THC Science

< 8 July	10 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Delete: additional sources do not provide significant discussion of the subject. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paras Hospitals

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

Not notable Shyamsunder (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, User Shyamsunder is intentionally keeping this page for deletion. Administrators are requested to warn/block this user. GKCH (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Gokulchandola: Not a valid argument to keep the article. If articles do not meet certain criteria, they are deleted. There nothing done intentionally and Shyamsunder is aware of what he is doing. — LeoFrank ^Talk 15:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:LeoFrank that this is discussion section for article may keep/delete. If you read some links given by User:MelanieN feel relevance of page. Paras Hospital is one of the best hospital in NCR. Yes I agree information need to be added.GKCH (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Gokulchandola: You are not getting the point. Please read WP:ATA. — LeoFrank ^Talk 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article itself contains only primary sources, but a search finds some coverage and many mentions in Reliable Sources.[1][2][3][4] Given that I was only searching in English, it is reasonable to assume there would be more coverage in other languages. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the sources you have mentioned, this is a very small article. The other three: [5], [6], [7] are mostly about treatments that some people have received at this hospital and are not really covering the hospital as such. It fails WP:GNG. — LeoFrank ^Talk 15:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. — LeoFrank ^Talk 15:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Per the message left on my TP An editor feels I closed this early than needed be so thus reopened/relisted.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are only passing mentions, as LeoFrank says. No indication of notability - thankfully, the idea of inherent notability has not yet passed from schools to hospitals. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, only trivial or passing mentions in sources, although there could be substantial material in Indian languages that I can't read. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak or strong but Delete - not notable enough to be here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superbalist.com

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

Non-notable. Only references given are press releases. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Fist Full of Stories (and Articles)

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

Collection of short stories and essays that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Taylor

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

BLP has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. IMDB is not a reliable source. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find sources about this actor but could find very little and added it to the article. Not very hopeful for his survival at WP. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can find some interviews, but I'm not sure about the notability of the websites. Here is an article from a tabloid. The others I found are from blog type sites and forums. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -Being an entertainment historian I have access to data bases that the public does not and upon a search of the subject I have yet to find any information that would validate the subject as being notable enough for a page. The regular searches turn up very little and what is turned up is primarily public edited so we cannot use those in my own opinion as reliable sources.--Canyouhearmenow 12:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incite (company)

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

Only claim to fame is award by "Market Research Society," a non-notable organization. All other references are primary or do not meet WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not quite enough coverage for a 14 year old firm, the awards while appropriate for the industry are a bit weedy. With some in depth coverage in reliable sources, I'd change my vote, but I don't see that being forthcoming given my attempts to find something. --Bejnar (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tejinder Singh

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

Crummy article about a non-notable person: recently deleted under multiple criteria (A7, G11, G12). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly promotional pseudo-resume about a non-notable person. Note: this is not the same subject as the previous AFD. MER-C 04:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP. Clearly promotional. Deb (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Good grief, completely littered with BLP violations SpinningSpark 11:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies

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

This is WP:LISTCRUFT. Not notable on its own. If properly sourced it might be included with 2002 FIFA World Cup but as a standalone article it's wholly negative and unbalanced. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge - every tournament has some refereeing decisions which are deemed "dodgy" by fans or the press but which don't have any lasting significance or impact. This is the case here, a standlone article collating these really isn't justified -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - um what controversies? Giant Snowman 19:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2002 FIFA World Cup already includes discussion of controversial decisions including in Spain vs South Korea and Italy vs South Korea. Probably remaining content could be merged. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus here that this is a notable event, which should have a wikipedia article and that concerns about the article should be solved by editing. The discussion about what the article title should be needs to be discussed on the article talk page not here. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Children's immigration crisis

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This doesn't look like an encylopedia article to me, merely some minor news coverage of a story (WP:NOTNEWS). More problematically, it looks a little like a slanted political piece (even if that was not the intention) to make a point about Obama's immigration policy. Black ~~Kite~~ kite (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS (some of the text may be a candidate for Wikinews). ukexpat (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning delete - Immigration into the US has been in the news a lot recently, both due to its scale and to related law reform. However, the article here does not delineate its subject matter clearly enough; a reliable source would need to be produced, and preferably two, showing that the specific circumstance the article intends to cover both (a) exists and (b) is being treated as a discrete event in its own right by sources that may be regarded as reliable on such matters. (So no partisan blogs, for example.) And of course the entire thing needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic style, and without the obvious bias towards a US-resident readership. (I make no comment as to any political bias of the current text; it's the cultural bias that struck me.) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads as a thinly veiled attack against persons migrating from Mexico to the United States and policies of the current United States administration. I got over-ruled on my nomination for a speedy and I'll wear that. However this article has no encyclopedic value at all. It's merely one persons political rant. Thanks for nominating here. Saved me the trouble. AlanS (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve The article's title is vague? OK, so change it. The article's WP:POV is showing? OK, then neutralize it. The article is an attack against Mexican immigrants? Not at all. Calling the immigration of these children illegal is not an attack against them, but merely a statement of fact. They are attempting to enter the country by means other than the normal legal immigration route, and thus their entry violates US laws and is de facto illegal. (By the way, the present crisis involves children mostly from Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not Mexico.) Surely this is an ongoing issue that is generating a lot of press, and there should surely be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to build an article that covers all sides of the issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refrain from !voting for the moment. Can someone explain to me exactly how this is excessively slanted or an attack? It seems like a fairly neutral description of how a law that was intended to deal with trafficking has had an unintended side effect and how the current administration is dealing with that side effect. I don't see any slurs, statements to the effect that the original administration that passed the law was incompetent, or statements to the effect that the current administration is incompetent.—Kww(talk) 14:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikidan sums it up nicely and I found nothing there I disagreed with. This is more than a news story, this is an event. There are lots of political hacks trying to use it as a wedge issue on both sides of the isle, there is a real humanitarian issue at stake, but more importantly, this is getting lots of press. Headlines. It needs fixing, but then again, it was just started, but there is absolutely no question it is a notable topic that can be written in a neutral fashion, as demonstrated by the amount of air time and column inches the event is getting. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a lot of work, possibly even a rename, but this is definitely a notable event that should be the topic of an article, and Fred's work makes a decent first draft. Keep. DS (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTNEWS does apply here, but this is still - even according to U.S. Homeland Security - an unprecedented event in immigration, one that would warrant a separate article. I do not see how the article's content constitutes an attack against immigrants. In addition, deleting the article because it makes the U.S. President look bad is a misinterpretation of WP:NPOV. I will submit that the article very badly needs further development to bring it up to encyclopedic par. --WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either re-write significantly or, if that can't/won't be done, delete until someone else wants to try (also, rename to something U.S. specific). I suspect there's nothing unencyclopedic or non-notable about the topic here (I, too, have been reading the media reports focusing on children's immigration issues that have been flooding in recently), the problem is just in the execution, so I'd be fine with either a re-write or a without-prejudice deletion. The trouble with this particular version of an article on this topic is that rather than being an encyclopedia article, this seems to be the first few paragraphs of a persuasive news piece, complete with a "hook"y intro ("Coming up later, on CBS...tens of thousands of children crossing into the US without their parents!") rather than a lede, and a sort of timeline of primary events related to the topic rather than a discussion of the actual article topic. This could all be incorporated into an article, but as it stands it's not an article, and the manner in which it's failing to be an article is actively problematic for readers who expect to see an encyclopedic discussion.
For what it's worth, I don't agree with the calls that the article is biased toward or against immigration or that it's an attack page; I think it's so lacking in organization/a point that people are actually reacting to whichever "pro" or "anti" sentence (and there are both, because again, it's simply listing source claims rather than discussing their relevance) in it catches their attention.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to Keep. Though the article still has some tone and organization issues, it's now a quite serviceable first pass at the topic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article. I'm not wedded to the title but suggest that 2014 not be included in any new title as this seems likely to extend beyond 2014 and has roots in prior years, and in at least one film made in prior years. The most significant information is the interaction of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 with the current wave of immigration producing unintended consequences. Remarks about my motives and possible bias are totally out of bounds. I have opinions, on both sides of the issues, but tried to write a neutral article. As to news, this is not some fool riding around in a Bronco. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about proposing a title that doesn't treat the USA as the whole world, then? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Children's immigration crisis in the United States"? --WaltCip (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible. How are reliable sources referring to the situation? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By there way there is Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the United Kingdom User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is plainly a synthesis of news reports which constitutes original research. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New title Immigration of Central American children to the United States User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's very general, and could potentially cover historical situations dating back almost to 1776. Again: If this is a real, discrete situation that you've written about, what are reliable sources calling it? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to Walt's idea and make it "2014 children's immigration crisis in the United States". Yes, I know, a year, but that narrows it down to who (children), what (immigration crisis), where (US) and when (2014 is when it started), as otherwise assumes it is the only one that is or shall be with a title so generic. Like all ongoing issues, it will be subject to renaming anyway once the media all agree upon a common name. As a temporary name, this seems a reasonable compromise that is easily understood. You could say "Children" is vague, but they aren't coming from one country, but from many, so it is justified. I don't think substituting "Latino Children" would be helpful yet it is the only adj that fits and is concise. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it needs improvement. The issue has had substantial discussion on mainstream radio in the United States and therefore is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Although It could do with a tidy up that can be fixed, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not an encyclopedic topic, it reads more like a blogger advocating for a cause, grabbing various immigration-related news article to support the argument. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but see if the article can be turned into a more general article about unaccompanied children who seek to immigrate to the US. For UK, there is a generalUnaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the United Kingdom article that may be used as a model. It doesn't seem like all or a majority of the children coming to the US are actually seeking standard asylum, so a somewhat different scope and title may be in order. But the topic is hardly restricted to 2013/2014 even if there is a surge now. Iselilja (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My thinking was that the crisis happened in 2014, before that, we could handle the normal load. This is many time higher than normal, so much so that we are literally having to rent warehouses as temporary bunk houses. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH WP:NOTADVOCATECombatWombat42 (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What am I advocating other than accurate significant information about a notable subject? User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not suitable as a foundation for a neutral, encyclopedic article, and, as such, theoretical other articles are irrelevant. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is an international crisis that affect tens of thousands of children rushing to the US from a variety of countries and has overwhelmed the world's only "superpower", enough to grab headlines on a global scale. If that doesn't serve as a basis for an article, nothing does. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, based on the several hundred news accounts by now with wide international coverage; , this is of major political significance not just now but in the future. Tho the title should be qualified , perhaps to ' "2014 Children's immigration crisis in the United States", as suggested above. And we do need to be careful about NPOV. Even for the usual WP tendency to hide its collective head in the sand about serious matters, I'm amazed to see the opposition to the article. Along with Kww, I don't see this as an attack of any sort at all--the facts of the matter may imply political criticism, depending on one's own political view of the world, but that's up to the reader. And indeed the various press comments do need to be much more fully included. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. This is very big news in the U.S., and the news reports leave a lot of things very unclear that I would like to see Wikipedia delve into. For example, recently some anti-illegal-immigration protesters lined up and forced some busses loaded with illegal immigrant kids to turn back from an immigration detention center, while pro-illegal-immigration protesters were calling for them to be let through... no, I don't have that backwards. Issue worth explaining. Wnt (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously passes GNG. The way it is written is not a reason for delete. Okay per WP:NOTNEWS as this should have "enduring notability", and WP:EFFECT with its likely catalytic and "lasting effects". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this not only meets WP:GNG it very easily exceeds it. This event is being as widely covered in the US as the 2014 Crimean crisis was, in some aspects even more so. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply as this will have significant impact on US immigration policy and political ramifications for the upcoming 2014 US Election cycle. If there are WP:NPOV issues, those can be dealt with on the talk page and with future edits. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I have read of the delete !votes above, it seems to me that all but ukexpat's are little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources in the article and others presented at this AfD lead me to conclude that this crisis is a major international event between the US and Mexico and therefore of encyclopaedic importance. However, I think a better title would be something more akin to "2014 United States immigration crisis". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename This is a verious serious and ongoing issue. If you search children immigration, you can find thousands of articles. I would suggest renaming to something like "2013-14 United States immigration crisis" or something similar. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons given in the nomination simply do not wash. The topic is clearly notable, and there is ample coverage in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.31.233 (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiDan61 and others above. Notable event which is already frequently being cited as an influential factor in the 2014 elections. -Helvetica (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This issue continues to grow in relevance, for example, Sarah Palin's call for impeachment based primarily on immigration policy. Clearly notable. --Cayzle (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Palin's un-credible call is notable? AlanS (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not you personally believe Palin's comments are valid, Palin is a prominent figure in US politics and her comments are notable, because they receive significant press coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are her comments credible though? AlanS (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to her own opinions yes, provided she was quoted in a reliable source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Credible is not the same as notable. Whether or not there is a snowball's chance in hell that her call for impeachment will be followed, it is a verifiable fact that she made the statements. That's all that matters here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Reads like a synthy blog about an ongoing event. Any relevant information should be passed onto the Illegal Immigration to the United States page. Juno (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created by moving and expanding the section Illegal Immigration to the United States#Children. It is far too long and detailed to be be put back there. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to be improved, of course, but it's a legitimate article. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I'm sorry but I just don't understand how today's hot CNN story deserves an article in an encyclopedia. Please start your own blog and dump this there. Focus people. MiracleMat (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It was NYT's coverage which got me interested, but other major coverage was in The Guardian, and Democracy Now. The matter is of concern to the Department of Homeland Security, the United Nations, the President of the United States and both houses of Congress. Yes, please focus. Research shows that the surge in immigration by unaccompanied minors has been building since 2011, doubling in volume each year. DHS first noted it when it was only about 5,000, but doubling adds up, now it is 60,000 and severely taxing federal resources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with improvement This is more than just a "news story" as many users are claiming it to be- it is a notable time in US history covered in nearly every news source daily. Yes, it may need to be neutralized but that doesn't constitute deletion. Those are easy fixes. As events continue to unfold, we can continue to update the page. Once the situation settles down a bit, we can make mass improvements and revisions to the page.Just my two cents. Meatsgains (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change the title The title is POV pushing; a more neutral tone is needed for the article. I accept though that any title that includes a descriptive word like "problem", "crisis", "difficulties" or even "issues" will automatically give it a non-neutral feel. For wont of any other title, ~~I would go with "2013-14 United States immigration crisis" or similar, as suggested above.~~ Stephen! ^Coming... 06:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed that Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the United Kingdom was highlighted above. A similar title Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the United States would be much more neutral, and if this article could be modelled on the UK article, it would be much more encyclopoedic. Stephen! ^Coming... 07:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the article, Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the United Kingdom is a term of art used by reliable sources. It would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to coin a parallel phrase for the USA. I've asked several times what the US situation is being called by reliable sources - not least because if they've given it a consistent name, it's good evidence that it exists as a discrete topic rather than a slanted POV of a wider thing we already cover. No-one has provided this. So again: What is the situation at hand being called by reliable sources, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - That assumes all the children are seeking "asylum", which I don't think is the case. Many are trying to catch up with their parents, who are already here, so the title would be inaccurate. I can't speak for the other article, which the title may apply to fully, only to this, which it would not. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid spin-off article from Illegal Immigration to the United States#Children. Massive media coverage (flies over GNG bar) and part of current history (as opposed to common news). Add a date to the title if that makes people feel better. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The rationales for deletion are wanting.
First, the majority of them are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that are not a valid reason to delete the article. "Articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet." Per WP:UGLY, in "the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws." So the fact that the title is wrong or it's not the world's most academic prose is not a reason to delete the article. Also, maybe some people think the article is somehow offensive or non-neutral, but that problem is not similar to the stated examples of low-quality content that might warrant deletion ("problems like copyright infringement, advertising, patent nonsense, or unsourced negative statements in biographies of living people").
Second, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is completely inapplicable. It says "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This highly visible controversy is not in any way akin to "routine news reporting on ... celebrities." If the subject of an article is in the news, that doesn't mean that the subject is not notable. Moreover, the article has a variety of non-newspaper sources, like the report of the UN refugee commissioner. Overall, I think this is just another instance of a misguided "attack of the it's-not-a-newspaper police". AgnosticAphid talk 01:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - When I saw the tag on the top of the article saying that the article was being considered for deletion, I almost couldn't believe my eyes. But then I thought for a second, and was like, sure, there are very UPTIGHT AND ILLOGICAL PEOPLE on Wikipedia. Sighs. The rationales for deletion, frankly speaking, are vapid and weak. The "Wikipedia is not a news outlet" argument is incredibly lame-o, as this matter is not just run-of-the-mill "news", but a crisis and a stand-alone situation. Otherwise why does Wikipedia have articles on other news events such as wars and uprisings. Let's be consistent and logical here. This matter goes beyond "today's hot CNN story". It's a crisis and has caused major stirs and problems. The bottom line is that this matter is stand-alone, and copiously sourced, and is a big internationally known SITUATION...with potential (and even actual and current) economic and political ramifications and consequences. Just like any other invasion or war or "crisis". Remember, this is considered a crisis, an emergency, and issue. Where even the Pope of Vatican City has weighed in. Wikipedia would be derelict if it didn't have an article (a separate article) on this matter. WP has articles on current events all the time, with no "considered for deletion" tags on top. Not sure why some feel there should be one for this. Strong keep. This matter is fairly big, and arguably meets Wikipedia standards for a stand-alone article. Given that it's a notable stand-alone subject. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there are some qualified comments to weak keep, it isn't convincing enough to overcome what appears to be a consensus to delete. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dickerson 41

