Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 June	10 June >

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tribla

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

I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability for this trivia game. Whpq (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. Does not pass the the criteria of WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:53, 3 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per others, I don't feel it passes GNG. United States Man (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass GNG, nothing here but self-promotion.Jacona (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that it doesn't pass GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z10987 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. TheBlueCanoe 18:12, 10 June 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 02:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TVB Jade on-air identity

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

This is an article about an individual Hong Kong station identification over the years. There is no indication of notability, and Google searches do not show any obvious signs of notability, either. The article itself is composed of a series of citations to YouTube, original research, and excessive detail. There really is nothing to merge to the parent article, as there is no reliably sourced text. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable topic referenced only by YouTube and without further reliable sources available according to Google. See History of BBC television idents for what is required to establish notability for this type of topic. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 2 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Very little content is sourced, and all of the sources are Youtube. Also, it doesn't meet notability (by a long shot). United States Man (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and then Merge with TVB Jade. TheBlueCanoe 18:15, 10 June 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. L Faraone 05:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Cade

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

No evidence of notability. A PROD was contested without explanation. The PROD reason was "Non-notable minor actor with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sources are IMDb, cast lists, Wikipedia articles, etc." That remains true. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the two comments directly below which were misplaced by the same IP, one at the top of this page and one on a talk page that they created. ~~With regards to the AfD I am neutral~~. Ivanvector (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from above References are now added from British theatre, a reliable, notable source. References have now been added for Metal Hurlant Chronicles, inlcuding Rotten Tomatoes which was also a reliable source for the wikipedia entry of Apocolypse Pompeii. Reliable sources have been added reference Metal Hurlant Chronicles, World Without End and Apocolypse Pompeii.

The actor Dan Cade is already reference in another Wikipedia article as one of the main cast of Apocolypse Pompeii and IMDB which is a reliable source, plus other third party website showing the actors work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.84.111 (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from talk This page should not be deleted due to other reliable references being added and links to other wikipedia articles 90.207.84.111 (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims to fame are being in a non-notable stage performance (Manfred is a notable literary work but the stage production was apparently not), being in the "cast" of a show (Metal Hurlant Chronicles) which has a different cast for each episode as part of its claim to fame (thus he was only in one episode), and a non-headlining role in a direct-to-DVD "mockbuster" which itself is only marginally notable. I also see no evidence of any kind of cult following for this person. Even if the sources were reliable (they aren't) he would not pass WP:NACTOR at this time. Ivanvector (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Additional references have been added regarding the film "Heavy Duty', which is a notable production and reference through the British Film Council, a notable organisation in the UK. The actor played a headlining role in this film, evidenced with his name on the poster. In addition, the actor played the headlining role in the short film "Trent 2 Rent' which was distributed by the Bristish Film Institute into a notable festival, The London Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. In argument to your comment, the actor did star and was one of the main lead roles in the "mockbuster" "Apocalypse Pompeii" which is evidence by the wikipedia articles and other sources showing him in the main lead cast list, which although in your opinion is only marginally notable, is nevertheless still notable. In addition, other notable references have been added with reference to significant roles in notable productions such as "Borgia", "world Without End", "Automata" and "Malavita". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.84.111 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 June 2014

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree with Ivanvector. Hasn't done too much so far; don't think it passes WP:NACTOR. United States Man (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~. With regards to the above comment 'you do not think', therefore you are unsure. This article should not be deleted. It should be enhanced. There are reliable third party sources. The actor has not only been in notable TV series and movies, but has had leading roles in notable movies, including "Apocalypse Pompeii", which is even listed on Wikipedia and past the notable test for it to become an article. Dan Cade is listed in the main cast list of stars for that movie. This is just one piece of evidence that the actor is notable. There are several others listed in the article that confirms notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.84.111 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: 90.207.84.111 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

