Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 May 5 May >

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 keep. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Bensoussan[edit]

David Bensoussan (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 educator/author. Article was deleted via prod in 2012, restored last month at the request of an IP editor, and not improved since. --Finngall talk 22:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • interestingly he's cited in several WP articles on Maghrebi Jews. Has been used as a source on several pages as a source for years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussionsE.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wonderful. flag an AFD as Judaism-related and instantly some bozo creates an IP account to vote delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the person behind the 1-edit account that created this article also a "bozo"? Agricola44 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Author and compiler of the historical record of the Sephardi communities of the Maghreb, especially Morocco, and leader of the Sephardic community of Quebec, this article is clearly worthy of being kept and expanded. It needs expansion and better sourcing, but I am not persuaded that it was an appropriate candidate for AFD, perhaps tagging would have made more sense. Unless, of course, the Nom is using AFD as a means of incentivizing editors to source selected articles, on pain of seeing them deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IPs have no account and cannot be created. It's just the address from where you edit. Taking an article to AFD because it was previously deleted via a PROD is not unreasonable and, as far as I know, being "worthy" is not included in any notability guideline... What we need is sources, not opinions. Aren't there any book reviews or such? --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, I want to hire you to proofread my next paper. Yes, I am aware of what a IP is. And, yes, I do tend to key in my comments too fast. I undoubtedly need need a full-time copy editor. My bad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Caught... Copy-editing is one of the things I do in real life :-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re: Bensoussan, my point is, given that the article makes plausible claims, looks sourceable in a quick search, and has only been back on Wikipedia for a month, it might have been more appropriate to tag it, or bring it to that attention of a WP topic group than put it at AFD. AFD too often feels like a demand that (somewhat randomly chosen) articles be sourced, rather than an affirmation that the Nom has searched and found no plausible sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search on JSTOR, which for this kind of material would be most appropriate, but found nothing. Same with GScholar. Tagging is not often useful, especially not if there are no active editors (just have a look at the relevant maintenance categories and see how many tens of thousands of articles are tagged in this way...) --Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Randykitty fact is, I find articles on writers and others who lack fame one of the most functional aspects of WP. I mean, I know who Francis Fukuyama is. But often I stumble on a footnote to a guy I've never heard of. A guy like Bensoussan, whose books do get cited a little, I love when WP has a page so that I can get a quick look at a profile, it helps me to figure out where to look if I need ot know more. This one's strange, not notable in the field he teaches, a passionate love for the king and country that his parents fled from as persecuted refugees, but substantial coverage of his books and ethno-political activity. When I'm trying to figure some non world-renowned institution, author, or phenomenon out, I often add a footnote or a fact to the page. (wish we could encourage more people would do that.) Sometimes a guy catches my fancy as this one did, and I spend a little time sourcing a page. But my underlying motivation here is that I find pages of this type useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible claims mean nothing: they must be backed up by WP:RS. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being the leader of a local ethnic community is not notable per se, unless there's significant coverage, which there does not seem to be. (There's just the usual web ephemera LinkedIn, WhitePages, FaceBook et al.) Given his education/employment, WP:PROF is applicable, but his research record as an EE is extremely average: h-index of 6 (GS) or 10 (WoS) over a ~35 year career. WorldCat shows that he has a number of books, but they seem to be held by around 50-60 institutions, on average. Article is low-view and basically an orphan. I think nom has it right – there's been ample time, years in fact, to improve the material here, but it hasn't happened. Agricola44 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The version of the article we have now needs work, but the credible claims of notability justify retention based on the material presented here. The French-language version provides additional claims of notability and provides a template for further expansion of this article. Alansohn (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - almost all the references to "David Bensoussan" are about other people, unless he's also a high school tennis player or a stockbroker from California. The French version absolutely does not have sufficient sources either, and "claims of notability" are not sufficient. The French version says he won the Queen's diamond jubilee medal; well, hundreds of thousands of people were awarded this medal (70,000+ in Canada alone). —МандичкаYO 😜 20:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now sourcing article. It's not unusual to have to use keywords, in this case, not only is there a tennis player, there is a prominent leader in the Cleveland Jewish community with the same name. I haven't searched on Bensoussan day job as a professor in a Polytech. What I have been searching and finding is his civic and ethnic leadership role in Montreal (continuing to source the page, but do take a look before your iVote). Am looking now at his published work. His books are all self-published - something that I had not considered when I first came upon this page. They are, however, labors of love, collections of the documents, lore, and memoirs of a vanished community. A series of pogroms and threats between 1948 and 1967 drove all but a tiny remnant of Jews from Morocco, historians mine Bensoussan's books for evidence of what was. Also, he gets interviewed. Check out the 1999 interview in The Gazette that I linked to (footnote #1) This is for a 3 volume, self-published book on the Bible written by a guy with a PhD in electrical engineering. i know people who have written real books who would kill for that many column inches in a big city daily. My point it that, however you feel about 3 volume, self-published books or leadership roles in ethnic communities, article topics pass or fail WP:GNG according to the coverage. Take a look at the article as I continue to source it, instead of dismissing Bensoussan because the (more recently published) news google hits on the tennis player come to the top of the search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all of his books are self-published (although the Bible one is) see, for example, his L'Espagne des trois religions : grandeur et décadence de la convivencia E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • wins literary prize, pardon my French, but until I got around to the French sources, I was waaay underestimating this guy's notability. see here: [1]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Le Prix Haïm Zafrani[2]
  • The prize was only established about a half-dozen years ago and the link you give is from the institute that awards the prize. Sorry, but this is unconvincing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Agricola, I am not arguing for a magic bullet book prize. I added the website of the organization giving the prize so that you and others could easily assess its weight. What I am arguing is that when you add up everything form testifying in Parliament about the history of the Jews of Morocco (here:[3]), to a lengthy author profile in the Montreal Gazette, to the fact that he regularly pens op-eds for La Presse and the fact that museums hold seminars to discuss his published collection of ketubot from Mogador here:[4] it adds up to passing WP:GNG.
  • I understand the argument you're making, i.e. that several aspects which, taken individually do not signify notability, nevertheless collectively prove notability. This "notability is additive" argument comes up from time to time, but it is not policy and historically has not been accepted in AfDs. The Haim Zafrani prize's weight is easily assessed as being close to nil because it is new and not widely recognized. Testifying to any government body is also not notable since umpteen thousands of people do this every year on probably every subject imaginable. I cannot comment on the MG source, since I do not have access. However, having your work discussed at meetings (conference, museum, symposium, etc) is likewise not notable. Actually, it is standard fare for most academics. I think if it were true that Bensoussan is notable, then you would see much stronger indicators, i.e. any of the following: large book holdings (no), high citations to his work (no), substantive stories covering him or his work. I'll take your word that the MG piece is one instance of coverage, but we generally require several of these for GNG. Sorry, but I'm still unconvinced. Agricola44 (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • long articles about Bensoussan can be found in the Montreal Gazette 1999 [5], Canadian Jewish News 2012 [6], Le Mag 2011 [7]]. Other articles now on the page have substantive coverage, including [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources are mostly in French but he's notable. The CJN piece already cited is in depth; I can't access the Montreal Gazette; others are less focussed on Bensoussan but together show his status. Here are some reviews of his books[9][10][11][12]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Colapeninsula, please note that the review in Le Monde is about a book written by Georges Bensoussan, a Frenchman. The two links to assr.revues.org are apparently one and the same review. I have no idea how significant Archives de sciences sociales des religions and Le Mag are. --Randykitty (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Users E.M.Gregory, Alansohn, Colapeninsula. The article has more than sufficient WP:V & WP:RS making the subject WP:N, in addition the article has been upgraded and improved removing all doubts raised by the nominator. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are a lot of reviews of his work; also it does not matter if the award was established only six years ago, it is a meaningful award. Elie Wiesel and his institute are very famous - I'm not even Jewish and I know about him. Elgatodegato (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IZAK. Ism schism (talk) 22:37, 10 May 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. The main guideline-based argument given for deletion was failing the general notability guideline (GNG) due to lack of substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject. Notability of journals (NJOURNAL), however, is neither a guideline or policy. slakr\ talk / 18:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Young Investigators[edit]