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

tagged for notability since march 2009. Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep A lot of this rides on whether sailboat models themselves are notable. I can find some specs (e.g. [8]) and something like a history of the builder [9]; looking around it's a reasonably well-known boat in the yachting community. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless the sailboat model is very notable (which IMHO is much less likely than, say, an individual boat of the model series being notable), it should be included in the article about the builder. Tupsumato (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No 3rd parties have mentioned this boat. Frmorrison (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is disingenuous to remove the bulk of an article and then nominate it for deletion. Would the closer please note that the comments in this debate were all made on the basis of the stubbed article. It would have been fairer just to nominate it and let it stand or fall on its contents. I really can't agree with the removal of material on the grounds that it is about individual boats of the class. It is perfectly normal to discuss notable individual vessels in an article about the class. For instance, every article in list of battleship classes includes a list of the individual vessels and, where notable, some of their history. As for sources, A Field Guide to Sailboats of North America has a section on the Dickerson 41 and I am seeing numerous mentions in sailing magazines. SpinningSpark 13:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even considering the previous state of the article, there is no evidence of notability. 1292simon (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@1292simon: can you explain why you think the book I linked to above is not evidence of notability? SpinningSpark 10:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is routine coverage. As per WP:EXIST (hopefully it doesn't read as antagonistic, it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek), wikipedia would be drowning in articles for every song ever written, every house ever built, etc if there was not some limit on what is considered notable. 1292simon (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is that routine coverage? It is a book about sailboats. Clearly, the author has not included every sailboat ever built. He has included the ones he feels are notable. That is our definition of notability: a reliable source has noted it. The "routine coverage" argument is usually applied to things like football matches; the match report is mere routine coverage. It is not usually applied to things that find their way into books (and a football match that did so would then be more than routine). I don't see the point of citing WP:EXIST. This is not merely evidence that the thing exists, it is evidence that a reliable source considered it notable. SpinningSpark 12:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I agree that most of the material removed just prior to this AfD was spammy-fluff. But, the Field Guild to Sailboats cited above appears to be a reliable source. I've also found:

neither of which are wonderful sources, but provide some support. If Dickerson Yachts existed, I would certainly support merging into that, but we don't currently have such an article. Possibly rename this to Dickerson Yachts, restore some of the less fluffy material which was deleted, and include a list of other models built by Dickerson? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with that, there is no evidence of notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the Dickerson 41 specifically, I agree the reference situation is pretty thin. But, we do a bit better for Dickerson Yachts, as a company:

which is why I think it might make sense to rename this (the more correct name appears to be Dickerson Boatbuilders) and use that as the start of a new article (preserving the history).

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Display pavilions during the 2010 Winter Olympics

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

Non notable IMO - this is effectively a list of advertisers/displays at the Olympics - what is notable about this? Gbawden (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's press releases from the organisations that had pavillions (which are primary sources), and some mentions. But it lacks significant coverage. I did find this Winnipeg Free Press artcile about the Manitoba pavillion being re-used. Hoever, that is the only substantial piece of coverage, and it really doesn't address the pavilions as a group. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I corraled these together because at the time Canada's Northern House article had just been created and I hoped a list would be better than a seperate article for each pavillion. I still think that. Back at the time there was TONS of press about these pavillions (see here for example , certainly enough for a list, if it can still be found. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minor aspect of a major event without lasting impact. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; once the Olympics were over, so was the press coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-cultural competence in the U.S. military

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

Reads like a personal essay, not sure this is a real topic Gbawden (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a real topic but yes, this is written like an essay. It also relies on a single source, which is problematic. I don't see any value in keeping it. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per Chris and per WP:TNT Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a real topic - a friend of mine used to train National guard members on the topic - but this stub is quite weak. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (WP:Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CODESH School

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

spammy article with no independent refs about non-notable school Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one is straightforward enough. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. TheBlueCanoe 12:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it is straightforward. As a secondary school it should be kept by long-standing consensus and precedent. Actually appears to be called Codesh School, without the capitalisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools, See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It will add one more valuable school to List of schools in Maharashtra. And it will enhance this resource. it would be helpful for person who is searching for schools in Maharashtra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joytreejanata (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 July 2014‎

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crafton family sailing voyage

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

No indication of notability - a number of people circumnavigate the globe but not everyone is notable Gbawden (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not everyone who circumnavigates the globe is notable, but not everyone gets news articles written about them in the Washington Post and USA Today either. That complicates things for me, though I'm still undecided on this one. TheBlueCanoe 12:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete A well-documented human interest story, but in the end, that's all there is to it. Mangoe (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Enough people have circumnavigated the globe that this is not such a notable accomplishment, any more than climbing Mount Everest. They're not Ferdinand Magellan. If somebody ever creates List of people who have circumnavigated the world, they can go on there. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. if Wikipedia can have separate articles on episodes of sitcoms, then this is easily more notable than that. this was a genuine national news item. I do think this meets the standard of notability. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've said it yourself: "news item". Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Very little here appears, as it is written, to be based on Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, thank you. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What, NONEWSPAPER doesn't count? Alright then, it fails WP:EVENTCRIT. It has no lasting impact and hasn't been the subject of post-event analysis. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails notability, per nominator. United States Man (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tod Davies

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

no clear notability as author, editor, or publisher DGG ( talk ) 11:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though I agree with the nominator that the article was very weak. However, I've found a number of reviews of her books, including several for her second fiction book, Lily the Silent. In my view meets the minimum for WP:CREATIVE and shows Davies is having some proven impact. Sionk (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sources currently in the article are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Giant Snowman 09:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesex Wanderers A.F.C.

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

PROD contested by article creator who stated that "Middlesex Wanderers A.F.C. had long history and They visited asian country and affeted important influence." Being around for a long time and visiting a foreign country does not give you notability; significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources does per WP:GNG. This appears to be a non-notable amateur football team with little-to-no achievements. Giant Snowman 11:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN as has not played in a national competition. no indication of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there looks to be little or no possibility of their passing WP:NSPORT or related criteria, WP:GNG looks like a possibility, though far more in relation to the period before World War II than since - Google searches show at least passing mentions of them (usually just as Middlesex Wanderers) in football histories (and contemporary sources), along with Corinthian F.C., as touring internationally with top-class amateur players at a time when the costs and time involved for professional teams to do this would have been prohibitive. PWilkinson (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree there's nothing in the article currently to indicate the club's general notability, there's little doubt that they are notable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Two books (at least) have been published about them, Bob Alaway's Football All Round The World (Newservice, 1948, 169pp) and Brian Wakefield's Centenary History (Replay, 2005, 190pp) (only £2 on a well-known bookselling site, I'm quite tempted)
- This 2005 piece in the Telegraph gives a decent short overview
- The club's constitutional remit is outlined here (scroll down past the details of what's being sold); it also says "The extent of the Club's reputation in the inter-war years is reflected in the fact that invitations were received from every part of Europe."
- A biography of Walter Winterbottom mentions the influence of visits from British teams such as Middlesex Wanderers and Corinthians on the Austrian Hugo Meisl.
- Pre-WW2, the national press frequently listed the members of their touring party ahead of their departures, said who they were playing, commented on the number of amateur internationals included, reported their matches
- In 1926, 2LO radio broadcast a half-hour talk by Bob Alaway entitled "Football in Many Lands", a subject in which his role as Hon Sec of Middlesex Wanderers gave him some expertise.(Gloucester Citizen, "Broadcasting", 20 March 1926, p5)
- In 1939, it became the first British team to play in Turkey;(The Times, "Middlesex Wanderers' Fiftieth Tour", 3 June 1939, p6) there's a montage of stills from their match against Fenerbahce as part of that club's jubilee celebrations on Youtube.
- In 1949, they played the Dutch national XI at Feyenoord's ground in front of 35,000 spectators (lost 3–1).(The Times, "Association Football", 27 October 1949, p6)
- In 1967, they played to huge crowds in Japan (Charles Buchan's Football Monthly October 1967 says 46,000), paving the way for Arsenal's tour the following year, and the club was honoured by the Japanese government in 2003 for their "outstanding efforts to promote grassroots exchange between the UK and Japan" Embassy of Japan in UK, Telegraph.
- In 1982, former FIFA president Sir Stanley Rous was appointed president of "the famous amateur touring club".(The Observer, no title, 3 March 1982, p20) Later presidents include Bobby Robson and Bobby Charlton.