WP:NACTOR requires that an actor has played a significant role in several notable productions. Sites like IMDb (and its French language equivalent) rely on non-verified user-submitted content and are thus not acceptable as reliable sources. Sites like the British Film Institute and the various film festivals are reliable for determining that a production exists, but not for determining notability. For notability, we require significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. Of the additional "significant" roles that you posted, I couldn't find verifiable evidence that his role was significant, or even that the production exists at all. The wikilinks are to the wrong articles, and the only one where it's apparent that he had any role was in Malavita (2013 film) where he played the role of "BBQ guest". Hardly a significant role. Ivanvector (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You are not looking at the correct links. There are several significant productions that the actr has played significant roles in. "World Without End' is reference as an example of this. The actor has had many more. You can see by following the links correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.84.111 (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the mill actor who has not yet had enough major roles to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

HE IS LISTED AS AN ACTOR IN NOTABLE PRODUCTIONS AND IS LINKED ON WIKIPEDIA AS A TARRING CAST MEMBER IN APOCALYPSE POMPEII. HE PASSES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.84.111 (talk) 13:27, 12 June 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 00:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Savage Wisdom

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

Long unreferenced novel article fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 2 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than this news piece by his alma mater, there just isn't any coverage for the book at all, outside of a few routine notifications of book signings. It just isn't a notable book when you come down to it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks references since none are available.--MONGO 19:14, 10 June 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 00:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Luis Ortiz Tellez

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

Non-notable. Reviewed online sources and could not find any significant independent content to substantiate notability. Page appears to have been created by the subject himself and is in the form of a personal resume. Subject is an artist and teacher not of encyclopedic distinction as far as I can tell. Author has contributed some other useful edits, but this self-created page does not appear to be justifiable. Shorn again (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Definitely COI editing. His SVA bio lists several awards that would establish notability (Presidential Design Award, National Endowment for the Arts; AIGA), but I couldn't find any references to these awards aside from his personal biographies. Theredproject (talk) 18:37, 10 June 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 00:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Dunn

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, no significant exhibitions, critical attention or works in major collections. TheLongTone (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is an advert. I googled her and it brought back nothing of note. I read the article and the refs aren't up to much and I read her own home page where she is selling herself as a portrait artist for animals etc. Szzuk (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA biography; multiple searches turned up nothing on the subject (much more on an author of the same name). Nor does the commission from the Welsh Pony and Cob Society establish notability. AllyD (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Some of the redlinks may be the result of mis-formatting. Nevertheless, there is too much of WP:ADVERT about this for me to want to do work on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, bearing in mind she claims to have a painting now sitting in the Royal collection. She seems to have had a substantial career gap and it is conceivable that there is pre-internet coverage about her, so if the author wanted the article moved to a draft page to work on it further that may be a better solution. However, at the moment it is very adverty and not fit for Wikipedia's main article space. Sionk (talk) 12:49, 16 June 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. L Faraone 05:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Mall (Missouri)

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

Previous debate closed as no consensus. Based on several recent AFDs and discussions, size and wp:outcomes are no longer reasons for keeping. Sources are inadequate for GNG.

Source 1 is a primary source
Source 2 and 3 Hoovers source. Fine for wp:v but as a directory listing does nothing for wp:n
Source 4 only contains one sentence about the mall doesn't help meet GNG
Source 5 and 6 about a single store opening at the mall nothing about the mall itself
Source 7 and 8 talk briefly about traffic around the mall and other places nothing actually about the mall itself
Source 9 probably the best source, but still doesn't say much about the mall itself and one source isn't enough to meet GNG