Journal of Young Investigators (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 journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability for 5 years without any good sources forthcoming. Sources present in the article are either blog posts or in-passing mentions of the journal. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I like having new journals listed on Wikipedia, especiallone when they are produced by reliable institutions. (my distaste for advocacy masquerading as peer-reviewed scholarship; for pay-to-play journals, and fraudulent "journals" of so many kisds, and my outrage that so many "real" journals are for-profit knows no bounds) I do see the difficulty of sourcing articles on new journals. But I also see a distinction between this pair of journals established and operated by academic Goo-goos as a science education/promote science in schools, and run-of-the mill start-up science journals (and within that category, I do see the difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, given so much fraud and exploitation of desperate-to-publish young researchers, of distinguishing among the many new journals that start each year except in instances where there is substantive independent coverage).E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JYI has garnered significant attention over the years in the general press and in the academic literature not for its role in cutting-edge scientific inquiry, but for its role in the education of young scientists. Sources exist that satisfy WP:GNGE.M.Gregory (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry, I'm not convinced. I'm seeing a few -- and only a few -- News hits for the subject, and always by way of a citation to something they published ... not a scrap about the subject, never mind the "significant coverage" the GNG requires. I see that EMGregory has put a source in the lead stating that the subject is "notable" ... and the source is a blogpost. GNG fail. Nha Trang Allons! 17:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, because it was a PLOS blog post, an article by an entering grad student apparently written for the PLOS blog on the topic: undergrads, peer review, and publishing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the above. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 00:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether or not it's indexed in selective databases is a total red herring for this kind of journal, which is primarily an educational rather than a research project. This was discussed quite a bit in the science-education literature; see e.g. this series of articles in Cell Biology Education. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you feel that this does not fall under the purview of NJournals, that's fine with me, but then this needs to meet GNG, which quite obviously it doesn't. --Randykitty (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That link above goes to an extended feature in a well-known science education journal about the subject, obviously significant and in-depth. PLoS blogs are not just 'some guy's blog'; they're curated content supported by a major publisher with a specific interest in covering unusual publication venues. It's explicitly discussed in multiple books on undergraduate education. The JEI AfD is more of a borderline case, given that so much of its coverage traces to one event, but this is notable by any reasonable definition. Since both articles are short, I'd also consider merging and redirecting both (and other examples of the genre) to a new article at a title like undergraduate research journal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The feature you link to spends about 1 paragraph to this journal, not really the in-depth coverage that GNG requires. However, it does treat the subject of undergraduate research journals in-depth. I think it is an excellent idea to create an article "undergraduate research journal", discussing the topic of this type of journals in a more general way. It could include a brief list of existing journals to which this article and Journal of Emerging Investigators could be redirected. I'm a bit busy myself right now, but can help if you start the article. --Randykitty (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit oversimplified - the feature was published in direct response to JYI, and I linked that piece because it serves as the intro to an additional three pieces of invited commentary published in the same issue (though I see they are mentioned but not actually linked on that page, which is annoying). I apparently didn't get around to posting the merged suggestion on the other AfD, but that's the weak link - JEI is not an "undergraduate" journal, though it obviously comes from the same early-STEM-education context. I'll put it on the to-do list - there should be an article on the topic regardless of whether these are kept or merged. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In contrast to the related AfD of Journal of Emerging Investigators, which had two major sources directly about the journal, the coverage of this one looks shallow and incidental to stories about other subjects. I don't think it passes WP:GNG and I don't see any relevant criterion of WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't look to pass WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 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, Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 4 May 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. North America1000 00:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Outlander characters[edit]

List of Outlander characters (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 meet notability standards. I considered moving the main character descriptions to the Outlander article, but it looks as if the same text is already there.jwandersTalk 20:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outlander is a disambiguation page... I assume you mean Outlander series? That just has a link to this list under the characters section, no content. I can't say that it's unreasonable to WP:SPLIT off a character list when we have (at least) eight books and a TV series adaptation, but at best the answer is still to merge, not to delete, and the merging would hopefully be done (if not proposed) by those familiar enough with the books to know what is extraneous detail and what is useful information to a reader trying to understand the topic. The genre is historical fiction with time travel thrown in, so a character list is especially necessary to keep it all straight. postdlf (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This list was actually split out from Outlander (novel), though many of its characters exist in other novels and it probably should be renamed and expanded to encompass the whole series. I'd like to hear more justification though as to why jwanders believes that the character list of a longrunning book series with a TV series based on it doesn't meet notability requirements. It has some citations (though more are certainly needed) and the bulk of the descriptions are short.— TAnthonyTalk 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable book series, notable TV series, existing citations. The entries are short but the list itself is a bit long to be part of the main series article. Only the top handful of main characters are covered in the novel article. I could understand a {{refimprove}} tag but not an AfD.— TAnthonyTalk 22:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a list of the characters in the series as a whole, as opposed to characters in one specific book in the series. This is a fairly long spanning series (8 books and counting) and there's the TV series to think about as well, since there's a good chance that they'll add in some new characters or at the very least there will be a need to have an area to list some differences between the depictions in the book or show. We have similar lists in other areas (List of The Southern Vampire Mysteries characters, List of Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter characters) and while I'm not entirely trying to say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there is a lot of precedent for lists of characters for series spanning multiple novels. This could be easily expanded to contain characters from all of the books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, the list at present only includes characters from the first book in the series, Outlander (novel), and none that are introduced in the later 7 books. The article does have citations: three of which reference the TV series and one to a review of a latter novel from a spin-off series, i.e. none related to the first book or the characters therein. In terms of notability, I'd be happy to keep if the article can be expanded into a list of major and minor characters from the entire series, though feel that a number of characters on the present list have too small a role to be included (e.g. "A Ghost", "Davie Beaton", "Jock Graham", "A soldier near Wentworth"). jwandersTalk 18:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This effectively withdraws your nomination, if you have no remaining complaints that can't be addressed through further editing and expansion. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hand of Devils reviews reads "In 1991, Gabaldon published Outlander, an exuberant 640-page mash-up of fantasy, historical romance, adventure, and arch comedy that introduced a time-traveling nurse, Claire Randall, and her doughty Scottish lover, Jamie Fraser. In five fat best-selling sequels, Gabaldon advanced their saga, set against a lushly detailed 18th-century backdrop..." which supports the lead sentence and speaks to the notability of the series.— TAnthonyTalk 20:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can adjust the lead pgh to address a broader scope for the list, but I agree with Jwanders that the really minor and non-notable characters should be removed from the list.— TAnthonyTalk 20:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's for normal editing and discussion to decide, though there isn't really a point to restricting it to only characters who merit a separate article, unless you mean something else by saying "non-notable". postdlf (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just meant, the list currently contains an unnamed soldier that Claire kills, and if we list every one of those types of "characters" for every novel it will get ridiculous. But yes that will be a natural point of discussion as the list evolves. — TAnthonyTalk 21:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notable main topic, valid spinoff. AFD is not cleanup. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 6 May 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. Davewild (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1900 Katyusha[edit]