@Struway2: - great research, as ever, if you can expand the article I am more than happy to withdraw the AFD. @Fenix down: do you care to re-think? Giant Snowman 17:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be a waste of time already spent if I didn't expand it, but please don't expect any more than what's above put into proper sentences. I'm still restoring stuff to a new laptop after the last one died while trying to catch up with real life after only 10 days at home in the last 5 weeks... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have struck my previous comment. To be honest, there is a fair bit in the links above that is bordering on routine for me, but the fact that there are two books on the club when it is just a touring team indicate that there is information out there. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Struway2 has clearly established notability above through significant coverage. Davewild (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fenerbahçe S.K.#Supporters. Deor (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genç Fenerbahçeliler

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

It should be merged with article of Fenerbahce SK. LardoBalsamico (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it should be merged with the main article because of recent events, there is a big friction going on with them and the club. With a recent court decision Fenerbahce sports club even closed their social media presence. Also again with the court decision, their names are going to change soon. Here's a link to that news Rivaner (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD from June 23, 2014 hadn't been properly formatted or transcluded—fixing. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with/to Fenerbahçe S.K.#Supporters, no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 11:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per GS. Possibly warrants a sentence there. Fenix down (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - isn't the very existence of the article in the nominating statement evident of notability? Combined with other references in the article, I'm not understanding the basis nomination. Perhaps the nominator could expand on how this isn't notable? Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -The original nominator is retired from wikipedia and the only reason he posted this nomination was because he had a personal vendetta against me.(This was the first article I edited on wikipedia ). He/she never taught I would accept his/her proposal. That aside, this supporters group is on the verge of closing and name change as I stated in my first comment, that is why, I think, this article should be deleted as it lost it's notabilty.Rivaner (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - oh my! I'm torn between keep and merge. Not sure I'm on delete, given the references. Nfitz (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fenerbahçe SK and Genç Fenerbahçeliler are different topics. One is a club and the other one is a supporters' group. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have changed my vote to merge, since it is one of the more popular supporter group, event though it is going to close, it should have a mention in the Fenerbahçe SK page since they're a supporter group of Fenerbahce.
Merge - not independantly notable from Fenerbahce SK. 1292simon (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soft delete due to lack of quorum. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau for Open Culture

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

lack of (non passing mention) RS on the org -> fails GNG, COI, previously PRODed. i.e. there's some sources on activities of it, but lacks a couple of RS and more to write an article Widefox; talk 11:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceShaft

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

As noted by other contributors on the SpaceShaft talk page, the article reads like an original research with mostly unverifiable contents—tagging as such has not yielded any significant improvement since April 2011. SpaceShaft fails Reasons for deletion 6, 7 and 8, and it's inclusion in the Non-rocket spacelaunch article has the same issues, while it's mention in the Space elevator is more appropriate but having a citation with broken link. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an article about a proposed structure, and it reads like an essay. Fails WP:BALL, WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdfusion (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No 3rd party sources found. Fails WP:GNG. -- 101.117.28.72 (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is there some reason not to wait for more improvement? It's only been a couple years. Bryce (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CompareXpress

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

No Indication of significance. A vanity article and it doesn't appear to me that this small company meets our notability standards. Ireneshih (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A vanity article that references multiple news reports in The Straits Times and several other reliable sources? --Hildanknight (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an advert cobbled together from a bombardment of minor mentions, none providing any depth of coverage about this business. Per Wikipedia's five pillars, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, delete this spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are reliable independent sources here. Though I agree with User:Duffbeerforme, this is an advertisement, this article needs Cleanup. XiuBouLin (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Happiness

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

tagged for notability since 2010. Non notable imo Gbawden (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. No indication of any notability for any reason. JTdale ^Talk 12:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have been unable to find more than passing mentions in reliable sources, hence fails WP:GNG. BethNaught (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Camp Happiness was an integral part of US Missile and US Air Force History [10] If you people want to rewrite history to fit your own needs, I can't stop you. George Mindling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.96.247 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mention of the facility can easily be integrated into an article about the controlling unit. Not notable on its own. Intothat darkness 19:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S.V.S. Rathinam

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

self promotion/advt R.srinivaas (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC) self promotion, not a notable person--R.srinivaas (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just out of interest, how can someone who died in 1966 be self-promoting on Wikipedia in 2014? And how can a biography of a dead person be advertising? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted by family members R.srinivaas (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is going to take forever to remove / delete such pages, long live wikipediaR.srinivaas (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you've only just nominated it for deletion this is a pretty daft comment! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- indeed it is out of frustration :) R.srinivaas (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the claims show sufficient notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I've nominated his mentor, Pere Di Elbreil. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- 10,000 converts (even if in conjunction with another person); presidential gold medal. If correct, this sound like notability to me. The complaint does not seem to be that the content is inaccurate. I suspect the nom has an axe to grind, to remove notable Indian Christians nof an earlier generation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- it is just a claim , where is the citation ? all the reference provided are bogus, i strongly oppose, if it would help i reached this article from recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Rathnam (3rd nomination) , which claimed this person as his father and recently nominated Vincent Therraisnathan as his sibling, may be a group people promoting their family --R.srinivaas (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there is certainly a claim to notability for this person. That Thomas Rathnam is not notable is irrelevant in the context of this article, and we have to assume good faith when it comes to other editors and their motivations. Most of the references do not appear to be reliable sources (which is an entirely different thing from being "bogus") but there may very well be other usable references; I do not read Tamil so can't find sources in that language. Please note that references do not have to be online, but they (obvously) have to exist in some form. In the interest of counteracting systemic bias it is important to include notable people outside the Western world - provided they are notable. --bonadea contributions talk 08:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this "gold medal from the president of India" a Presidential Gold Medal of India or something that we have an article on the award? Is there any evidence he received it? The 10,000 converts seems to be this man, the priest mentioned here, and maybe some others. Is there a reliable source covering conversions of the untouchables in India. I know in the mid-20th-century many of those left Hinduism for other religions in very large groups, enough that India has since tried to pass laws to discourage such, so in the context of the time and place 10,000 converts is not neccesarily that big a deal. I'm sure there were Catholic missionaries in 15th-century Mexico who baptized many more Native people than that who we have no articles on. There are published books on the history of Christianity in both Asia and India specifically, I started reading one on the later when a student at Wayne State University, but never finished it. These might be good places to look to see if there are any mentions of Rathinam and his work in converting people. Tamil sources might also be helpful if they are findable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination is cryptic indeed, but there don't seem to be any English-language sources available online, nor any indication that offline or non-English sources exist. At the risk of stating the obvious, we can't really keep articles at AfD solely on the basis that they contain remarkable claims (e.g. having converted a large number of people or having received a certain award) – if those claims aren't verifiable, and in this case they don't seem to be, then they can't be used to establish notability. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources yet to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No sources. There also seems to be some hoaxing going on on the internet concerning this family; see the rather crude "Mr. potato head" style photofits on this page for instance and the repeated recreation of Thomas Rathnam, a supposed descendent. I don't doubt this is a real person but that isn't helping to find sources and means we need to be particularly vigilant about verification in this case. I have no idea what the Tamil script is saying in the article that is supposedly the Tamil version of his name (Google translate comes up with nothing intelligble), but the shear length of it makes it pretty certain that it does not say "S.V.S. Rathinam". From the cover of his book I summise that "S.V.S. Rathinam" is "எஸ். வி. எஸ். இரத்தினம்" in Tamil. Hence I offer

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

However, not seeing anything useful there, so no easily accessible sources in Tamil either. Further, I think the major claim to importance of converting 10,000 christians is dubious. The article later says that he assisted Di Elbreil to convert 10,000. I am presuming that is the same 10,000. SpinningSpark 18:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SpinningSpark ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 22:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Therraisnathan

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

self promotion, not notable R.srinivaas (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC) self promotion, not notable --R.srinivaas (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. I may have missed something looking through the 50 references, but as far as I can tell, all of them are self-published, trivial mentions, youtube links, download links, directory listings, and other non-references that provide absolutely zero significant coverage of the subject. The article appears to exist purely for publicity purposes in violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - user User:Praisewinner already started offending/annoying me in my talk page for nominating Vincent Therraisnathan and S.V.S. Rathinam for deletion, please check articles linked to these articles , the creators of this page seem to create it time and again once it is deleted , please salt them.R.srinivaas (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He apparently is credited as a musician in a couple of films but that's not enough for WP:MUSICIAN, and we also have no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Of the many footnotes, the only one that looks on the surface like it could be a good source, the Times of India one, turns out to be a search page with no results for the subject. In any case if there is some notability here the horrible writing will prevent it from being discovered, so WP:TNT applies as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Smith Jr.

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet WP:NBOX and lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Cem

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

Non-notable actor or martial artist.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable actor.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Google seems to show lots of press for his name in Turkish language . Staszek Lem (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear those are for the same person.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still a completely non-notable actor, unless readers here can read Turkish. Fine for Turkish Wikipedia, not so fine for us here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That the subject is covered only in non-English sources is not a valid argument for deletion; see WP:NONENG. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was about to AfD this due to WP:BIO concerns. Not seeing any mainstream sources... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Kung Fu Panda characters. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tigress (Kung Fu Panda)

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

This is copy of an entry in List of Kung Fu Panda characters with very little addition. It belongs in the List rather than a stand alone article. For reference please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shifu – Peter Rehse (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. I am persuaded by the reasoning found in the "Shifu" precedent cited by User:PRehse above. — Jaydiem (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – per Jaydiem. United States Man (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as said by Jaydiem. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as above MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

971p

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

Tagged for notability since 2009. I can't see how this monitor is notable - no other samsung monitor has a WP article Gbawden (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per WP:PRODUCT.Charles (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability and it is just a model of a monitor. Frmorrison (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I am seeing is "Overview" articles which just have stats and price. None of the sources have decided it is worth writing a paragraph or two. It wouldn't bother me to redirect after deleting, but this particular piece of hardware appears to not be noteworthy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Not much info on it & no evdience of any notability neither. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious delete per nom. and comments above. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sam Willows

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

The band do not appear to be famous in Singapore, and the article does not state their notability in neutral terms. They do not meet the criteria under Wikipedia:Too soon and Wikipedia: Entertainer - no 'significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions', lacks a 'large fan base or a significant "cult" following', and have not 'made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment'. I am also concerned about the connection between the original author of this page and the band-research seems to suggest the original author is the band's website designer. --Paul 1953 (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues of concern are the substantial lack of citations and references outside of the band's website and iTunes profile. Text added after the speedy deletion notice did not improve the article's quality, in my opinion. The rather large gap between my edit and the last one is also telling of their fledgling status. I am considering speedy deletion. --Paul 1953 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In the light of the revised Terms of Use regarding paid editing, I believe there is a stronger case for deletion. This is assuming that my hypothesis (see above) is right. Paul 1953 (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strong oppose: The Sam Willows is one of the most established singers from Singapore, and they are popular, not what you think. "Glasshouse" charted in the 987FM Top 100 Countdown of 2013, despite the fact that it did not enter the local chart. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 08:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: AfD wasn't created properly--reformatting and adding to today's log.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 05:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think the 987Film chart mentioned above is an official for Singaporean music, so it can't be used as a claim to notability. With that said, a search revealed quite a number of interviews from reliable sources, such as one from TODAYonline and The Republican Post, so WP:N is met. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quick google finds an article in TODAYonline, plus this in Noise11 about them collaborating with Steve Lillywhite. It also says they've performed at SXSW (supported by this) and Canadian Music Week. Some other news coverage on them includes in the Strait's Times, Yahoo Entertainment, Stuff Magazine, Republican Post, and they appear in a Channel 5 tv show as seen here. Their EP is presently No 62 on iTunes Singapore, a year after it was released. see here. I also found this from India Times which mentions in passing they performed at the 2013 Singapore Gran Prix and they were supporting act for Pete Murray's Singapore concert per this. JTdale ^Talk 12:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From my brief search and looking at what JTdale found above, there is certainly significant coverage of this band in multiple verifiable reliable sources independent of the subject itself, and therefore passes the very basic of notability guidelines. This article merely needs cleanup for neutrality and manual of style, which I will try and help with going forward. Cheers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As another note, this band is also signed for distribution with Warner Brothers Music as evidenced by their AllMusic profile, which passes music notability guidelines as well. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article as best I could with the short time I had available to do so today. This is probably the most ridiculous deletion nom I have ever seen. Had the nominator done just a few minutes of research without prejudgement, maintenance tags could have been added, and a lot of our time as reviewers would have been saved. On the other hand, the article did get somewhat improved in response to this nom, so that may be the only plus to this nom. I have added it to my watchlist and will be very happy to further help with improvements in the future. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lee Thompson Ska Orchestra

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

Non notable group put together for a concert. No notable or charting recordings, little or no reliable references. Mostly unsourced information. Egghead06 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am tending to think we should keep this one based on personnel involved. Will depend on sources though...might have a look if I get a chance...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A keep might be justified on the basis of notable members (WP:BAND #6), but a merge to Lee Thompson (saxophonist) would also be quite sensible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Lee Thompson (saxophonist). The nomination completely misses the point. The band may have been formed to play a concert but have since gone to play many gigs, including the Glastonbury Festival, performed on TV on Later...with Jools Holland, and have put out an album. The band includes two notable musicians, so deletion is really a non-starter. Keeping or merging to Lee Thompson (saxophonist) are the only sensible options. As for little or no reliable references, searching before bringing it here may have found BBC, Gloucestershire Echo, The Journal, The Clitheroe Advertiser & Times. --Michig (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do four gig reviews/ adverts really make a band notable especially when the venue is little more than the local pub?--Egghead06 (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the band isn't independently notable, that would support merging, not deletion. And do you think their set at Glastonbury, broadcast by the BBC, is a pub gig? --Michig (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glastonbury is awash with artists. Appearing there does not confer notability.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the local pub". From the above links they played various festivals, notable venues such as The Jazz Café and Band on the Wall, and large clubs such as Hoult's Yard in Newcastle. - Colapeninsula (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many musical artists that performed on the major Glastonbury stages would be not considered notable by Wikipedia standards? I would suggest probably none. Egghead's link includes off-stage performers of poetry, circus skills, etc. so is misleading. --Michig (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The band's website includes reproduced reviews from The Sun, The Mirror, The Sunday Times, The Sunday Express, and Blues & Soul, and further coverage from Mojo. --Michig (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there are reliable references out there, the burden is on the article creator and editors to add them to the article. You can't really expect people to trawl though the newspapers every time. As it is it has no refs which support notability.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not acceptable as it is. If you don't want the deletion you work on it and we change our minds maybe. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added add'l refs to the article, including to newspapers and the BBC and the ABC. Between the coverage cited there and their performances as headliners at significant festivals and on national television (Jools Holland), I find them sufficiently notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksey Velied