I've searched using google for other sources and nothing else comes up except directory listings. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at each of the references, and agree with Me5000's evaluation of each. They are all either perfunctory listings in directories, etc, or mentions, in-passing, embedded in an article about something else. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – I am generally not a fan of deleting articles such as these (but, that's just me); however, the evidence that Me5000 has shown has convinced me. If it were to be kept, sourcing would need to be improved. United States Man (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is properly sourced per WP:OUTCOMES in regard to malls of this size. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying two things? What do you mean by it is "properly sourced?" And what do you mean by "per WP:OUTCOMES in regard to malls of this size"? Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It means it meets the WP:NRVE requirement of WP:OUTCOMES for larger malls. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES imposes no requirements. It simply summarizes history. It says, under WP:NPLACE, Larger malls are often found to be notable [...] Size however, does not in and of itself confer notability. Nor does it abrogate the requirements set forth in GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since wp:notability is not conferred, saying that "x does not confer notability" is a truism. Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to what Roy says that this falls within the gray area as to size -- most editors at AfD it appears agree that a mall under 500K sf is small ("Very small malls ... are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found"), and that a mall over 1 million K (and perhaps 800K) is large, and this is in the middle where editors do not seem to have a firmly common view. As to WP:NRVE, it says "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability... No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists." (emphasis added) Are you asserting that there is such substantial coverage, rather than run-of-the-mill, every-mall-has-it coverage? Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to have a real, honest discussion when the related guidelines/essays are being modified in real time to support one side or the other. In any case, this article meets every aspect of WP:GNG; it is sourced with enough secondary, third party, reliable and independent sources having significant coverage of the subject. The disagreement appears to be over the "presumed" clause. Some presume it is and some presume it isn't. I believe that was the whole point of WP:OUTCOMES as it was previously worded, that larger malls meet the presumed clause as long as all the other WP:GNG clauses are met. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "significant coverage"? We seem to have totally different understandings of what that means. Take, for example, the Street Talk article in The Columbia Daily Tribune. In the seventeenth paragraph, it says, The mall began as Parkade Plaza in 1965, and it was Columbia's largest shopping center until Biscayne Mall opened in 1972. In 1985, Columbia Mall opened and trumped both centers.. That's the only mention the entire article has for Columbia Mall. That's not significant coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem that the further reading section is not used as actual cites? Two of them appear to have significant coverage. A stub doesn't need a huge number of cites where each meets every single aspect of WP:GNG. So I think we will have to agree to disagree. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To Roy's point, addressing your referral to the further reading section, the very first item -- with a quote put into the article for some reason, as though to emphasize what a stretch it is to squeeze notability out of it, is "Or try to get to Columbia Mall on a Saturday during the Christmas shopping season. You might be stuck on Worley Street...while the traffic light changes from green to red...five or six times. The congestion has been a problem for years..." Yes, that pretty much would be the sort of thing that would fail to support a GNG conclusion, as it is non-substantial and run-of-the-mill. Dramatically so. Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that is precisely why I said two of the three. Yes, you correctly picked the other one of the three. Sure, if there were only sources like that one, then it would fail WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop making people play guessing games about what you mean. If you want to bring up two specific items as evidence, then tell people specifically which items you are talking about. Presenting a list of three things and saying, "I'm talking about two of these, but I won't tell you which two" is just wasting everybody's time. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What VMS_Mosaic said was, "[T]his article meets every aspect of WP:GNG; it is sourced with enough secondary, third party, reliable and independent sources having significant coverage of the subject." He was also willing to talk about the "presumed" clause of WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for your question about significant coverage, the place to look is at WP:GNG. Significant material is that which is not trivial, where trivial is things like a listing in a phone book, or an obituary that says, "So-and-so was employed at the Columbia Mall". Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, which, although formally an essay rather than a guideline does keep track of precedent at AfD. To wit: "Larger malls are generally considered notable. Very small malls, strip malls, and individual shops are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found." Malls are akin to the commercial areas of small towns and serve as community landmarks. Carrite (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find enough to ring the notability bell here. Subject appears to fail WP:GNG which is the standard and WP:GEOFEAT which is a proposed, but occasionally cited guideline. With respect to WP:OUTCOMES, this is NOT a guideline or a policy and it expressly states as much. It is just a helpful essay in which editors report their anecdotal experiences in AfD discussions.

"Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else." - From WP:OUTCOMES. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I'm still considering this, at this point I don't see enough substantial coverage of the sort necessary to meet GNG, and don't see this meeting any of our other notability criteria. But I'm happy to wait for more evidence, if others have it. Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Missourian source includes an "eight-month-long Missourian review of records", and includes "years" of observations by one of the writers, complete with a

a map,
two charts, and
four web pages of text, each individual articles.

As stated at the first AfD, "[This article] is tremendously in-depth, even drilling down and reporting sales tax revenues for the mall. With that info and along with the tax rate, you can calculate WP:RS gross sales via WP:CALC." In spite of the wealth of material here, we have editors arguing:

"...talk[s] briefly about traffic around the mall"
"Sure, if there were only sources like that one, then it would fail WP:GNG."
"Yes, that pretty much would be the sort of thing that would fail to support a GNG conclusion, as it is non-substantial and run-of-the-mill. Dramatically so."