1900 Katyusha (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Included in two recent photometric studies of small sets of asteroids [13] [14], one older collection of observations on many asteroids [15] and a recent proposal for asteroid flyby missions [16]. It's not much material to go on but I think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Concur with D. Eppstein. Praemonitus (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per convincing opinions above. It's borderline, but I've been convinced it just about tips to notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 12 May 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. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haidong Gumdo[edit]

Haidong Gumdo (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 page has been tagged as unsourced for over 5 years. Even the external links are not independent. My search found no significant independent coverage of this martial art in any reliable source.Mdtemp (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems a pity considering the effort that seems to have gone into the article. It looks like there should be more out there with respect to third party sources - but I also had trouble finding anything. Still the name shows up in a number of websites.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no independent sources. Don't know why it's listed under sportspeople when it's a martial art. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources. I found no supporting evidence to show the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:01, 10 May 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. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mitchell (fighter)[edit]

Danny Mitchell (fighter) (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)

Fighter who does not meet WP:NMMA or WP:NBOX. The article's only sources are links to his records in both MMA and boxing. There is no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet NMMA or NBOX. Also fails GNG with no significant coverage. If he gets a third top tier fight the article can be recreated. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 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. Davewild (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Walden[edit]

Marcus Walden (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 think this presents an interesting case. While I'm not convinced that there is much non-routine coverage of Walden, he was called up to the majors for a few days just last year. This doesn't satisfy the letter of WP:BASE/N, but it may satisfy the spirit. I'm opening this as a test case and I won't be upset if the result is 'Keep'. Note that a recent PROD was removed, partly on the grounds that the article could be merged to the Reds minor league page. This, however, is incorrect, as Walden has been released by the Reds. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't you think we should wait a few days to see if he is picked up by some team before nominating for deletion? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He was released almost a week ago and this AfD came two-and-a-half days after the PROD was removed. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He earned significant coverage when he was A) claimed off waivers and B) promoted to the majors. He was also covered outside of those events as well. Alex (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is called routine coverage, which you never cared to understand.--Yankees10 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. All coverage is routine.--Yankees10 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so it's clear to the closing admin, I created this AfD as a test case, not because I supported deletion. I am in fact neutral, with my only position on this matter being that I support a trout of Blue Jays manager John Gibbons for failing to use Walden during his brief stay in the majors, thus creating this dilemma. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability standards for baseball players and coverage is routine so fails GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 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 00:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clennon Cavern[edit]

Clennon Cavern (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)

It is certainly possible this exists but I can find absolutely zero evidence that it does. If it exists, it's non-notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Zero Google hits relating to the cave and so it is non-existent. The Snowager-is awake 23:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can find no evidence it exists - if it does it is not notable enough KylieTastic (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could find no proof that it even existed. When I typed it in to Google Earth, it only shown me miscellaneous places and not the cave, such as hotels in the United Kingdom. The Snowager-is awake 17:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - I don't this exists! Elgatodegato (talk) 02:00, 9 May 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 Windward Studios#2003-Present: Windward Reports / Windward Studios. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windward Reports[edit]

Windward Reports (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)

From talk page: The "article" is unsourced marketing for the company, and the first entry on the talk page is an officer of the company admitting it was created by their staff. This isn't encyclopedic content. It's a press release. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I am fixing an incomplete nomination for User:halleyscomet; I have no opinion to offer at this time. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Windward Studios, considering these seem to be their products and there is a more-than-adequate paragraph about the 'Reports' in that article. Possibly there may be offline/pre-internet coverage but, considering the article was created by company staff, I'm not confident of the article being improved. Sionk (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: I've haven't bothered digging to confirm, but at first glance, the parent article reeks of promo copy-vio that will need addressing. Pax 00:16, 6 May 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 03:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Summer Son[edit]

The Summer Son (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 enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:NBOOK. Being a 'Finalist' for a Utah Book Award is not notable. The review in the Billings Gazette was written when the author, Craig Lancaster, was an editor there and the New West rewiew seems to be from the publisher New West Books so neither are independent.

Delete/Redirect to authors page as with his other non-notable books Edward Adrift and The Fallow Season of Hugo Hunter. JbhTalk 15:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Withdrawn by nominator @Tokyogirl79: Thank you for finding those two reviews. They are enough to technically pass NBOOK so this AfD can be closed. On a minor side note, it is interesting how the specific subject notability criteria all have one criteria that lowers the bar from significant coverage to not completely unknown. Oh well that is the policy... Please close this, I am unsure of how to do it properly. Thank you. JbhTalk 15:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the publisher hasn't put out any of the author's works then we could probably use the New West review as a RS. That'll take some checking, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, Lancaster hasn't published through New West/August Publications, so the review should be usable. It looks to be a site that will review other books in the same way that Tor.com will review non-Tor releases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's not the best sourcing, but I found a Booklist review and the Lively Times seems to be usable enough as a source since it does have an editorial staff. The New West source also looks to be usable since the author has never published work through there as far as I can tell. Again, it's not the best sourcing and I really wish that there was more out there, but it looks to be barely enough to scrape by notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 5 May 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. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zaid Ali[edit]

