits are listings of scheduled matches, I'd estimate only 25 are not those. I'd like to see someone try to write an article from those. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Years ago, the first AfD discussion closed because the promoters are the Wild Samoans and the promotuion will grow up or something like that. However, It's hard to find sources about the events. Some times, WXW is included as part of multiple independent events. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delere If after over seven and a half years (The last AFD was in April 2007) the promotiom has yet to be covered it appears that the involvement of the Wild Samoans or the promotion growing up has yet to translate into significant coverage. I also believe that enough time has occurred to see If reliable sources decided to take interest in the promotion.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – If this is the group I'm thinking of, most of their non-localized activities consist of performing MWR-sponsored shows on U.S. military installations. I threw in the qualifier because I'm not 100% sure we're talking about the same group. WWE footage of Afa and Sika I've previously viewed appears to confirm this to be the case, however. Once again, not 100% sure about details, but one batch of trainees came to Alaska in 2005 to do MWR shows at Fort Greely, Fort Wainwright and possibly other locations. At one or more of these shows, they didn't even have a ring, they wrestled on gym mats. That fact right there should be a lot clearer indication of non-notability than anything having to do with Google hits. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:57, 2 January 2015 (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) 00:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the promotion has been around for a reasonably long time, has produced some fairly notable wrestlers and seemingly has a TV slot ([36]). McPhail (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:06, 14 January 2015 (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. ^ https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=xenophilia%2C+xenocentrism&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cxenophilia%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cxenocentrism%3B%2Cc0
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_January_14&oldid=1142626047"