Unscintillating (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Search suggestions are available from the first AfD.

“

In Google searches this mall is buried in links about the notoriety of the Columbia Mall in Maryland, so it helps to add a "-maryland" to a Google search. Another useful search was ["Columbia Mall TDD" OR "Columbia Mall Transportation Development District"]. I also found some leads on Google Images using ["Columbia Mall" Missouri -maryland]. Another name for this mall is "Columbia Regional Mall".

”

Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per my !vote at the first AfD, "Topic passes WP:GNG, and it has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. In addition, Wikipedia has a need to cover such a topic as a part of the gazetteer." Unscintillating (talk) 21:04, 14 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Company for Underwater Breathing and Activities

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

Non-notable organization. A7 speedy tag was removed without explanantion by an IP editor with no other edits. --Finngall ^talk 20:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Either as A7 - No indication of importance or G11 - unambiguous promotion. Otherwise fails organization notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. ~~(Wasn't this same page deleted before?)~~ QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:32, 10 June 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 00:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio del Rio

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

Per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. This is, in its current form, essentially a combination of autobiography (bad) and promotional external link farm (very bad). The person looks to be possibly notable enough for an article, but not this article. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Artist with no evidence of notability .→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article by the near-eponymous 1936IDRio, illustrated by watermarked images, indicating WP:COI. Clearly a working and exhibiting artist but the WP:ARTIST criteria are much higher than that and I can find nothing to indicate that the subject meets them. AllyD (talk) 06:09, 14 June 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. L Faraone 05:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NorthPark Mall (Oklahoma)

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

NN 45-tenant, 250,000 square ft mall. Article was previously deleted at AfD, and then restored. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was able to rapidly find sourcing to help flesh out the article,[1] it appears to be a unique center well-covered by the press in the region.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see indicia of notability. The article reflects refs that indicate run-of-the-mill things: that the land was purchased, the mall was built, occupancy rose and fell, and the mall has stores. The refs are also primarily to a local paper, with a circulation of 3,400. So I don't see this as meeting GNG. And the article is quite small by wp notability standards -- per wp:outcomes, we don't generally retain stand-alone articles for smaller malls. The related recent discussion here is on point. Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OUTCOMES goes both ways. A subject meets GNG if it meets GNG, regardless of rules of thumb. There are many notable malls smaller than what OUTCOMES says, and some larger ones that may not be notable. The current level of citation and coverage in the article is far beyond what most mall articles have.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I added a few cites to article profiles in the The Oklahoman, circulation 125,000, the paper of record for that U.S. state.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. About half the cites are to the local 3,400-circulation The Journal Record. And the cites generally appear to be to run-of-the-mill coverage that is the type that even non-notable malls would have, IMHO (stores leave, stores open, anniversary, etc.). Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added more references than perhaps 50% of the articles on Wikipedia. The mall is profiled in the paper of the record for the region (The Oklahoman) as being unique, i didn't bother adding another 50 cites about the day to day stuff.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cites on day-to-day stuff won't impact notability. I'm not sure that the present cites don't actually fall into that category, though. The fact that an article has more cites than another does not necessarily mean it is more notable. The quality of the cites both in terms of substance and being non-local coverage, for example, are important. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the The Oklahoman considered regional media? It is at least the paper of record for the state. If so, this article passes WP:AUD as referred to by WP:LOCAL as far as non-local coverage is concerned. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the whole "paper of record" thing is a bit confusing. The paper seems to be considered the "paper of record" in at least the city,[2][3] and perhaps the state,[4] but I see nothing indicating it is that in the region -- though we know that a century ago the territory's paper of record was The Indian Chieftain. In any event, the issue is the level of coverage - it is run-of-the-mill coverage that you would see about any non-notable mall, IMHO, rather than substantial coverage that we need for GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small and nonnotable mall, only of local interest. Fails WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – Marginally notable, but not hardly enough to meet GNG and ORG. United States Man (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is properly sourced even if too small to meet WP:OUTCOMES for malls. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic has forty years of history. Sources in the article show that the topic satisfies WP:GNG, and that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. Unscintillating (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The consensus, as reflected in the discussion here at Common Outcomes; Malls, is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K square feet (at least; some editors believe the cutoff is higher) -- a level which this is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 15 June 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 01:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glendon Swift