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

WP:BLP of a musician, sourced only to promotional sales sites with not a whit of reliable source coverage to properly attest that he meets even one of the notability criteria at WP:NMUSIC — the closest thing to a claim of notability here, in fact, is "got X number of views for a YouTube video", which is not a valid claim of notability in the absence of reliable sourcing. I'm not familiar enough with Russian pop music to know if this is salvageable or not, so I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be beefed up properly, but the article is not entitled to stick around in this form. Delete if real sourcing doesn't start showing up. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched, including in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but have not found any third-party sourcing that would support WP:N notability. There doesn't seem to be a corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia (which might lead us to some reliable sources). Delete unless some suitable sources are found. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zahia Dehar

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

as per WP:BLP1E. Also considerable WP:BLP concerns. Her career as a fashion designer doesn't meet WP:BIO either LibStar (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 15:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper, Lots of references on page, on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahia_Dehar and on all formats of Web. Thanks for bringing her to my attention. Gregkaye (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notorious notoriety. WP:BIO. sig1068

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If going successful in her new career some day she may have a WP article as a designer. At present only notable for a one-time event, the sex scandal with famous footballers. Fame (notability) is not inherited from boy friends. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I'm seeing ongoing coverage (in various languages, and probably little more than tabloid froof, but having ANY coverage in the new screwed-up Google News searches is quite an achievement) on Google News - showing that she continues to receive press attention. In books - I see a 2014 commentary: [11], and she was an example in a law book of 2011: [12]. Significant press coverage W Magazine, The Guardian, Hollywod Reporter, The Telegraph... need I carry on? After seeing those articles come up on the front page of a preliminary Google I'm going Strong Keep. Mabalu (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a one-off affair and she has appeared in number of news stories after the scandal. Keep. werldwayd (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Gregkaye and Mabalu and Werldwayd.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repurposing

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

Looks like plain, nearly unsourced Original research. No indication of notabilty The Banner talk 18:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because environmentalists could use these examples! --Highway 231 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a guide book or collection of idea's. The Banner talk 21:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry, I will find reference links to secure the notability of this page. I've found lots of examples, so now what I gotta do is find some more reference links to this! --Highway 231 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. As stated, this appears to be entirely composed of original research, and as pointed out, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Reuse#Repurposing, where it is already mentioned. I agree that this article has a lot of well-intentioned yet unsourced original research into repurposing in the environmental/conservation field. There are also many different kinds of repurposing, Repurposing (broadcasting) and Drug repositioning, for instance. Google searches show evidence of use of this term in the environmental field, but I cannot say I've found solid secondary surveys of the practice needed for notability. It is a verifiable term and a plausible search term, so a redirect to Reuse#Repurposing seems warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Update SpinningSpark's source finds have convinced me there are enough reliable sources out there to satisfy notability and upon which to base a reasonable article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I found another reference to cite, lets find some more! --Highway 231 (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC) duplicate vote struck. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more references have been ADDED. --74.162.159.239 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Highway 231, could you take care to log in in time? Thank you. The Banner talk 21:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it sure does seem like it has improved with references after all this time. --Highway 231 (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - No really. I just checked most sources and I am not impressed. Yes, people are creative but it does not anything to the notability of this article. (Hmmm, and most social networking sites like o.a. Facebook, YouTube and Pinterest are not regarded reliable sources to prove notability) The Banner talk 23:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those added sources are reliable, and nothing has changed that addresses the fundamental problems of the article. Also, Highway 231, users are not supposed to comment with multiple votes. It would be helpful to the discussion if you removed your redundant, bolded "Keep" votes. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NEW IDEA FOR CHANGE: How about we merge contents from Upcycling and Downcycling into this, and KEEP Repurposing as a stand-alone article, seeing as environmentalism motivates me to put emphasis on importance for Wikipedia articles! --Highway 231 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that would be a waste of two proper articles to keep one bad article. The Banner talk 02:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I keep saying we should "keep" this, but now I have a new plan. Even if it means going all the way to PLAN Z, my MacGyver-like tactics of educating people on this REPURPOSING subject is such, that I even made a new category: Category:Repurposing, and this is why I have now figured that maybe we identify this article for deletion as a stop-gap measure since some alternative approach on this subject had yet-to-be-determined for Wikipedia guidelines; in which my recent emphasis on stop-gap measures as a subject has also been involved in my research. Some might say we have original research, but I'm finding sources to confirm it too. The recycling subject is so important to me, this is why I am doing what it takes to ensure validation too. So maybe we could indirectly convert article into category somehow. --Highway 231 (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For educating people, you have to go to Wikiversity. Here we describe what is important, not individual projects. The Banner talk 02:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, lets propose we move this page to Wikiversity. I think maybe we should archive this page, maybe as a draft. Or, why don't we create a Wikia city about repurposing (or recycling in general with this as a page), and copy all text, and re-upload all images of this onto it. Shall we? Because I like using Wikia since it can serve as a "loophole" to Wikipedia's policy against original research. --Highway 231 (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have procedures and it is not okay to circumvent them. The Banner talk 03:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, a draft has just been made, Draft:Repurposing. This will be a stop-gap until we find a more appropriate Wiki to put it on. --Highway 231 (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now we can delete the Wikipedia version of this page, or maybe merge somewhere, or redirect to Reuse. Because now I made a near-identical Wikia version of the page. --Highway 231 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You know that your Wikia-fork is a copyright violation by not adhering to the license under which Wikipedia works? And secondly, we have nothing to do with Wikia. They have no influence of Wikipedia. The Banner talk 15:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This might be a topic worth including in Wikipedia but Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published sources, not a publisher of original thought. Without citations and without meeting the bar of WP:GNG this article should be deleted. I expect that sources exist to establish this article, but those are not being presented and so much or everything here is without a citation to a reliable source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may have some original research, but some of the article has sources. Also, it is an important topic to have information about. Frmorrison (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as mentioned, none of those sources are actual WP: Reliable Sources, thus making them invalid for any sort of argument. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ is so the option, in which I AGREE since I fully endorse opinions to weigh down decisions. --Highway 231 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck SpinningSpark 13:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is no Featured Article and is poorly sourced; I suspect that those who are shouting OR are correct insofar as the authors probably wrote the article without consulting a single source. However, there are book sources that cover this topic with a perspective very similar to that of our article, such as The Revolutionary Yardscape: Ideas for Repurposing Local Materials to Create Containers, Pathways, Lighting, and More, ISBN 0881929972. There are books written about the repurposing of a single object such as Craft Challenge: Dozens of Ways to Repurpose a Pillowcase, ISBN 1600594026. And for a more academic approach see Design by Use: The Everyday Metamorphosis of Things, ISBN 3034609124 (yes, it is largely about repurposing—see the contents, or the picture of repurposing of a cigarette lighter as a bottle opener on page 11). A poor article is not grounds for deletion if it has the potential to become a good article. Deletion should be on the grounds of what it could become, not what it is now. I also disagree with those desiring to redirect to reuse. Just because that article covers the topic in summary does not automatically mean that there cannot be a main article at well, on the contrary, there probably should be. SpinningSpark 21:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- YEAH! I would so ~~KEEEEEEEEEEEP~~ this article since some people have to do backbreaking research in order to even get a repurposing idea, and I feel Wikipedia can soften the blow of that. I AGREE FULLY --Highway 231 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck SpinningSpark 00:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, WP:NOTMANUAL. And an encyclopaedia is also not fit for a list of ideas or a howto. You have cut and pasted this article out of Reuse but this excessive list has no place as stand alone article. Reform it to an article about "repurposing" and add a few (max ten) significant examples to it. That goves the article a reasonable chance on survival. The Banner talk 07:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed NOTMANUAL, but it is not necessary, nor should we be demanding, that the article is improved before passing AFD. It is only necessary that it be shown capable of being improved to encyclopaedic standards because it is sufficiently covered in reliable sources. There is WP:NOTIMELIMIT. A good academic source that is not a HOWTO that could be used as the central reference of this article is the Brandes et al. book I listed in my post above. That is not to say that HOWTO books cannot be cited. Just because a car manual is a HOWTO does not mean that we cannot have an article on car maintenance, or even one on car manual. There is a great selection of these kinds of books to choose from as sources. I listed some above, here are some more: Greeenmayer, Repurposing & Home Decor, Ganoe, Stuff out of Nothing: Repurposing old items around your home into new, useful, and fabulous items, Tebow, Decorating Ideas Made Easy : Repurposing And Home Décor To Declutter Your Home. While I agree that endlessly listing every repurposing found in a HOWTO book is not encyclopaedic, many of these books have a preliminary section that describes repurposing in general: what it is, what it's for, and the scope and range of repurposing. These parts of the books can certainly be used as sources for a general encyclopaedia article. SpinningSpark 10:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hit the Google news search link at the top of the AFD. You have news articles like this one [13] talking about the subject in detail. Dream Focus 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 17:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete or merge - [WP:notmanual]. There are good tips in this article, but it is not suitable for wikipedia. Might I suggest wikihow or instructables. 1292simon (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear keep after a cleanup of the article. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Diar

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

Subject was involved in a run-of-the-mill crime that does not meet WP:EVENT or WP:CRIME since it had no persistence, significant coverage or lasting effects on society. Murders like this are not that uncommon and the victim was no one significant. Except for a single episode of Deadly Women, there is no mentioning of this suspect in any crime documentaries. Not everyone who is featured on Deadly Women is notable enough for an article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - The article needs a rewrite to remove POV violations. I don't have strong feelings about this article and wouldn't fight hard to keep it, but I don't think this is an obvious case of failing to meet notability guidelines. She has enough news coverage, imo. Bali88 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit:Removed some of the POV violations and inconsistent statements (You can't say with certainty that she suffocated him if the cause of death couldn't be determined)Bali88 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the mill case. Fails one event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - enough news coverage to reach notability in my opinion. But article is in need of a shape-up.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - added a reference about her reinstated life sentence. I also found a news story of the overturned sentence on the Supreme Court of Ohio website here. There is also articles about a clemency request she made and then dropped in 2013.
Keep I cleaned up the article, it has enough 3rd party to be notable. Frmorrison (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - enough news coverage to reach notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree that it reaches notability. United States Man (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Toyota Football Championship

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

Can't find any sources to suggest that the TFC exists. This article was created in 2013 - i suspect this may be a hoax Gbawden (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. However it does exist. Giant Snowman 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NEVENTS. LuigiToeness (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Somers