Zaid Ali (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 page is promotional for internet personality and though it has some notability, does not feel worth for an article Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This person is notable enough as he is not just a internet personality but a public figure. He recently toured U.K for a comedy show. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In order to claim being a public figure, reliable sources should be provided. All sources in the article as well as found in google are talking about Internet Mem, which is clearly not enough for having an article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources I provided are acclaimed news agencies not an individual running website. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(Struck duplicate. Your nomination itself means delete  sami  talk 09:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)): The sources you provided all talk about youtube sensation. Wikipedia:Notability_(people) talks about having significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. No such reference were provided.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at Tours section for person's notability. Do check the references. Moreover the article is stub and needs to be further expanded. Let it be decided by other reviewrs too and let see what the discussion comes to :) Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Per nom. BTW I could of swore a article with this name has been deleted. Wgolf (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject passes WP:SIGCOV. Although the page was deleted as sworn by Wgolf, the possibility is that the new users might have written in informal or promotional tone. Title was salted but has been allowed by MusikAnimal for creation. The article cites reliable, independent sources such as Dawn News, ARY News, Express Tribune etc. If the promotional tone is the only concern, the article can be emended instead of deletion.  sami  talk 09:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He is a well-known Canadian Asian video makers. However the article seems to be spoilt. I will improve it.-- AHLM13 talk 12:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite easily passes WP:GNG based on coverage in WP:RS, including [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] and many more. Mar4d (talk) 04:16, 12 May 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. Davewild (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CS Stanley[edit]

CS Stanley (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 artist certainly fails WP:ARTIST. Only 1 reference to a minor local paper. P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While taking a point made in prior Notability discussion on the Talk page about street art tending to slip by conventional media coverage, the given reference is effectively local coverage and multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not identifying anything better which could meet the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, now it's reached AfD I have to agree, he seems to have had very limited impact anywhere. I can find nothing online of any import, not even the established street art websites. Sionk (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 4 May 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 00:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Reyna[edit]

Greg Reyna (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 was nominated for speedy deletion as A7 (no indication of notability). I do not disagree, but since it survived all the way from 2008, it is safer to bring it to the discussion here. Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:50, 4 May 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. Davewild (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Sutton[edit]

Garrett Sutton (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's subject fails notability. References are either dead links, are not independent of the subject, or connect to web sites where the author has paid to have his or her work reviewed and then have the review published. There does not appear to be sufficient independent coverage of this person to justify an article— such media coverage as there is appears to be of his work, not him, and most of it looks like it is self-generated. KDS4444Talk 06:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jump to: navigation, search


While it is true that Kirkus and Pacific Reviews require payment to review books, reviewers have the right to write negative reviews. Authors can ask that negative reviews not be published, but their fee is not returned. In that way, they are taking an acceptable risk to have their work reviewed and Kirkus and Pacific remain notable sources. Wikipedia also maintains articles for other Rich Dad author (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Lechter) who have similar references. However, the Garrett article will be properly edited snd remove sections that point to dead links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodenships513 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I think that whether or not the author risks having a bad review, this is still not evidence of notability, only of an attempt to purchase it— a bad review would also be evidence of notability if it came from a truly independent source, which it appears these are not.) KDS4444Talk 15:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Kirkus and Pacific had full authority to give the book a negative review. These organizations are not paid to prepare positive reviews, only to write them. I also feel its relevant to note that Wikipedia allowed Amazon user reviews as credible references for Sharon Lechter, along with several personal websites. In the meantime, sections in Garrett's page that were linked to non-working links(bestseller list) were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.232.145 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed my point. My point is that any review which is the result of the author having paid for it is not evidence of that author's notability, only of the depth of his pocketbook, and notability is not something one can purchase. It does not matter whether the review is positive or negative, it matters only that it is not independent of the subject. (That Amazon user reviews may have been treated as credible references in other articles is not the focus of this deletion debate.) KDS4444Talk 02:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 8 April 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) 00:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the content of the two reviews is objective, and I have no opinion on whether it is, excluding it from the encyclopedia doesn't seem to me to sit well with our object of being "the sum total of human knowledge". James500 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
James500, what if they are objective but not independent? I am not questioning the objectivity of the reviews, I am questioning their independence. The author paid to have the reviews written— that to me means they lack independence of the author. (BTW, "sum total of human knowledge" and "an indiscriminate collection of information" sound a lot alike, don't they? I am just noticing this.)
Consider this scenario: I, KDS4444, decide I want Wikipedia to have an article on me. I am not notable (and really, I am not, trust me here), but I decide to write a book about, oh, say, how great my grandmother was (and she was a great lady, but probably not a notable one by Wikipedia's standards). I show it around, but no one wants to review the work of an unpublished author (okay, I actually have published a couple of things, but let's ignore those). So then I realize, "Hey, I can PAY some organization and THEY will HAVE to write a review of my work!" I cut them a check, and a month or so later my book gets reviewed— let's say it gets terrible reviews: "Who wants to read 800 pages about Midwestern nurse with four kids and a dog?" etc. And let's say I do the same thing elsewhere, paying other organizations to write reviews, all of them awful. Fine. Then I can come to Wikipedia and write up my article: "The works of KDS4444 received negative critical responses from several sources", and I can list my sources as these places I paid to write the reviews. Does this then mean I am notable? God, I hope not! Because I am not notable, and I know it. And neither is my dearly departed grandmother (could I use those reviews as evidence of her notability? Please say, "No"). Notability should come from sources independent of their subjects. When the New York Times Book Review looks at your work and reviews it, they aren't getting paid by you to do it. And even if they say your work sucks, that might still make you notable for having been reviewed by them! I am beating a dead horse here, but do you see my point? KDS4444Talk 15:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett's history as a writer did not come out of the blue, nor was it an independent project, as your hypothetical example seems to suggest. Garrett wrote his books under the Rich Dad brand, of which he is also an adviser. He also co-wrote books with Sharon Lechter, another noted member of the Rich Dad organization. This debate seems to center solely on the reviews he received and not the other examples of notability present in the article. I also think it is important to note that Wikipedia has accepted Kirkus Reviews for numerous authors. While I understand that other articles do not necessarily play into this debate, how can Wikipedia maintain its reputation if it accepts something at one moment and dismisses it the next? Past examples need to always be taken into account. A search for Kirkus Reviews on Wikipedia shows how many authors and books use their reviews as notable references (and sometimes as the only references). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodenships513 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is created by multiple people, and the existence of a reference to a website on another article does not justify that reference being used in another article. Could you please link to some pages where the website is used as a reference? Pishcal — ♣ 17:53, 4 May 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 03:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North America, I would like to request the closure of this deletion notice. The second relisting was posted over a week ago with no additional debate. The one issue regarding Kirkus Reviews has been addressed by establishing that Wikipedia has accepted reviews from this source in the past. None of the other references, nor his direct connection with other Wiki articles, have been under dispute. Additionally, the article has been updated with new references, namely:

--An award nomination for IndieFab's Book of the year

--A review from Publisher's Weekly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodenships513 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 1 May 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, Spartaz Humbug! 13:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, WIkipedia guidelines say that articles should not be relisted more than twice. If an article is relisted more than twice, guidelines recommend a short explanation on the reason why. Can you please share why you feel a third relisting is necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodenships513 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for asking. I relisted it in the hope that other users will pitch in - which won't happen if you badger everyone who posts to this page. Spartaz Humbug! 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious COI issues based on article creator. NPOV possibly violated. Possible resumbit through AfC. Valoem talk contrib 20:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three observations: (1) The concept of "badgering" is basically nonsense. There is no way that 'talking too much' or 'backchatting' is going to deter anyone from !voting in this AfD. It is more likely the lack of participation is because editors are unsure how to proceed when faced with book reviews that are paid for but nevertheless objective and favourable. Plus which, AfD is heavily overloaded with too many nominations. (2) Woodenships513 did not reply to everyone who posted to this page. He did not reply to me. (3) COI and POV are per se not valid grounds for deletion (unlike lack of notability or blatant advertising). POV can be fixed by editing (WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD) and COI is wholly irrelevant. James500 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
James500 I agree fully with what you are saying. However, the issue is no one has bothered to improve this article. I recommend fixing MoS citations and ping me when done. I'll changing my vote if article is passable. Valoem talk contrib 20:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IMPERFECT says that there is no deadline for fixing problems that are capable of being fixed by ordinary editing. Accordingly "no one has bothered to fix these problems yet" can't be entertained as an argument for deletion. It does not matter whether those type of problems are fixed within the duration of this AfD or in ten or a hundred years time. Sooner or later they will be fixed. If we attempted to impose such a deadline, Wikipedia would inevitably suffer the same fate as Nupedia. The sequence of events would be this: first there would be a massive deletion spree; this would cause most of our editors to leave the project (meaning that the deleted content won't be replaced, and our 'good' content won't be maintained properly, resulting in a a 'vicious cycle' of further deletions) and would reduce our article traffic, particularly from search engines (meaning that the level of donations to the WMF, particularly from readers responding to fundraising banners, would collapse); this 'perfect storm' would cause the WMF to go bankrupt, and that would be the end of Wikipedia, forever. Such a deadline would defeat the whole point of running the encyclopedia as a wiki, which was to avoid having the sort of deadlines that would be fatal to a project like ours. Accordingly, we do not impose such a deadline. James500 (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: Generally when I feel a subject is notable and should be kept I bring sources to prove the subject passes GNG. I haven't seen this yet, if you are afraid material will be deleted then protect it with sources. None of those sources passes GNG for his notability most primary or book related, however this source helps Fox Business, but isn't entirely enough to push him over the edge. COI does make me worry, it should for you as well though your worries may be a bit misplaced, if this article was written by an established editor instead of an editor who acts in the capacity of WP:NOTHERE I would reconsider. Because of these conditions strong sourcing is required. Valoem talk contrib 02:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My comments above do not argue that Sutton is, or is not, notable. I am presently neutral with respect to that issue. I am concerned to reject plainly invalid arguments that would take this AfD in irrelevant directions if they gained any traction, and set an undesirable precedent if they were followed to the point of deleting the article. (Note that I'm not saying it couldn't be deleted on other grounds, just not POV, COI or MOS). COI on the part of the article creator does not affect the strength of the sourcing required to establish notability. It is always the same no matter who created the article. Nothing on Wikipedia affects the notability of topics. I disagree with the proposition that "book related" sources, which I presume means book reviews, can't satisfy GNG per se. Some book reviews will satisfy GNG, and AUTHOR admits some book reviews as grounds for notability. The nominator's rationale was that the reviews were not independent, not that authors can't inherit notability from their books (we have always accepted that they can). James500 (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the page and a little searching shows lots of PR muscle behind promoting this financial writer; he may even be making Big Buck$$ giving expensive seminars on the topic. However, despite the fact that financial advice books regularly attract media coverage (articles with headlines like "New Book shows how to keep the money in the family") run all the time in newspapers and financial advice magazines. And yet there seems to be virtually nothing out there beyond initial book reviews in reliable places like Kirkus. No coverage = no WP page. Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reliable and significant source I see here is Fox Business, and that was a very short article. Many of the references here should be edited out, such as linking to reviews in Goodreads (which have no authority at all). The Pacific Book Review is a "buy a review from us" site[23], and the radio interview is a one-person outfit. Reviews in Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly, while they could bolster an otherwise unclear case, really only serve to say that the book exists and has been promoted by the publisher. The publisher, RDA Press, appears to be a vanity press (there is no information on its page other than books by Sutton and four other authors). Oh, also, the "Rich Dad Poor Dad" series is mainly known for its bad reviews, although it is notable that folks like Slate gave it lengthy bad reviews. LaMona (talk) 02:32, 10 May 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. When weighing the arguments, I seem to lean towards a "keep" closure, but the points brought forward by Czar, NARH and Johnny aren't exactly dismissable either, so I'll close as NC (hoping Serge's sources will be used for the article), but with no objection if later consensus on the talk page is to redirect the title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Hopper[edit]