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

I see no reason why this shouldn't be viewed as a WP:BLP1E. I don't think it is an exception under WP:PERP. In the end, he just made some harassing phone calls to a notable person. Any coverage I see of him is related to the 1E Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Case. In Connection with a high profiled member of the US Gov. is relevant. Keep, especially, knowing that Cantor was the victim of many harrassments (especially in connection to his jewishreligion faith) it appears that even on WP many users go against. Keep as this was a federal case, and even Swift has been convicted to a modest term (13 months). Antisemite Criminals on theats (murder or a simple harrassment(s)) should always kept due to the fact, that people who threat poliltians in that way (killing your wife & raping your child) are threats not only against a specific high profile person, but a threat towards everyone. But most important are this antisemite hate in such comments towards any human being, especially knowing that D-Day has been on its 70 year commemoration a few days ago. However, Federal Cases in the WP-Project have always Priority, nomatter what any individual might mi(s(s))belief. Keep. --Gary Dee 20:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your response here and in other discussions, you seem impressed with the idea of something having a federal charge or a federal officer being involved. You really need to read WP:BLP1E and WP:N first because federal charges won't satisfy either of those policies. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BLP1E. EricSerge (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reliable sources cover him only in the context of an otherwise non-notable event and he is otherwise not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP1E with no biographical depth. Not a notable criminal act. RS coverage is strictly routine: arrest, guilty plea and sentencing. No trace of RS interest beyond that. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fits perfectly into WP:BLP1E guidelines.Z10987 (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per notable only for a single event. Event is also non-notable as run-of-the-mill for those holding public office. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Gary Dee 15:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You can't !vote both ways Gary. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Huh? Its Halloween. Huh? Who? DELETE. --88.207.190.206 (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC) - Sorry i did not login. --Gary Dee 01:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. This is definitely a case of BLP1E, and it serves no purpose to our readers to document one criminal act by a non-notable person. In the grand scheme of crime, politics, and antisemitism in the U.S., this is trivial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 10 June 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. Mike V • Talk 14:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

88 Boys Gang

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

Minor local gang that got arrested a couple of times. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Coverage is mainly that they exist. Nothing indicating any durable notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i lost the origin link of it. But nevertheless, the Slut Wave Gang as well the 88 Boys Gang are involved & tied to Federal Prosecutions, only this is a fact that they are relevant to keeping (the Article(s)). Especially considering the involvement in rival ties to the Playboys gang:

As you can read here: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/cops_bust_slut_wave/

"They arrested 11 alleged members and associates of the Slut Wave gang on drug and weapons charges, according to Sgt. Karl Jacobsen. Federal and state agents joined New Haven cops and the SWAT team in executing search warrants at four homes on Columbus Avenue, Rosette and Button streets, and Harding Place in Newhallville around 5 a.m."

AND here: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/harp_probes_the_newhallville_conundrum/

”They passed a rundown house on Division Street. “That’s a problem house” known for drugs and guns, Brown said. Members of the Slut Wave gang hang there.

Right around the corner, he said, members of the Playboys gang are staying.

He surprised Harp by informing her that Slut Wave originally operated out of the Hill. “I don’t understand,” he said, “why Slut Wave would move that close to the Playboys.”