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

I don't believe that this person is notable. Yes his suicide was sad but he is not the only war vet to choose this route so if his suicide makes him notable we open up WP to every dead vet. Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person has acquired "significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources" (CNN, The Guardian, Gawker, Daily Mail, etc.), which makes him pass WP:BIO. And yes, his suicide has indeed made him notable. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 08:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia's guideline WP:GNG is met handily with this biography, having so many reliable sources commenting on the man and his words that went viral. Regarding the heartless "every dead vet" comment, Wikipedia can and should have articles about every one of them that meets notability guidelines. Certainly Somers does. Binksternet (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed by User:Zhaofeng Li—as well as sources included in the article—demonstrate notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plenty of coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability is referenced in the article. BethNaught (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E. He is notable only for his suicide. All of the sources are a rehashing of his suicide. EricSerge (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- However, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Given his suicide (including his suicide note and his attitude towards the war) has significance, and he certainly has the "main role" in the event, I'd like to say he's eligible for an article. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 13:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I will admit that he got brief, broad coverage, for a single event. However, the event is no more notable than any other disturbed vet who killed themselves. While his death is tragic, his suicide did not seem to have any long lasting effect or impact that would make it encyclopedic. Are we giving undue weight to recent-ism and because he is a nice white kid from the suburbs? Daniel's story has a place on Wikipedia. He is an illustrative example of the PTSD epidemic that will shadow the generation of GWOT Vets for the rest of their lives. His story belongs in an article dealing with that subject. EricSerge (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It certainly seems notable. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 13:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment - is it the event (suicide and the viral suicide note) or the person that is notable? More from WP:ONEEVENT which says "it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both" and "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". It was the note that got the attention. Should the title be "Suicide of Daniel Somers"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His notability is achieved solely through his suicide. All the coverage noted was for the event, not the person. Seems that WP:BIO1E applies and the article should not stand. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 00:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in life or depth. The current trivial coverage is to be judged by the same standards as n internet meme, where some substantial degree of permanent significance is required. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move. I am full of pain for what became of him, but it was not the man who was notable. And it wasn't the suicide that was notable either, but the international attention his suicide note received. This is definitely notable, IMO, but it's the event of the media response or maybe the suicide note itself that is notable. RIP Daniel Somers. Dcs002 (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of Wikipedia not being news. We do not cover every passing news trend. If this had happened in 1989 no one would have ever bothered making an article, people only created an article because it was an extremely recent event. It is not of lasting significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Cancel hold request) Sorry, but I don't know the appropriate way to request this. Please give me at least a day to establish continued historical significance, as that seems to be the major sticking point in this discussion. A simple Google search turned up a bunch of articles about Daniel Somers and his death, including articles in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Daily Mail. I will expand the article and source this continued coverage after the event (I hope not too sloppily) per WP:PERSISTENCE. The three articles I mentioned were published in August and November, 2013, and May, 2014. IMO this will clearly demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE. If it doesn't, we can continue this discussion. Thank you. Dcs002 (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you all know, I usually edit in small bits. I read a source and post info from that source. This means the article is going to look worse before it looks better. (Right now it looks like the article is relying too heavily on one article in the Washington Post that isn't the greatest source neutrality-wise.) I am planning to add a total of five new sources (the ones I mentioned above plus one from Politico on May 30 and a Congressional transcript from just two weeks ago) before I am done. I will post something here when I have finished these edits. Thanks for your patience. Dcs002 (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for being patient. I have finished adding content and sources. There are formatting issues and pleanty of tidying up issues left, but I think there is enough sourcing now to decide the issue of WP:PERSISTENCE. Ok, I am now hopelessly biased on the issue, but I think it passes that test. :) Dcs002 (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested, I have discovered the proper way to make this type of request. See {{In use}}. Put the tag at the top of the page in question. There are options to show how long you expect to be editing and why you have requested this. You can also tag a single section. The template updates the time of the last edit automatically. Dcs002 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is notable for his suicide note making a major difference; it exposed the VA's gross negligence, fraudulence, and disrespect of not only him, but many other veterans by the VA system. Although there had been previous whistleblowers at the Phoenix VA, none received significant public attention. The Arizona Republic quoted US Representative from Arizona Kyrsten Sinema: "Daniel Somers is the original whistle-blower of the Phoenix VA" (Friday, July 11, 2014, pages A1 and A16). His parents continue to press for systemic change in the VA system. For example, on Thursday, July 10, 2014, they testified before the US House Veterans' Affairs Committee and proposed a number of specific reforms (http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/somers-family-testimony-hearing.pdf). His suicide note also led to whistle-blowers speaking out about other VA hospitals across the nation. The fraudulent "secret lists" were then exposed. These lists had been used to make it seem that VA facilities were meeting their goals for timeliness of appointments; this led to administrative staff receiving bonuses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananagramwinner (talk • contribs)
Comment May I ask that participants in this discussion review the major changes made to the article yesterday and consider whether their !votes still stand as they are? I think the !votes are currently 7 to keep and 5 to delete (counting Gbawden's proposal for deletion as a !vote to delete), which doesn't seem like a consensus at all, but a new review of the highly revised article might result in a clearer consensus. Again, I don't know if there is a proper or formal way to make this request. I'm sorry I'm dominating this discussion, but this subject became important to me through this process, and I am very interested in resolving it clearly and fairly, even if the clear consensus is to delete. It should now be clear that the sourcing for historical WP:PERSISTENCE is roughly as thorough as it is likely to get (assuming Bananagramwinner and I were also reasonably thorough - the "first whistle-blower" statement that Bananagramwinner found ties this in to the larger VA scandal of 2014), so if this doesn't cut it, then so be it. I have never participated in a discussion involving single-event notability or persistence, so I don't know if these newer sources have clearly established the case or made it clearer that, if this is all we get, then it fails one or both tests. Thank you again for your tremendous patience! Dcs002 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but retitle to Suicide of Daniel Somers. 90% of what makes the subject notable is their whistleblowing attempts/actions agains the VA. Giving some preamble that explains the lead up to the suicide/note, but not as a Biography of Daniel Somers. Hasteur (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move. This suicide was obviously notable due to the impact it had on the VA. For that reason I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 21:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appaswamy Pajanor

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

Unreferenced, I cannot find any mention of this person. I believe that he fails WP:GNG and the article gives no indication of notability Gbawden (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. A web search revealed no reliable third-party sources for the person. Moreover, simply being a friend with a notable person does not make the subject notable. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 08:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to be rid of all unreferenced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 20:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 FIFA World Cup Third Place Play-Off

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

Traditionally there is no any third place play-off article, unless the match itself is worthy. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 06:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough notable for a separate article. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 08:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article isn't about a memorable game. – User:AhMeD BoSS 10:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't care for tradition, but it's no problem recreating this if something sufficiently notable happens, which is not automatic. Hekerui (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Play-off for third place: Brazil vs Netherlands, per nom and Vigyani: not notable (see also WP:CRYSTAL). In case of significant events (maybe due to the aftermath of Mineirazo, but is only a personal hypothesis) it could be recreated as article. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote into neutral after the end of the match. Maybe, as supposed above, could make sense as article. But by now the article lacks of further infos. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per DerBorg. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not necessary SOXROX (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Traditionally" is not a reason for deletion (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists) and there are a few other arguments from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions listed here. The only criteria is "does the article have sufficient sources to support notability?" and it currently does not, but it will in just over 48 hours. We simply need to supply the sources and the article meets notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As of now, the article is merely receiving WP:ROUTINE coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Walter, you could argue that every one of the 64 games is notable due to the extensive coverage of the Cup in general, but there is absolutely no reason to do so because they are already well covered in the tournament, group, and knockout stage articles. There is no evidence this game in particular is notable, and even if, all important information belongs in the main knockout stage article. Reywas92^Talk 14:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability in itself, whereas finals do for obvious reasons. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe match is already displayed on the knockout phase page of the tournament and has all the details that are important. A full article is needed for noticeable matches like the Final or the great win by Germany as it was historically. Just creating this page because it's a third place match between hosts Brazil vs. Netherlands makes no sense at all. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supplement Well, after the third-place play-off match complete, the only point which is notable is Brazil lost totally ten goals in the last two matches, which could be seen as the 5-time World Champions starts going to the Dark Age, and nothing at all. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 17:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per DerBorg. Not notable to have its own article, and has not yet even happened. If after the match finalized there is notability, can always be re-created. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for its own article. -- Kndimov (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Third place play-off: Brazil vs Netherlands. Not notable enough for its own article. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 12:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chamanlal Kamani

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Chamanlal Kamani

Articles for deletion/Chamanlal Kamani (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Chamanlal Kamani (3rd nomination)

Chamanlal Kamani (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)

renominating - after non admin shutdown without prejudice to repeat opening - there is only one outside web story from 2006 - the content is mostly . well all about connections to companies - he is pretty clearly imho not personally worthy of a story here, a businessman, then it talks about the "The Kamani Family" - there is already a story written about him on the the Corruption in kenya story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Kenya#2000.E2.80.932009 and as that is the only story worthy of posting about him then this life story is redundant Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to show that Kamani passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to not meet WP:BIO. No valid references are provided.--Rpclod (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 20:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine E. Tuley

Katherine E. Tuley (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 realize she is a historic figure and sourcing may be hard to find, but there is nothing in the text to indicate she would be notable even if sourcing was found. John from Idegon (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another society dame who belonged to a number of organizations and supported a number of causes. Having money appears to have been her only notable act.32.218.44.235 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion

This article was submitted for deleltion by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.44.235 an account that seems to have been created by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_from_Idegon. This admin feels compelled to insert themselves and into undoing content on multiple articles that I have engaged in creating and/or adding content to.
I don't think an admins job should be to over involve themselves with one specific user. None of the content I created or engaged in was malicious. You left comments like, "who cares" and "get a blog," which is pretty rude.
If an admin is aware of a user that is creating content, the best thing they can do is encourage it. Not just go around undoing things because the admin wants to and feels the need to personally inject themselves for some creepy unknown reason. Especially when the information is educational and of historical value.
I have very little interest in continuing my participation on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waukeshawi (talk • contribs) 14:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was NOT submitted for deletion by User:32.218.44.235, who is NOT a sockpuppet of User:John from Idegon. Apparently both John from Idegon and I have some concerns about the notability and writing in some of the articles you've submitted. In any case, this is not the place to be discussing content issues; do that on the articles' talk pages. And stop accusing users of sockpuppetry without a shred of evidence. It's a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. 32.218.44.235 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that the primary source is a social club of some sort (Chicago Women's Club). If they were a historical society, this might pass WP:GNG. ping me if I am mistaken.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is surprising just how many "society dames" of a century or so ago did meet WP:GNG standards when their equivalent today would not - and searches on Google Newspapers under various versions of her name indicate reasonably strong local notability in Chicago between 1880 and 1910. GBooks also shows later mentions in independent reliable sources - though usually in relation to organizations with which she had been associated. What I am seeing doesn't quite seem to establish notability - that would require at least some indication that she was known outside Chicago - but as notability is not temporary, it might be worth someone with better access to media sources of the period seeing if there are any non-Chicago sources. PWilkinson (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of matches at Wembley Stadium

List of matches at Wembley Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an example of WP:LISTCRUFT. It's trivial and unmaintainable. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure LISTCRUFT, no notability. Giant Snowman 18:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above - Simply listcruft. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VConnect

VConnect (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)

Vanity article, no indication of notability. Google search does not turn out to give any significant result. Ireneshih (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Are you familiar with wikipedia's GNG criteria at all? This article obviously doesn't fail notability (web) criteria. All the references cited are from credible and popular dailies. plus The social media accounts of the subject all have what can be considered as a "cult following". Google search didn't give any significant result? are you sure you used the same google search I just used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Tubers (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Golub

Ben Golub (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)

Lots of references on companies he has been associated with, some to articles he has written, but nothing in detail from WP:RS on HIM. fails WP:BIO John from Idegon (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - there is at least some coverage of him in Bloomberg and other reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see anything at Bloomberg other than a CV. Still not seeing it. John from Idegon (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are bits and pieces involving him, there's no substantial coverage of him specifically. Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change my mind to weak delete based on the above discussion. I would not oppose the article's deletion. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real coverage of him. Fails WP:NOTEBLP. --Bejnar (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PrinterOn

PrinterOn (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)

Vanity article, no indication of notability. Ireneshih (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only reference 1 gives independent coverage. I have found no Google news hits and a regular search turns up little but the company's websites and how-tos from institutions which use the product. Hence article fails the GNG. BethNaught (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Midwest

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Anime Midwest

Articles for deletion/Anime Midwest (2nd nomination)

Anime Midwest (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)

Supposedly improved re-creation Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:Recreation_of_previously_deleted_pages, new article has improved notability by citing more news coverage of the event, including ABC News, WGN, the Daily Herald, Anime News, Network, The Filipino American Community Builder, and WBEZ. Convention is of a notable size and covered by several reliable sources. Kopf1988 (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of the ABC News Clip (repeated on 7, 8, 9am, and 10pm segments). Kopf1988 (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neutral I was going to !vote delete, but was swayed by the dailyherald which seems in depth and reliable (but currently singular). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Given the strength of the Herald piece, I'm willing to round the arguable ABC video source, the ABC7 text source, and the remaining sources up to GNG. Note that the extensive guest lists in the table need to be pruned pretty significantly per WP:NLIST. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Im a bit confused by this deletion, there is nothing against re-creating an article that has been previously deleted as long as it has improved enough to pass things such as WP:GNG. From the looks of it, more sources have been found solving what had been the original issues in the first AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is policy, or at least is suggested as such in the essay at Wikipedia:Recreation_of_previously_deleted_pages. Kopf1988 (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually nothin in thst essay says that deleted pages can't be recreated. The closest thing to that is that people should be careful in addressing the reasons that the page was deleted before recreating it but never that it's not allowed. If that were the case every deleted article would have been protected. In fact a change in the notability of the subject ( which has been argued to be the case here) is one of the specific cases where the essay says that recreation is acceptable.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay which is saying that if you do re-create an article that was deleted and it has not been improved it will likely be re-nominated, there is no policy against re-creation of deleted articles though. WP:SALT is policy however but usually applies to vandalism created pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that what happened is that when I tagged the article for a histmerge, User:Anthony Appleyard did the histmerge and saw that this was a relatively borderline case and nominated it for AfD. This is exactly the right thing for him to do as an admin---to seek a consensus when he notices something in his admin duties that may not be right. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quite a few reliable sources are cited in the article actually. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but weak and sourcing problems This article just barely meets notability so I am for keeping it, but has lots of sourcing issues in my opinion.