Dragon Hopper (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 editor redirected this article to the console article, which is pretty much a deletion, so we might as well have the actual discussion. I'm not sure I disagree (I'm impartial really), since this was an unreleased game with only one source. The material is actually all OR from editors playing the ROM on their computers. I doubt enough coverage in RSs could ever be found. But, our criteria for inclusion on video games is incredibly low, so who knows. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirect. The reason why I redirected the article was because after an extensive search through Google Books, Google News, Bing News, the Reliable Sources Google Search Engine, and the Situaitonal Sources Google Search Engine, I really found very little of note to mention. There's a lot of people saying that same things about it, and that's about it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • New Age Retro Hippie, for some reason I read the history wrong and thought the user before you had redirected it, otherwise I would have left as is. I can't imagine you did that on a VG article without checking for sources thoroughly. :/ That's what I get for drive-by editing. Oh well. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Virtual Boy games as a valid search term. @JohnnyMrNinja, this looks straightforward, so how would you feel about withdrawing the deletion nom for a redirect? (Such solutions are better outcomes to pursue before coming to AfD.) czar ⨹ 10:36, 13 April 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) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm hesitant to delete an article for a game that received an entire 2 pages dedicated to it by a nationally publicated, hard copy source like Nintendo Power. See here. 1up.com, a reliable source, covered it a bit, and suggested that Nintendo Power had even written a review for the game, according to this. This fansite seems to suggest it made appearances in a bunch of other print magazines at the time as well. I think this just barely scrapes above the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would call the NP article a preview spread—heavy on the images, low on info. (I'd only use it as a source if the reviews didn't cover the basic gameplay.) The 1UP article makes passing mention. Flipping through the fansite sources, there is no in-depth coverage. Most of the scans just mention the game by name without saying a word more. There's not enough to source a full article on the game, but it would be worth mentioning in the VB console article, methinks. czar ⨹ 22:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The NP article, while there's lots of pictures, is still two pages - one page without images - so that would be significant coverage. The 1up.com source, yes, I realize is more of a passing mention, I was more swayed by their mention that there were reviews/review copies circulated - more about the prospect of sources being out there somewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as barely meeting notability per the above. I did a quick search for Japanese sources and didn't find anything. I'm sure it was covered in Famitsu and other trade magazines, but their articles are not available online. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we not make "there must be sources" arguments? Let's try to find these external reviews before we keep based on their supposed existence and then no one ever does the sleuthing to find them. If we can also keep in mind the game wasn't actually released, so the existence of these reviews (Famitsu's for example) will have been a fluke—more unlikely than not. czar ⨹ 12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we not dismiss something about which you obviously know very little? Famitsu and other trade magazines often have articles on games 1-2 years before they come out. They'll have announcement articles, productions articles, and even articles about a project which has been shut down. I never said there would be reviews, but simply articles about the game. I saw these kinds of articles all the time when I lived in Japan. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be patronizing. I'm an experienced WPVG editor. If you're unable to find the relevant Famitsu articles, which editors rarely can, then the article will lay dormant in the same unsourced state, collecting cruft. We redirect these articles so they can only host what we can reference. There is no justification to keep an article if the argument is that sourcing must exist somewhere and no one is willing to find it. czar ⨹ 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are kept on the basis of sourcing potential all the time, especially when there is reason to believe that they're out there but we haven't found th all yet, the prime example being games of the early/mid 90s, when nothing's online and it's hard to track down print sources. Sergecross73 msg me 01:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'd like to think that I've been following the vg AfD beat for a while now and I can't call recall a single AfD that was kept on the basis that coverage must exist somewhere, or that a Nintendo Power review may or may not exist and that Famitsu must have some non-English coverage. In fact, I haven't heard of articles being kept based on their potential for sourcing rather than what has actually been confirmed to exist (which is why "sources must exist" is at WP:ATA). I'm willing to even help look for coverage but we have zero leads that this other stuff exists. What are the chances that any editor will reasonably be willing to put in more effort than that? This article will have been kept at AfD and remain unsourced despite being non-notable. czar ⨹ 02:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if the article is kept, it'd be because a nationally published , well-known, reliable source magazine did a 2 page article on it, and that people reasonably assumed that somewhere out there in the world, there's a second print source out there to make it meet the "multiple sources" aspect of the GNG. (Not to mention, the various brief mentions out there.) Also, I've been commenting at AFD for at least as long as you have as well - I know there's precent for my stance as well. I'll have to do some digging to find some examples... Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 6 May 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:48, 23 April 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, Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 4 May 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. Davewild (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gradski Park Kumanovo[edit]

Gradski Park Kumanovo (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 park in a town of 70,000. Creating editor is only adding articles about this town, notable or not. Bgwhite (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 17 April 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, Davewild (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm looking not only at this but at a wider range of articles created by this user, since I think that the context matters. All of the articles that I looked at were not (yet) at WP notability level. There are, however, other venues for local information if this person wants to pursue them, including sites like OpenStreetMap and LocalWiki, both of which welcome information on localities regardless of notability. Meanwhile, this and other similar articles should be either deleted or user-fied, and the user should be encourage to go through AfC. LaMona (talk) 21:26, 29 April 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, Spartaz Humbug! 13:33, 4 May 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 00:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dogface (book)[edit]

Dogface (book) (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)

As far as I can tell, this isn't a notable book. There are several incidental references to it, but nothing that I think meets WP:NBOOK for substance or depth. Mikeblas (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a few mentions of this here and there, but nothing that I'd really consider to be anything more than a trivial mention. ([24]) There are things that briefly mention the book in regards to something else (like a "buy this for Christmas" list) but nothing that really focuses on the book itself. In other words, while the Amazon page tries to use these brief mentions like they're reviews, they're really not reviews in the way Wikipedia would need them to be. If anyone else can find something I'm willing to change my argument, but offhand I just don't see the coverage. If the author had an article I'd recommend a redirect, but she doesn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Telegraph [25]E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – doesn't meet book notability criteria, which requires at least two non trivial mentions. The Telegraph article linked above is not exactly reviewing the book, IMHO, as it is basically not saying anything more than "Here's a pretty doggy picture book". The author doesn't seem to be notable either. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, search yields seller sites, some blog sites, all trivial mentions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 10 May 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. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Goldsmiths College alumni[edit]

List of Goldsmiths College alumni (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 simply duplicates the category. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it can be edited so it doesn't duplicate the category, by adding years alive, profession etc. Siuenti (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It duplicates the category, so what? This being said, I am not convinced this is a worthy standalone list. Tigraan (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, completely standard list of notable alumni of a notable educational institute, passing WP:LISTPURP easily both as an informational list highly relevant to Goldsmiths, University of London and as a biographical index of people by shared educational background. The nomination is not valid in that it is contra WP:NOTDUP but doesn't even acknowledge this, let alone present a reason for not following that guideline here. We honestly should make such nominations eligible for speedy closes, as they are just a waste of the community's time and an undeniable failure of WP:BEFORE section A3. @Tigraan: There is no way we would ever delete this information entirely, which leaves us with either keeping as is or merging. It is clearly not small enough to fit in the parent college article, however, so keeping a standalone list is not merely "worthy" but the only practical option. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would point out that even if Goldsmiths is notable and every single person on the list is notable, I would still like to see evidence that Goldsmiths alumni are notable as a group (see WP:LISTN). So, yes, I see a way that "we would ever delete this information entirely". This being said, if the information is kept, then a standalone list is certainly the way to go.
      After some more digging I found those two sources: [26] [27] that kinda sorta discuss alumni as a group. Of course it is really hard to find a source about alumni that is not about the college itself so I would say that is enough, hence, keep.
      It may be necessary to trim down the list but that is for a talk page discussion, not AfD. Tigraan (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, LISTN is expressly limited to standalone lists, so no, it could not be applied to eliminate any alumni sublists within an article. Second, as LISTN itself acknowledges, it's only one way of analyzing lists. It is not and never has been a requirement that all lists must pass. Here, regarding a list that could either exist as a subsection of the school article, or as a standard navigational index of articles, it's just not applicable (as reading it in conjunction with other list guidelines should make clear, such as WP:LISTPURP, WP:CLN, and even the intro to WP:NOTDIR). Applying LISTN tends to make more sense (or perhaps only makes sense) when we're dealing with unusual classifications or groups of nonnotable people or things we otherwise wouldn't presume merit listing together absent finding sources that do so. Anyway, it's honestly one of our most poorly worded and confusing guidelines, tending more to mislead than to actually guide.