Possible Notability (Geek Girl Chicago (Chicago Tribune))

Reliable blurbs with little actual coverage (ABC News 2014)

Dead or Missing Sources so review of content is not possible (WGN, ABC News 2013, The Filipino American Community Builder, WBEZ)

Press Releases or Guest Announcement pieces (Chicago Tribune, All Anime News Network)

Not notable/questionable in these circumstances/does not specifically cover the convention (Screw Attack, Figure.FM, The Pullbox, WeirdReview, Kotaku, Escapist Magazine)

Primary source content

I have no problem with WP:GOODFAITH, but some WP:BOLD editing might be needed to get this article into a cleaner and more acceptable form. Esw01407 (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Takai

Teri Takai (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)

Poorly sourced, using one source, doesn't meet standard notability guidelines, not every Federal employee is notable to have a article regardless of positon. Not an elected offical, not presidentally appointed. Many directors of federal agencies do not have wikipedia pages, let alone CIO's. Posiiton doesn't automatically warrant notability. 0pen$0urce (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article has more than one source and many more are available - see for example Information Week, GovTech, FedScoop, FCW, mobilefuture, Washington Post, etc. Meets Wp:GNG. Suggest nominator add WP:BEFORE to WP:BLPPROD on the reading list. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the repeated implication that I didn't read the guidelines, advise you focus on content and be civil, yes there are artciles for those, but I'm also assuming good faith that you have read the 5 pillars. Don't take it personal that an article you authored notability is being questioned, again there is an article for that, but I didn't cite, should have to cause I am assuming good faith.--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is all well and good, but the evidence is persuasive. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets divert attention back to the content, thank you--0pen$0urce (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for all of the back-and-forth above, there wasn't actually any analysis of the sources put forward by Nikkimaria, nor the sources available already in the article. In my view, they are enough to substantiate the subject's notability against WP:GNG without needing to go further. But I will. Beyond the coverage, she was the CIO of one of the largest public sector organisations on the planet - as a public sector CIO that's about a close to the top of her field as you can get (woman or not). She was also acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration - a position we consider notable enough for its own article. That position was abolished in 2012 in favour of Takai's CIO position. Before that she was CIO of the State of California and a member of the Governor's Cabinet. Not notable? Really? St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMM

ZOMM (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)

Small company (24 employees) whose only claim to fame is a few CES awards (though the links to those awards are broken). Nearly all of the references are from the ZOMM's site or press releases. Attempts to speedy and prod were disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Company was named a finalist in the Mobile CE: Fashion & Lifestyle Products and Mobile CE: Accessories categories in the CTIA Emerging Technology (E-Tech) Awards per http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/idUS114819+09-Jan-2012+BW20120109, http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/257423, http://launchdfw.com/news/key-ring-takes-home-two-awards-at-ctia-wireless-2011/, http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2011/03/07/DC60797 & http://news.yahoo.com/bc-ctia-e-tech-awards-03-07-20110307-152705-178.html. Products have reviews at http://mobileoffice.about.com/od/mobilecomputingbasics/ss/vote-for-your-favorite-mobile-products-2011_8.htm, http://www.cnet.com/products/zomm-wireless-leash/, http://www.laptopmag.com/accessories/zomm-wireless-leash-plus.aspx & http://www.cbsnews.com/news/review-zomm-wireless-leash-for-mobile-phones. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three or four reviews after making a splash at CES in 2011. All of the other links are press releases. No significant coverage of the company by reliable sources. Already looking like a technology footnote of the early 2010s. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - They are the "developer of the world’s first Wireless Leash™ for mobile phones". Additionally, the reviews have depth, independence, and meet WP:GNG. Here is another long review that I found http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/28/review_gasget_zomm_/. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is almsot nothing where merely being a finalist amounts to notability, and nothing else is claimed. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just routine coverage and press releases. Fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Wood Post

Free Wood Post (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)

Deprodded for no reason by Fwpwiki (talk · contribs), who seems to have WP:OWN issues as they have most of the edits to the article. Prod reason was "Not notable. Only sources are Snopes debunking some of its articles. No reliable sourcing found, only blogs." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those trying to decipher what the nominator means, "deprodded" apparently means removed a "proposal for deletion" (i.e. "prod") notice on an article. Agyle (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I could not find significant coverage of the subject itself in independent reliable sources. However, its articles have attracted reasonably significant coverage in reliable sources, which I think meets Wikipedia:Notability (web)'s criterion that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." While some of the coverage I considered is in opinion pieces, which are not reliable sources for factual purposes, their publication in high-profile reliable sources still seems indicative of the subject's notability. Some coverage considered:

Harbison, C. (2014-05-13). "Football Player AJ McCarron Flaunts Sexual Orientation On Live Television: Free Wood Post Satire Article Has Internet In An Uproar". International Digital Times.

Fader, Carole (2012-09-01). "Fact Check: Too important to go to Vietnam? Romney never said it". The Florida Times-Union.

Garvin, Glenn (2013-10-27). "The war on Halloween". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (Note: this is an op-ed column)

Pryal, Katie Rose Guest (2012). "The Rhetoric of Sissy-Slogans: How Denigrating the Feminine Perpetuates the Terror Wars". The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice. 15 (503).

O'Neil, Luke (2013-05-10). "No More Fake News". New Republic.

"Is Michele Bachmann Trying To Ban Halloween? Free Wood Post Article Confuses Social Media, Spawning Epic Internet Hoax". International Design Times. 2013-10-18. (Note: source seems to have ceased publishing in January 2014)

Erb, Kelly Phillips (2012-07-30). "Why I Don't Believe That Anonymous Hacked The IRS For Romney's Returns". Forbes. (Note: this is an opinion piece, disavowed by Forbes in a disclaimer)

"Satire Website Misrepresents Ted Cruz's Christian Faith". Christian Post. 2013-09-30.

Bigelow, William (2012-10-11). "Twitter: Liberals Buy Into Fiction That Romney Wants to Ban Tampons". Breitbart.

There are also many cases where FW Post's works of fiction are carried as factual news, with the source unattributed, for example in this Ghana Nation story, although it's not clear that influencing world news media confers "notability" in the Wikipedia sense.

––Agyle (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 20:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Thach Hoa Mi-171 crash

2014 Thach Hoa Mi-171 crash (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)

Military crashes are not notable in their own right Petebutt (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_templates

Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft

As far as I can see it meets the guidelines for notability. Plenty of coverage in sources.

Widespread media coverage of the crash by major news outlets
ABC News TIME Wall Street Journal Christian Science Monitor MSN News ITAR TASS International Business Times [14] The Straits Times
According to Wall Street Journal, Vietnam has grounded its entire MI-171 helicopter fleet because of the crash
Rajmaan (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its entry at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present), seems to be common practice per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. I don't see the article becoming much larger than it sits now, which is about the length of an entry included in my suggested redirect target.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). Definitely notable, but not enough info to have it's own page. AndroidChuck31 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Striking sock !vote Ish darian 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) and redirect, as per kelapstick. The information there should be updated, as well as at Mil Mi-171. FWIW, A similar military crash around Hanoi in 2008 had the same treatment. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) and 2014 in aviation per above. Also, no notable victims. Brandmeister^talk 17:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the above suggested article, per reasoning given by user Dragfyre and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 01:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:AIRCRASH Nathan121212 (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, per author request.

One Day: A Musical

One Day: A Musical (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 film, probable self-promo/COI. Prod contested by article creator with rationale "The film is listed on imdb and Rotten Tomatoes, and therefore must have some form of notability." The closest thing to reliable sources listed are purely local. --Finngall ^talk 05:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam for a Youtube video. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 11 sources, one of which is one of the guest celebrity's who has the movie listed under "Films" on her resume. WKYC, although a local station, has quite an extensive Wikipedia page of its own so how is it not a legitimate enough source if the director did an extensive interview/segment on their show? The director has also worked with people on his YouTube channel such as John Green and Jonathan Demme, both very notable people. The film itself contains several very notable people and the Internet Movie Database and Rotten Tomatoes obviously saw it met enough criteria to include it on their sites. There are many many other YouTube-related works and people who have quite thorough Wikipedia pages, so why not keep this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberlinjoe (talk • contribs)
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It's also obvious self-promotional spam: the article says the director is a "Joe Kowalski", the article was created by "Oberlinjoe" who attempted to create a vanity article three years ago (see AFD), and who uploaded an image with the source listed as "I own the rights to this image and allow it's use on Wikipedia. -Joe Kowalski". All around it's pretty blatant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the self-promotion angle, let's break down the provided references: Two links to IMDb, which is not considered reliable becuase it is user-editable. Four links to news sites of purely local coverage and interest. One line on the resume of a non-notable actress. Listings on Rotten Tomatoes and on TWC Central--I don't know offhand if these sites allow user editing or if they mirror IMDb info, and in any case the film's mere existence on these sites doesn't really mean much. A YouTube video. The creator's own web site and his Indiegogo page. No regional or national coverage otherwise. These sources just don't make a convincing case for notability, and the self-promotion only makes matters worse. --Finngall ^talk 17:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...well that being said, please go ahead and delete the article. Life is very much about learning and it would be foolish for me to try and fight this after I have learned my lesson. I appreciate you both for helping reinforce the standards that Wikipedia sets and educating me in them, even if I had to learn the hard way! -Oberlinjoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberlinjoe (talk • contribs) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Necmettin Bilal Erdoğan

Necmettin Bilal Erdoğan (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 a notable person (only a relative of a notable person) Gilded Snail (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
__________
To a US/English reader Bilal Erdogan may not be seem notable at first glance. But in Turkish context, esp. after AKP's corruption scandal he was one of the guy on the focus because of his recorded phone tapes with his father (RT Erdogan) and the foundation (TURGEV) that is by run him. Thus I'd say he is much more notable than just being the son of a PM.
To support my claim I made a search on Google News and here are the results:
Bilal Erdogan found 44300 articles > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=bilal+erdogan&tbm=nws
Arbitrarily, I chose Chealsea Clinton and it found 22000 articles > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=chelsea%20clinton&tbm=nws
Regards Yakamoz51 (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yakamoz51, I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was more context to be known. Is Bilal Erdogan notable outside of the AKP scandal/TURGEV issues? Perhaps the contents of this article can be merged with the articles about the scandals. If his main notability is because of a specific event, normally that person is put under the article for that event, but there are lots of exceptions. Thoughts? Gilded Snail (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He became more famous after the corruption, but I think he deserves his own article on WP. Yakamoz51 (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Euryalus (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanu Sharma

Tanu Sharma (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)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Other than the fact that the subject has accused of sexual harassment against some personnel in India TV, there is no other coverage about her in sources. Fails WP:BIO. — LeoFrank ^Talk 03:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — LeoFrank ^Talk 03:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — LeoFrank ^Talk 03:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the fact is that matter is in Indian media as well as Internationally. This is not just a news, but a fight against wrong system where powerful people are tempering system. I am surprise that User:LeoFrank has taken suddenly U-turn. There are enough RS, shows the importance of the article. GKCH (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need to go through WP:NOTNEWS. You also need to stop soapboxing the subject on the article. — LeoFrank ^Talk 05:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an edit war going on between the creator of the article GKCH and the nominator here, which is never good. please discuss on talk page or here. Even though the article might not pass notability and might have soapboxing content, the creator can work on while it is prepared for deletion to save it, nothing objectionable was being added that you have to aggressively start reverting everything. So I would suggest do not get too involved after you have nominated, wait, let the deletion process take its course, limit your involvement to deletion discussion, if you can. GKCH has reported harassment on my talk, please be civil, talk it out for WP:DR. --Ekabhishek^talk 03:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, person is now in public domain. This case established also establish her notability. She was already an notable anchor in a News channel.125.63.75.30 (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, and also WP:BLP1E. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Cullen. Clear BLP1E. ukexpat (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. "a fight against wrong system where powerful people are tempering system." isn't a valid reason to retain the page. NQ talk 12:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication she is actually notable for anything except trying to commit suicide, and even that is not clear that it even rises to the level of one-event. Lots and lots of people try to commit suicide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NOTNEWs, BIO, RECENTISM, BLP1E ... the list is long. Also, note this at ANI may have some relevance. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Odd that there is more listed here than in the article itself. — Wylie pedia 16:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I've speedied this as WP:A7 (non-notable web content) and as WP:G10 because it's very, very close to being an attack page. There is no reason for this to be on Wikipedia at this point in time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tumblr-4chan war of 2014

Tumblr-4chan war of 2014 (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 meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for events. It seems to be just a description of an internet forum argument. Gilded Snail (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. This is not Encyclopedia Dramatica. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 02:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Line at Dawn

A Line at Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:BOOK--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 03:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.180.172.239.231 (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage to establish that this book meets WP:GNG or WP:BK. Gongshow talk 05:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. No reviews or independent coverage that I can find that would support notability.TheBlueCanoe 12:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage (in Chinese) here (Radio Canada International). In depth bio of the author here with a description of the book by Association des écrivains chinois du Québec au Canada. Not sure if this is sufficient to push it over the notability threshold. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. I'm not sure it passes the notability threshold, but it's enough for me to withdraw my vote.TheBlueCanoe 04:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I originally closed this but reopened since IMO believe there's no notability and merits a discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's possible that other Chinese-language sources exist, and there's an argument to be made that we should assume they do in the interest of countering systemic bias, but there don't seem to be any English-language sources, and the two sources presented by Philg88 don't strike me as enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BOOK. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus is KEEP. Dreadstar ☥ 08:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guo Xiaojun

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

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

Contested PROD. This guy is famous only for his arrest and unlike Guo Feixiong, he hasn't done anything remarkable. Clearly this is WP:BLP1E.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 03:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.180.172.239.231 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination unless coverage in non-Falun Gong sources is added. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 04:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article includes 20 citations, only one of which is a Falun Gong source.TheBlueCanoe 12:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are used to verify anything notable that is not related to his ordeal. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 15:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources by Amnesty International and United Nations, he is the subject of European Parliament discussion. Let's delete vandalism, not a "prisoner of conscience". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a university professor twice-imprisoned as a prisoner of conscience, with significant and recurring coverage from Amnesty International, in addition to the UN, EU parliament, BBC news, etc. Doesn't meet criteria for deletion under BLP1E.TheBlueCanoe 12:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, he is not a professor but a lecturer, thus fails WP:PROF. Indeed, he is a prisoner of conscience, but unlike other prisoners of conscience in China, he hasn't done anything remarkable. He was arrested only because he was a practitioner of Falun Gong. In my own view, being the practitioner of Falun Gong may not be regarded as something unusual. Actually thousands of Falun Gong practitioners are arrested in China every year, he is just one of them. What makes he distinguish from these thousands of victims is the media coverage of his case. A person who is only famous as the victim of a case may not meet WP:BIO. If the case itself is notable enough (passes WP:EVENT), we should create a new article about the case, then redirect this BIO to the new article. If not, delete. @TheBlueCanoe: --180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With coverage from Amnesty International, UNHCHR, BBC and others, there's no question but that there is a notable topic. I am sympathetic to the view that BLP1E needs to be considered, and perhaps the article should be renamed "Imprisonment of Guo Xiaojun" (with the current title as a redirect) because the controversy over the imprisonment and the events leading up to it form the bulk of the present article. --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Anyone listed as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International clearly meets WP:GNG. Nominator also should be rangeblocked as a sock hiding behind an anon IP,very first edit is a prod tag; the IP geolocates to China probably a vigilante at best, at worst, an attempt by a minion of the Chinese government to suppress the very existence of this individual. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I nominated this article for deletion because the corresponding article on zhwiki had been nomintaed and the notability standards of the two wikis are almost the same.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Nivekin proposed the deletion in the Chinese Wikipedia.--Good afternoon (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BLP1E--Shizhao (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Good afternoon (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a BLP1E issue. He has significant coverage outside of his arrest sufficient to pass the notability threshold. For example, this article relates to students from Shanghai Jiao Tong University protesting about his persecution by the Chinese government. There is a lot more coverage out there in Chinese sources - perfectly valid in Wikipedia terms to avoid systematic bias. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage to meet the notability guideline and with the two arrests I do not see this as a WP:BLP1E issue per TheBlueCanoe. Davewild (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. I've redirected given that there's an obvious target and so that anyone can merge the content, if they so desire. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroon vs England (1990)

Cameroon vs England (1990) (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)

We're now writing articles on individual World Cup matches? I see no notability here, no outside coverage, and a poor precedent being set, one where non-notable individual World Cup games can have their own articles. Seattle (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to set this game apart from many others. Non-notable. Giant Snowman 17:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing particularly notable about this match. Pretty run-of-the-mill as World Cup quarter-finals go. – Pee Jay 17:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This particular game is not notable on its own, and an article about every individual game is clearly not appropriate. Being "the only quarter-final to produce more than one goal" is not criteria for notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete only the grand final would get inherent notability. Unless the game had a lot of controversy, it does not merit an individual article. Next thing would be cricket world cup quarter finals. LibStar (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Cameroon vs England over redirect. The fact that this quarter-final was the only of Italy 1990 with more than one goal is not relevant. But there are some particular elements. This was the first quarter-final reached by an African team and the second time (and by now the only after 1966) that England reached semifinals. Anyway, the notabilty, or its lack of, could be the same of Cameroon vs Colombia (1990). --Dэя-Бøяg 15:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Cameroon vs England per above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. Nothing sets it apart to justify a stand-alone article. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale - as no arguments have been presented against a merge, one would seem required by the above discussion in view of WP:ATD, that having been said, I don't see a clear consensus on what to merge it to, and it would be inappropriate for me to supervote that. So, focus please on why this shouldn't be merged if you believe it shouldn't, where it should be merged if you believe it should and why, and of course, if you think both options are wrong, we want to here that too.. and why. Thanks. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to merge really. The only material not already covered within the 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage article is the Overview section, and it does not seem necessary to merge this info as it's unsourced and such game summaries do not appear in the other knockout stage articles anyway. Gongshow talk 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge: per Gongshow the material to be merged is unsourced and unnecessary play-by-play. The text is actually mostly duplicating the information shown in "The Match" section (which is already covered in 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage), leaving only a couple of trivial remarks. The match itself is not notable. BethNaught (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Gongshow. Non-notable match, nothing to merge as there is nothing sourced. Fenix down (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge/redirect and please do the same thing with Cameroon v Colombia (1990 FIFA World Cup). Nergaal (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This particular game is not notable on its own, and an article about every individual game is clearly not appropriate. Being "the only quarter-final to produce more than one goal" is not criteria for notability. There does not appear to be sufficient new sourced material to do a merge. So, Delete, not Merge. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clearly we need a major re-think on the notability guidelines around individual football matches, so that only truly seismic, epoch-defining events with lasting global coverage, such as 1993 Football League Third Division play-off Final, make the cut. 94.8.61.183 (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I remember the game, and it was a tremendously exciting match. However, I don't think it is notable enough in any way to justify an article on its own though. The important points are already covered in the main 1990 World Cup article - I'm inclined to agree with Deletion.ShugSty (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim and Mary McCartney

Jim and Mary McCartney (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 it is very clear that the context of the article in non-notable, we can't just say that the family of an influential figure is notable by itself. And yes, the article has GA status granted in 2007, but that doesn't have to affect the discussion on its notability, as the subject was never resolved. So, I think that the article's GA status should be cut off and the article deleted, because as I said, it lacks notability and interest. - Phill24th (talk). 19:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If someone is really really famous, then their parents and other family members end up getting lots of attention from lots of sources. In this case, plenty of Beatles biographies have gone into considerable detail about the members' parents, starting with the Hunter Davies bio in 1968. So if all these books talk about McCartney's parents, then yes they become notable. Whether their lives are of interest, as you also bring up, is a matter for individual readers to decide; no one if forced to read any article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If nothing else, it's eligible for keeping as a spin-out of Paul McCartney. It's common to break up long biographies into sections (e.g. Early life of Marilyn Monroe, Early life of George Gordon Byron and several other articles on the same pattern), and this is certainly an area of Paul's life that has received coverage in a lot of books. And even if the proposer isn't interested in the Beatles, I think the vast amount of books published about every aspect of their lives and careers indicates that a lot of people are. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well detailed and highly reference, which alone shows there is enough material on the subjects to make them notable. Notability isn't inherited no but it can then come to exist as a side product. JTdale ^Talk 03:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the others above; valid as a WP:SPINOUT of the Paul McCartney article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harborne High Street Bus Corridor, Birmingham

Harborne High Street Bus Corridor, Birmingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced bus cruft, "bus corridor" doesn't even exist neither, Fails GNG and WP:NOT. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence the bus corridor is even an official name. Regardless fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 20:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Horton (YouTube)

George Horton (YouTube) (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)

Having a viral video does not constitute notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Granted, but this is simply what he is 'best known' for. On that note, would contest that there is a failure of WP:ENTERTAINER due to the fact that there is a substantial fanbase, which in turn owes itself to unique contributions to the field of prank comedy of the channel. There are many other videos on the channel with many views; this is not a one hit wonder. [Koreanspy12] 01:02, 25 June 2014 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanspy12 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Numerous sources; what appears to have happened is channel has been renamed, and under the previous name, a wikipedia article was created and uncontested - Jesterlads - if the channel merits a wikipedia article, why not the youtuber himself? This article is clearly mainly pertaining to the channel, which seems to be notable, there are hundreds of sources online, most of which mention George. And i know imdb isn't fantastic, but he has apparently appeared on tv. Blondie86 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's pretty tiny for a youtuber; there are literally hundreds of channels with 3 million views. The news mentions are also nothing more than the blog-style posts these outlets make several dozen times a day when anything gets a few hundred thousand views. JTdale ^Talk 03:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial mentions. There's no significant coverage in reliable sources. Citations consist only of embedded videos. There needs to be an actual article about the person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. To be honest, I'd probably support the deletion of the group/channel as failing WP:ORGDEPTH too. That they had one video that got some coverage in mainstream media does not make them notable. There are plenty of people who have YouTube videos that have since been featured on compilation shows or even "YouTube video of the week" news items. The sites hosting copies of the video really don't constitute coverage at all - they are just hosting a copy of the video and the only mention of the group or the individuals involved comes from the in-video credits - the subjects covering themselves - and from comments members of the group have posted into comments sections under some of the videos. The self-promotion is strong with this one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really notable. Besides, there are other channels with more subscribers that also don't have pages. Besides, his channel already has an article, right here, so this is kind of pointless. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 13:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable youtuber, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Video may have received a bit of coverage, but subject himself has not and is not notable. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of global climate system components

List of global climate system components (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)

Seems to be a case of WP:OR; not everyone agrees on what components make up the global climate system; see Nasa's opinion at the bottom of the page. Also, the page says it's a quick lookup tool. In short, doesn't follow WP:NOTGUIDE --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 02:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is not something for which this presentation is really appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; good job locating the additional sources. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Hall (cyclist)

Katie Hall (cyclist) (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)

Only coverage is routine and trivial. Does not meet WP:GNG and fails WP:NCYCLING. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She doesn't quite satisfy WP:GNG notability requirements. The best source seems to be the United Health Care page, but unfortunately it's not an independent source.- Mr X 17:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability guidelines in WP:NCYCLING cover Mens professional cycling events and I don't think these accurately cover Womens cycling. For example, there is only one Womens Grand Tour currently running (Giro d'Italia Femminile), there are drastically fewer races than those which make up the Mens UCI continental circuits. Within the scope of Womens cycling I don't think notability can be judged on competing in Grand Tours, competing in any of the monuments or winning a stage/classification at a stage race because they either do not exist, are not as common as in Mens cycling or have only been running for a fraction of the time of the Mens events. In order to improve the coverage of Womens cycling on Wikipedia I think that a rider actively competing for a UCI Professional Women's team should be notable enough to have an article. XyZAn (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would seem to pass WP:GNG. There's this article about her that I found in five seconds. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a single local blog is enough to denote notability. Is there any other coverage of her? Tchaliburton (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's another article, here and she's detailed on PCS XyZAn (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those helps lend notability, but the latter two don't. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she's slated to compete in the 2014 Giro d'Italia Femminile (see start list here) so would therefore meet the requirements set forth in WP:NCYCLING (even though this is for male cyclists you quoted this earlier) XyZAn (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the male criteria. The gender-neutral criteria are: "Have competed at an Olympics or UCI World Championship" or "Have finished on the podium at a UCI World Cup or event." Has she done these? Tchaliburton (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other sources include Cycling Illustrated, Canadian Cyclist, Bicycling Magazine, Pedal Magazine, Cycling Fans, combined with the in-depth sources, adds to notability. Two issues: her name is fairly common (there are other Katie Halls out there); also, the linkage between her racing and a business (United Healthcare) means there is unfortunately a promotional issue tied in with the subject, which can be problematic. About comments above, I agree Bicycle Story reference is not suitable but Norcal Cycling News and Bike World News are suitable, as per WP:RS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ajman City Centre

Ajman City Centre (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)

70-store mall. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage) – which this mall is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A google search failed to locate references which would satisfy WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have already been to this shopping centre, It's real however i consider this article is too insignificant but it can be improved by someone else who knows about this mall. --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 22:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a small regional mall. Probably quite nice, but that doesn't mean it's notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lynds

Peter Lynds (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 is about a self-taught physicist who has had one paper published in a refereed journal. There are many, many scientists in the world who have made far more significant contributions to science without being notable enough to have WP articles about them. The paper was discussed in the popular media at the time, but this does not establish notability. Lynds is good at selling himself to the media. He also has a documented history of misrepresenting his identity and education, and of using sockpuppets when communicating with the media. The article has recently been the subject of an edit war between user SamW2 and a number of other users. User SamW2 had no history of contributing to WP before getting involved with this article. Since sockpuppetry could be an issue, I should clarify my own identity. I don't normally log in to WP in order to edit, and I have been participating in the recent work on the article from IP address 75.83.65.81. However, it is not possible to go through the deletion process as an anonymous user, so for that purpose I've logged into the account Fashionslide, which has existed since 2011. My name is Ben Crowell, and I'm a physicist. Fashionslide (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. GS h-index of 5. Too early for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. (Disclaimer: I too have participated recently on this article). This has been a POV-pushing article for a long time. The only peer-reviewed contribution from Lynds appears to be a 2003 FPL paper, which generated brief media coverage. However, it was noted in a journal article shortly after that the ideas in this paper were entirely preceded by Henri Bergson in his 1896 book Matter and Memory, evidently unbeknownst to Lynds or his paper's referees (S E Robbins (2004) On time, memory and dynamic form. Consciousness and Cognition 13(4), 762-788: "Lynds, his reviewers and consultants (e.g., J.J.C. Smart) are apparently unaware of his total precedence by Bergson"). Moreover, this paper has only been cited 5 times in the >10 years since its publication (WoS). These observations indicate impact far below even the average working physicist. Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

delete for the reasons given above.--Fashionslide (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The academic career is obviously not notable, so we have to look to the media coverage. But that fails WP:BIO1E and WP:EVENTCRIT (no lasting historical significance). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I was bought here through the WP:WPNZ alerting system and have to say that the guy has no visibility in New Zealand. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Be aware that you are voting on a version of the Peter Lynds page that has been battered into nothing, and negatively slanted, by Fashionslide, Agricola, and David Epstein (an admin), who seem to find Lynds' very existence upsetting. I have some theories as to why. Look at the talk page, look at the original version of the page, look Lynds up on google. He has other papers, some of which have also received a good amount of attention. Then again, with this sort of carry on, Peter is probably better off not being on Wikipedia. SamW2 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC) — SamW2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As was extensively discussed at the talk page, none of those papers are published – their views have not been accepted, nor even vetted by the mainstream physics community. The version of the article to which you refer was basically all WP:OR. A subtle point is that we're debating Lynds' notability, not the notability of any particular version of the article. Folks are free to go back and look, but the closing admin will make the final decision based upon whether or not Lynds himself satisfies any of the notability guidelines, not whether some particular bit of text happens to be or not to be in the current version. I'm very sorry for any anxiety this has caused. Agricola44 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Ok. One more time. Archive pages seem to be fine for Biography of living persons pages, especially if those papers have received documentable attention. 1000s of pages here show this. Many people also solely publish a paper on Arxiv. Take Grigori Perelman and Garret Lisi. However, I just did some more searching and found this http://www.necsi.edu/events/iccs7/viewpaper.php?id=225. It's a short peer reviewed (look up the info about the proceedings) conference paper on his cosmology theory. A paper from the same conference by others on Lynds's paper is here http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5046 Google Lynd's paper to find a lot of discussion and articles about it, such as http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/lynds1.shtml and http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/111 I also found these quotes here http://www.newswise.com/articles/it-all-began-with-an-end-new-theory-on-origin-and-future-of-the-universe

"About Lynds' theory, Dr. Paul Frampton, Louis D. Rubin Jr. Distinguished Professor of Physics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says, "I enjoyed reading Lynds' article about an endless and beginningless universe, especially as I have myself worked on such a model recently (Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 071301, 2007). Lynds addresses the key issue of the second law of thermodynamics in a novel way and I'll be curious to see how far he can take it."