        Why do you think it would be "necessary to trim"? As you say, that's outside the scope of this AFD, but if these are all verifiably alumni of the college, and all merit articles, there's no basis at all for "trimming", beyond maybe excluding someone who only took one class. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        • Although LISTN is indeed limited to standalone lists, the article we are considering here is such a list. If the "alumni as a group" thing was found non-notable as standalone (which I do not believe it is, based on the links I gave), then a list inside the article could still be relevant, there is no doubt on that. However, from what I understand of your reasoning, you assume that if the list inside the article is too long, then it ought to be splitted from the main article regardless of the "group".
          I think here the content guideline of notability should trump the organization content. I view WP:LISTN as a mere interpretation of WP:PAGEDECIDE, and as meaning that the consensus is against creating articles that depend on other articles for their existence. So if the list of alumni is both long and relevant but not standalone-notable, it ought to be trimmed down and fit into the main article, the organization duties ("do not unbalance the article") being subordinate to the content duties ("do not create non-notable articles").
          As for my trimming suggestion, first of all I would say I really was neutral about the idea. I thought that it could be in order to select only the most notable examples (per WP:LISTN) if it was found to be too long, but since then I realized it goes against WP:CSC #1 so I retract that. Tigraan (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • All of that ignores that LISTN itself says it is only one way to analyze lists (and its history, which I was regrettably involved in, has nothing to do with PAGEDECIDE) There's certainly no basis for reading it as trumping other guidelines. No, there is no consensus against split off lists based on the notability of the parent topic because they are considered part of that topic, not separate. A list is merely a presentation format, a SPLIT decision a bow to the practicalities of web page size. So to limit content based on that would be function following form. We do not limit alumni lists (or most lists) to only the "most notable" entries, whatever that means. They should contain the same entries (articles) as the corresponding categories. LISTN doesn't even say anything about "most notable entries" (it doesn't even require that entries be notable at all). postdlf (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per postdlf and WP:CLN. A list of notable alumni is a standard part of any school article, and this one is long enough to warrant a spinoff. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Qualifies as per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP. North America1000 00:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note that several editors are citing "NOTDUPE" as a reason to keep. I also note that the top of that guidelines explicitly says it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and that no-one has said why, in this case, we need such duplicaton, how it helps our readers, or what the list offers them over and beyond what they can get from the category. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are reversing the burden of proof. WP:NOTDUP states that, as a general rule, simply duplicating a category is not a reason for deletion of a list: "Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Though "occasional exceptions may apply", the essence of occasional exceptions is that they are rare and the guideline should not have to be reconsidered in every single instance. If you claim this is one of the instances where there should be an exception, please state why - because what you have written so far could be applied to every list that ever duplicated a category. Tigraan (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Andy is merely quoting the boilerplate caveat that is present on every Wikipedia guideline, and not giving us any reason against applying it here. So we still do not have a deletion argument beyond "Andy Mabbett does not agree with "NOTDUPE" [sic] (for reasons yet to be expressed)." postdlf (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have added references to the article, something that cannot be done with categories. Also, the entries can be expanded with short descriptions, images can be added, etc., also things that cannot be done with cats. North America1000 15:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...as the very first comment pointed out was possible. Andy's insistence that "no-one has said why..." is plainly mistaken, and he honestly should withdraw if this is the level of effort he's going to put into this nomination. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 5 May 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. The Delete !votes are pretty much "not notable" without explanation and without addressing the sourcing unearthed by Satellizer ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kern[edit]

Mark Kern (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)

Doesn't seem to be enough here for a standalone article. In its current state, the only information in here is that he used to work on World of Warcraft and that he used to work on Firefall. I'm not sure what could go into this article that couldn't be added to the articles on Firefall or World of Warcraft. Breadblade (talk) 16:51, 17 April 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) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this person has received quite a bit of coverage by reliable sources, such as
Mark Kern reportedly fired from his job as CEO of Red 5 Studios, Gamasutra
Mark Kern addresses his departure from Red 5 Studios, Engadget
The rise and fall of Mark Kern: how one man may have doomed Firefall and The9 (UPDATED), TechInAsia
Red 5 co-founder Mark Kern steps down as CEO, VG247
Firefall dev CEO apologises for open beta woes, VG247
Kern: MMO noob zones cost about $430K per gameplay hour, VG247
Firefall boss feels MMO developers have “killed a genre” by catering to accessibility over achievement, VG247
Red 5 boss calls console model “broken”, “dead”, VG247
The last three sources I feel are especially interesting and can be used to write about his views on video gaming. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You're right that there isn't much that wouldn't also fit into other articles, but there is additionally enough coverage about his own views as a public figure to warrant his own article. There's actually enough from Engadget alone (and there are plenty more hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, though many are duplicate coverage). czar ⨹ 02:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not one source for his career history.--SimpleStitch (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Un-notable. Are we supposed to have a wiki page for every employee of every company in the world? Apparently the most exciting thing he's done is get fired, and plenty of people don't have pages for being fired.81.104.217.234 (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the aforementioned links? Specifically the Engadget link to their category of Kern-focused articles? czar ⨹ 03:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough sources for career history, not notable enough to be mentioned on the World of Warcraft page or any other game's pages except for Firefall.--Frybread (talk) 18:20, 24 April 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) 00:33, 25 April 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, Davewild (talk) 08:13, 4 May 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. Davewild (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arielle (singer)[edit]

Arielle (singer) (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)

Singer may not meet music notability requirements. Does not mention any charted hits or albums. Perhaps she is too young yet. Also, there is no info found on her full name. Tinton5 (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the references in the article shows, she has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Charted albums are not necessary. See criteria 1 in WP:MUSBIO. Ross-c (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 April 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, Davewild (talk) 07:38, 4 May 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. Davewild (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tuzcuoğlu Mehmet Ali[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tuzcuoğlu Mehmet Ali (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: as non-notable subject in hagiographic, OR and POV-ridden article. Quis separabit? 13:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 April 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, Davewild (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would gladly change my !vote if someone can find sources, but it will need to be someone with good access to materials in Turkish history. The one web link is broken, and the book on Gbooks has no "search inside" so it isn't possible to see the extent of treatment of this person. It's a shame, because it is exactly this difficult-to-find information that could make WP so valuable. I hope someone steps up with links. LaMona (talk) 02:45, 10 May 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. Davewild (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Nelson (director)[edit]

Chris Nelson (director) (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: non-notable dilettante in the entertainment business. Quis separabit? 01:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:DIRECTOR as his works have had multiple reviews in independent periodicals. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/ass-backwards-sundance-review-417505 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/movies/ass-backwards-a-comedy-by-chris-nelson.html?_r=0 http://variety.com/2013/film/markets-festivals/ass-backwards-1117949080/ as well as the three references in the article proper. Ross-c (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 April 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, Davewild (talk) 07:23, 4 May 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. Nakon 03:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuvie[edit]

Cuvie (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)