Dr. Jonathan Vos Post, a former Professor of Astronomy at Cyprus, College. California, and Professor of Mathematics at Woodbury University, California, says, "I consider Peter Lynds's arXiv paper to be a bold and magnificent speculation. Those who attack him are misguided, in that Peter Lynds' arguments need to be put in proper historical context, which is apparently outside the educational background of those who prematurely dismiss the subtleties of Peter Lynds insights. Let me refer back to an 1895 paper by the immortal [Ludwig] Boltzmann, which has recently attracted attention in the controversy over so-called "Boltzmann Brains." The reference is Nature 51, 413 (1895). [Long quote by Ludwig Boltzmann concerning the second law of thermodynamics and the possibility of universe later returning to its present state]. Peter is cursed with having brilliant theories that his detractors falsely assume are based on ignorance. His startling re-analyses of (1) Zeno's paradox, (2) the nature of Time, and (3) the nature of consciousness, have been spuriously opposed by naive critics who claim that Peter does not know (1) Calculus, (2) Relativity, (3) Psychology. To the contrary, I hold that his ability to ask "simple" questions, and give extraordinary answers, is close in many ways to the genius of Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, Paul Erdos, John Wheeler, Stephen Wolfram, and Frank Zappa."

Dr. Werner Israel, a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Alberta, Canada, and a Fellow at Canada's Institute for Advanced Study Cosmology and Gravity Programme, says, "I found Peter Lynds' ideas on possible reversals of time's arrow interesting, in part because I have entertained less bold but not dissimilar ideas myself. In 1991 I co-authored a note in Nature which speculated on the possibility that the growth of entropy near a big crunch might be, not reversed exactly, but enormously diluted by a process called mass inflation at the inner horizons of coalescing black holes. This would make a transition to an expanding phase very nearly reversible thermodynamically."Small text

His paper on Zeno's paradoxes seems to be referenced in a large number of articles about the paradoxes on the web. A google search for "solution to Zeno's paradoxes" brings his paper up as the second result. His consciousness paper is also discussed and referenced extensively on the web. As as example, there is this (a very recent reference in a good psychology journal) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013454/ His first paper has 71 citations on google scholar, the others around 10 each.

As for Lynds' possible notability, among many, there are articles such as this http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/physics.html and this http://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/aug/14/research.highereducation SamW2 (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of which seems to satisfy WP:NACADEMICS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But many of those aren't relevant to Lynds as he isn't in academia. That he isn't, and doesn't have a degree, is part of what makes him qualify as notable. He qualifies under WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. David Epstein claimed that he is notable for just one event and has had no lasting impact. The wired article came out two years after his first paper was published, and the impact of that work is ongoing, as his Zeno paper shows. His papers since (the existence of which some of you seem to want to deny) have also received documentable attention, and his work seems to be ongoing. I also found this (look down the page a little) https://dir.yahoo.com/science/physics/physicists/ SamW2 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with level of education. David knows mathematics as well as anyone here and his claim is correct: the work is not WP:LASTING and the publicity was written by people who apparently did not understand that these kinds of paradoxes had been resolved long ago – for example by Weierstrass' disproving of the idea of infinitesimals. (Our own WP page on Zeno's paradox was a little murky on this point, so I added another reference from Bertrand Russell.) Finally, I think you're confusing the concept of a paper (which is published) versus a manuscript (which is not). Agricola44 (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"A google search ... brings his paper up as the second result" is basically arguing WP:GHITS, which is irrelevant to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
It's not a case of google hits, but the paper's google rankng and ranking for that search string, which is mostly a question of links and their quality. Google is saying that Lynd's Zeno paper is very notable in connection to Zeno's paradoxes. SamW2 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not a case of google hits" (no WP:GHITS) ... "Google is saying" (WP:GHITS). It can't be both ways. Agricola44 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

~~Weak delete~~Delete. This is a biography article, and does it meet the GNG? This as best I can determine is a judgment call; essentially we have an independent thinker coming up with a radical theory in the gray area between physics and philosophy, with a hard-to-prove and hard-to-test theory about a subject as baffling as the metaphysical nature of time. GNG requires multiple independent sources, and I think we have this here, strictly speaking, that Lynds posited this theory, and so forth, but the problem being that the sources, themselves, say that Lynds' theory is only speculation, that they don't fully understand it, that they have no way of knowing whether this is true or verifiable. Further, the article is a sort of open invitation to indulge in the theorizing itself, that is, it would be hard to keep the theoretical aspects of this subject away from the biography of the thinker. So we find ourselves in a tough situation here, specifically in that how can we keep to the Wikipedia pillar of not having any original research? See, if we keep this article, in effect Wikipedia is giving credence to the theory in some respect, and I do not think this is something Wikipedia is qualified to do. That is, isn't it up to the academics and physicists to render some kind of opinion on the merits of this issue? I think so. I think it best to defer to those trained, although there is a streak in me that likes challenging theories (even if untrue) simply because they inspire further thinking, further debate, and so forth. If Lynds' ideas gain greater credence in the professional community, then the article can be refloated, but for now, I think the wise choice is to delete it, but please remember my opinion is only from a non-academic whose only acquaintance with real physical knowledge comes from falling off a ladder while painting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding "an independent thinker coming up with a radical theory", it seems that once Robbins' paper was published in 2004 (see above), the community became aware that Lynds' paper was preceded Bergson in his 1896 book Matter and Memory. This is likely why Lynds' paper has been barely cited in the peer-reviewed literature in >10 years since its publication. Agricola44 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Yes I read that in your delete comment above, but I am wondering if you think Lynds read Bergson? My guess is that Lynds didn't (although it is a guess only), but if I'm right, then what appears to be the case is that Bergson's theory came up roughly 100 years ago, was promptly (and properly?) forgotten, resurrected in the 21st century by Lynds perhaps with a new emphasis, independently (probably), and the theory still remains highly and influentially forgettable. What I think would be worthwhile would be to include this discussion in philosophy-related deletion discussions, since isn't this really more of a topic in philosophy (really metaphysical philosophy) rather than physics? It seems to be in no-man's land between physics and philosophy. Again, I think that is another of the many issues at play in this discussion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lynds was very likely not aware of Bergson's book. The fact that Lynds work was published only means that his paper happened to be assigned to one or two particular referees who likewise were not familiar with this book. This phenomenon happens much more frequently than people realize (the average researcher only has command of a small portion of the results in her field), which is why there is considerable duplication in the literature. Bergson's theory was, in fact, not forgotten and his book remains widely read and cited, for example it is still in print, is held by a large number of libraries, is frequently reviewed, etc. It is probably more correct to say that this particular topic (between physics and philosophy) is relatively obscure. As with many of the "classical questions" of philosophy, mathematic resolved Zeno's paradox long ago, so this sort of thing simply is not of interest to the physics/math community as a research problem. Agricola44 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I have looked at Lynds's paper on Zeno's paradoxes, and while I see distinct resemblances with Bergson's theory of time, they are not much stronger than those between Robert Grosseteste's theories of the creation of the universe and modern popular accounts of Big Bang theory. And the paper actually zooms fairly neatly at the weak spot in the standard mathematical resolution of Zeno's paradoxes - the fact that it substitutes for our naive conception of continuity a conceptually very different alternative based on sufficiently close discrete points. Having said that, I suspect that Lynds's view meets equal but different problems philosophically, and there is absolutely no indication that Lynds understands how, for his theory to be seriously acceptable, it needs not only to cast fresh illumination on one mostly philosophical problem but also explain in detail how it supports the rest of modern physics or supplants it with something in similar detail that is at least as well supported by current evidence. So at this stage, I'm certainly not arguing to keep. PWilkinson (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has other papers on the topic like this one http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/240 They were previously on the page. There are also articles like this http://itotd.com/articles/582/quantized-time/ SamW2 (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing a blog that has gems like "if [Lynds] were correct, that would mean that calculus as we know it must be essentially wrong". These are not reliable sources. Agricola44 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Updated from weak delete to delete (modified vote above) based on Agricola.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. User:Stalwart111 makes a compelling case here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmut L. Ünlü

Mahmut L. Ünlü (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Was BLP PRODed some time back, one link is repeated, the other is broken and at the end of the day, I don't see notability that passes WP:GNG and a lot of unsourced BLP info. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I just added a NY Times source which calls him notable Wikiguys12 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the NYTimes article is the only coverage I could find of the subject and all it does is confirm he runs the company and is happy about the success of Turkey's currency. It's hardly significant coverage and it certainly doesn't "call him notable". It's actually coverage of Turkey's currency with commentary from him (about his own business). The other sources come from his company and don't constitute coverage in independent reliable sources. Thus, in my view, he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Even if we accepted the NYTimes article as being significant coverage in a reliable source (which I don't think it is), it's still only one source and we need coverage in multiple sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (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)

Advertising for advocacy group DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice amount of source discussion. — Cirt (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Family Guy#Other media. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy: It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One

Family Guy: It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One (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)

Long-unreferenced book article that does not substantiate the notability of the title. Fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Family Guy#Other media: I found mentions in local press[15][16] but nothing like the coverage needed to make a book notable. - Colapeninsula (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Colapeninsula. The book is certainly notable within the context of Family Guy. However, it is not nearly notable enough for a stand-alone article. As such, it is best covered within Family Guy#Other media. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tough, Tough Toys for Tough, Tough Boys. SpinningSpark 20:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Design Faults in the Volvo 760 Turbo

Design Faults in the Volvo 760 Turbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Limited-edition chapbook of short stories with no claim to notability. Fails WP:NBOOK, and tiny press run seems to guarantee that we'll not find references. Mikeblas (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tough, Tough Toys for Tough, Tough Boys. This volume contains two short stories, including "Design Faults in the Volvo 760 Turbo", that were both included in Tough, Tough Toys.... -- Colapeninsula (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per Colapeninsula: Our article for Tough, Tough Toys for Tough, Tough Boys should include a sentence or two noting that two of its stories were earlier published in this special edition book. In addition, the story "Design Faults in the Volvo 760 Turbo: A Manual" receives direct critical commentary, which can be worked into the Tough, Tough Toys for Tough, Tough Boys article along with commentary about other stories in that collection. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IRulu

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/IRulu

Articles for deletion/IRulu (2nd nomination)

IRulu (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)

Renominating this as the last AfD was closed as no consensus. Please see the previous AfD for the nomination rationale (it's the same for this one). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are, well, there are none. Googling turned up nothing helpful. Msnicki (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the previous deletion rationale. Like Msnicki, I can find no reliable independent sourcing that would allow us to say anything about this product. If it were a notable brand, it should be fairly easy. Voceditenore (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Rare

Illegal Rare (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)

Five month old series running in Shonen Jump. While the series may well become notable in the future, it's too early for an article. Series frequently get cancelled after only a few months, and in fact one series that started at the same time did just cancelled. A search for sources came up with lots of illegal hosting of scans (even trying to minimise them through keywords), but no evidence of notability through third party reliable sources beside an announcement. Article creator was informed of the need to provide evidence of notability but never replied or attempted to add any. Suggest moving to creators userspace for development. SephyTheThird (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in that I don't see notability met via WP:GNG. No objection to userfication per nom. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently fails notability, it looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polesworth F.C.

Polesworth F.C. (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)

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN as the team has not played at level 10 or in the FA Vase or FA Cup. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another episode of my hard work been put up for deletion, makes all the hard work worthwhile doesn't it, exactly what constitutes an article, as I can name millions of semi-professional/amateur teams that have an article, so please explain why you want this one deleted!! Stew jones (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For one, there are no sources other than links to the official webpage and the club shop. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - its unfortunate that someone spent time creating something only for it to be deleted, but the shame is that someone spent time creating something that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. I could create articles about each of the football teams in my local area but none of them would meet the inclusion criteria and so all of them would be deleted. Do the research, then the work. Don't do the work and then plead for mercy. The burden is on the creator to substantiate notability. While the nominator of an article for deletion should ideally justify that nomination, that has been done in this case. Over the the article's proponents to establish why this should stay. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass WP:GNG and has not played at a sufficient sporting level. Giant Snowman 11:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with condolences to the creator. Continue the hard work, but best to learn the notability criteria first. TheBlueCanoe 12:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN as has not played in a national competition. no indication of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoli (band)

Monopoli (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about a band. A search for sources turns up nothing. The group fails notability requirements. Diannaa (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Found no evidence of any notability, So Fails WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight Magazine

The Fight Magazine (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 hate to do this, but, I'm fearing that this magazine might not pass WP:GNG let alone Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. Now, maybe it does pass #5 on that notability criteria - however, I'm struggling to find multiple reliable secondary sources that talk about the magazine outside of mere mentions regarding the a soap opera star coming out of the closet in the magazine.
Perhaps others disagree, and perhaps this will be kept, and that would be great, if it can be improved, but, my own exploration in improving it failed. :( SarahStierch (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I admit it is tough to find secondary sources because of the generic/vague name of the magazine, simply, "The Fight", but sources do indeed turn up in searches for "the fight magazine" and/or "the fight" with LGBT in search parameters. Tough going research, however, this is the case indeed. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paras Hospitals}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbalist.com}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Fist Full of Stories (and Articles)}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 15:13, 9 July 2014

Leave a Reply