Un-notable author. Sources are from the author's blog. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - @DragonZero, do you read Chinese? Not me too. But sources definitely does not looks independent. Looks as a blog to me. Doublefrog (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doublefrog has been blocked indef as part of a sockpuppet investigation. Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 6 May 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, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gujira[edit]

Gujira (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)

Un-notable author DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No references in independent sources. absolutely nothing. Doublefrog (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that this passes WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't have a clue what this article is supposed to be about and I seriously doubt anyone not already familiar with the subject would either. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 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 00:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinozuka Jouji[edit]

Shinozuka Jouji (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)

Un-notable author DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   08:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - What a mess with the article. No coverage in independent sources as well. No references. Simply nothing. Doublefrog (talk) 05:46, 5 May 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 European Geosciences Union#Publications. Davewild (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Surface Dynamics[edit]

Earth Surface Dynamics (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 PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "(Copernicus journals have a history of becoming listed in the WP:NOTABILITY indices once the required time period has passed, and is certainly influential already in its field." No evidence of influence available. Notability is not inherited and even much larger and longer established publishers than Copernicus from time to time start journals that fail after only a few years. PROD reason therefore still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my user talk page response to User:Randykitty:
"Thanks for the notification. I removed it. I can add some sources and give my assurances that it will be indexed in the future. But if you feel you would like to delete it, do go ahead under the condition that it is archived and re-added once it is ISI-indexed, this being a process that just takes some time. One other option would be to just list it in a page on Copernicus Publications alongside their other journals, but that means that we can't use the nice journal infobox template... I unfortunately do not have time for WP legal-wrangling at present -- or for many contributions, even more sadly. So I am unlikely to do very much. Been gone for quite some time and just moving slowly back in. Andy Wickert (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)"[reply]
Andy Wickert (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, see WP:CRYSTAL. Even large publishers like Sage, Elsevier, or Springer sometimes start new journals that fail after a few years. I see no reason why we should assume that Copernicus somehow is different. If ever this gets notable, we can create an article, but at this point, it's simply WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and remove, then. I forget -- are deleted articles archived so they can be brought back from the dead? Or should this be sandboxed somewhere? Andy Wickert (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not and deleted articles should not be sandboxed either. However, you can easily make a copy and store it on your computer. Alternatively, once the journal becomes notable, you can go to WP:DRV and request undeletion (perhaps that's actually what you meant with archiving :-). --Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to European Geosciences Union#Publications, where is it already mentioned. I was unable to find independent secondary sources describing the journal in depth and with no impact factor (yet) nor indexing in selective databases, the journal seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NJournals notability thresholds. Nonetheless, it is indexed in GEOBASE and GeoRef, both independent reliable geology indices, so basic facts about the journal are verifiable independent of the EGU. I suggest redirecting to the EGU publications section, where ESD appears in a list of EGU journals. Earth Surface Dynamics is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted. A redirect preserves the article history, should the journal gain an impact factor. No prejudice to re-creation of the article if multiple independent in-depth reliable sources develop, or the journal gains an impact factor. --Mark viking (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good solution to me -- sorry for not noticing that it was already mentioned there and creating a page too soon! Andy Wickert (talk) 08:45, 5 May 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. Davewild (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Mone Johnny[edit]

Johnny Mone Johnny (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)

Highly promotional. Also the article contains poor sources to justify the content. VagaboundWind (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then we will have to make so many hit songs articles in wikipedia. There are many classic and trend setting songs in Malayalam, they don't have a wiki article, so what significance for an ordinary song released on 2013. And you will not find any chart topper lists as there are no sites for it. VagaboundWind (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NSONG, which says "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". If there were any reliable sources I would recommend a merge to the soundtrack section of the film article. Random86 (talk) 00:08, 12 May 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. Davewild (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Barclay[edit]

Roger Barclay (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 NACTOR + GNG –Davey2010Talk 02:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not the most notable, but has billed appearance in notable movie Diana & Me being moderately billed for that., as well as long-running supporting roles in House of Anubis and Holby City. His four episode (out of six) appearance in Pride and Prejudice is also a non-trivial (though not main) role. Overall, I feel that these appearances plus his prolific other appearances justify an article. Ross-c (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if I have the right to comment but still... As for the amount of informations about this man, I was not able to find much about him, but over time will appear more and more information about this actor. So I think we need to keep this article.---Christaya1002 (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as non-notable. Quis separabit? 13:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 30 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entirely sourced from IMDb, which is not a reliable source for living people. Should sources be updated, I might reconsider. Skyerise (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sadly. He has quite an illustrious CV but it seems nobody wants to write about him in reliable sources. You could source some of this to his agency, but that doesn't satisfy notability requirements. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 6 May 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. Davewild (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eran Thomson[edit]

Eran Thomson (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've not found the single thing that makes them pass Wikipedia's notability criteria that I am aware of. I cant find independent coverage of Laugh-Masters Academy, Koobar or Friendlet; the films are mostly shorts; the 'Greens ad' did get a bit of attention at the time, but the creators sadly didnt get a lot of focus as a result. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 30 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've searched sources but likewise can't find any one thing that confers notability. asnac (talk) 08:22, 4 May 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. Davewild (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aive[edit]

Aive (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: as non-notable. Quis separabit? 13:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 April 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, j⚛e deckertalk 04:58, 4 May 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 Vishal Bhardwaj. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VB Pictures[edit]

VB Pictures (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:NCORP and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alt name:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Redirect / partial merge for now to its founder Vishal Bhardwaj. Simple enough to speak there about it as part of his overall career. If someone determines that these many sources ( [30] [31] ) can be used for expansion and sourcing, I'd say keep instead.Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:48, 27 April 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, j⚛e deckertalk 04:56, 4 May 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. Davewild (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shreveport Rugby Football Club[edit]

Shreveport Rugby Football Club (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. A local Rugby club playing in a small league. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete under WP:Sport - as the proposer states, no coverage, unnotable WalkingOnTheB (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets the WikiProject rugby union notability guidelines. Besides meeting rugby notability guidlines this team is part of the national association governing rugby. The governing body divides the entire sport regionally so all teams are technically regional in nature under that body. spatms (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Speaking as a long-time sports editor and a member of six different sports WikiProjecets, I want to state for the record that no WikiProject is permitted to adopt its own notability guideline for subjects within its scope, such as this one purportedly adopted by WikiProject Rugby Union: WikiProject rugby union notability guidelines. The correct notability guidelines that apply to all companies, clubs, sports teams, and other organizations are WP:ORG and WP:GNG; the purported notability guideline of WP:Rugby Union should be disregarded completely for purposes of this AfD. Period. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 9 April 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 02:26, 17 April 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 00:58, 25 April 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, MBisanz talk 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable amateur rugby club team. Subject fails the specific notability guideline for clubs, teams and other organizations per WP:ORG and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete lower tier amateur sporting clubs are rarely notable, this one is no different. LibStar (talk) 17:14, 9 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_May_4&oldid=1142624846"