See this case as well (Crips gang):

Commuting to this case: http://www.fbi.gov/newhaven/press-releases/2012/eighteen-charged-with-narcotics-offenses-after-fbi-task-force-investigation-into-new-haven-gang-activity

AND Finally according to this article: http://www.segag.org/

A gang is a group of three or more persons who have a common identifying sign, symbole, or name who individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in, criminal activity which creates and atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

There is no limit to the size of these particular single sets of gangs. Some gang sets may consist of as few as three members, while others may have hundreds of individuals claiming to be members. But the most important thing i mentioned above, is that even it might appear as a local gang, is simply not an irrelevant fact they have been on focus of federal agents of the FBI. Therefor: Keep (article). --Gary Dee 19:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if Federal as State Agents were needed to support local police, it is not a "just small unrelevant gang" raid. Surely not. --Gary Dee 19:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gary, that's not how we establish notability. Perhaps you should read WP:N. The presence of federal officers or choosing to use federal charges over state have no bearing whatsoever on notability. Please use a policy based argument, not WP:IHEARDOFIT.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dear, you say "we", and you think WP is yours. We isnt either WP nor ME ! I do not keep posted on articles, that are not relevant. If they dont fit in the Project, no problem delete. But i have problems with users who think (or just say) WE (or WII) and think that all others "stand behind" the WE (or WII), and you think you are Superman. You certainly do not work for the Project, the way YOU handle WE. You do not UNDERSTAND: English, GERMANm FRENcH, SWEDISH, and LUXEMBURGISH, but yoe (you) use "WE (or WII), and want to know better. However you do not, and never will. And when you say "we" it sounds like you came out of uterus, into the WP-Project. But you did not ! And never will. Have conversations, and God Bless You, and me and the United Staes. And distinctive learnig is a must in life, just because it IS Short. Never Forget that Thanks for your appreciation. ABC ! --Gary Dee 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary: Please assume good faith. Due to the egalitarian, cooperative nature of Wikipedia, it is quite common for editors to refer to the project in first person plural: "We" do this, "our" policies say that. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage given is weak. Unable to find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to support a sufficiently detailed article on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have criteria that we use for assessing the notability of groups and organisations (WP:ORGDEPTH) and I can't see how this subject could possibly meet those criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Delete. --Gary Dee 15:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, your !vote is both ways.....you cancel yourself out. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:45, 10 June 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. Mike V • Talk 14:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slut Wave Gang

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

Minor local gang that got arrested a couple of times. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Coverage is mainly that they exist. Nothing indicating any durable notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I will shortly come up with proof that this is NOT a Local small unrelevant street Gang. --Gary Dee 18:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Gary, maybe you should establish notability before you start spamming links to them everywhere. Instead of doing a solid article, you rushed to do 2 articles that say almost nothing and don't show notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i lost the origin link of it. But nevertheless, the Slut Wave Gang as well the 88 Boys Gang are involved & tied to Federal Prosecutions, only this is a fact that they are relevant to keeping (the Article(s)). Especially considering the involvement in rival ties to the Playboys gang:

As you can read here: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/cops_bust_slut_wave/ "They arrested 11 alleged members and associates of the Slut Wave gang on drug and weapons charges, according to Sgt. Karl Jacobsen. Federal and state agents joined New Haven cops and the SWAT team in executing search warrants at four homes on Columbus Avenue, Rosette and Button streets, and Harding Place in Newhallville around 5 a.m." AND here: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/harp_probes_the_newhallville_conundrum/ ”They passed a rundown house on Division Street. “That’s a problem house” known for drugs and guns, Brown said. Members of the Slut Wave gang hang there. Right around the corner, he said, members of the Playboys gang are staying. He surprised Harp by informing her that Slut Wave originally operated out of the Hill. “I don’t understand,” he said, “why Slut Wave would move that close to the Playboys.” See this case as well (Crips gang): Commuting to this case: http://www.fbi.gov/newhaven/press-releases/2012/eighteen-charged-with-narcotics-offenses-after-fbi-task-force-investigation-into-new-haven-gang-activity AND Finally according to this article: http://www.segag.org/ A gang is a group of three or more persons who have a common identifying sign, symbole, or name who individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in, criminal activity which creates and atmosphere of fear and intimidation. There is no limit to the size of these particular single sets of gangs. Some gang sets may consist of as few as three members, while others may have hundreds of individuals claiming to be members. But the most important thing i mentioned above, is that even it might appear as a local gang, is simply not an irrelevant fact they have been on focus of federal agents of the FBI. Therefor: Keep (article). --Gary Dee 19:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if Federal as State Agents were needed to support local police, it is not a "just small unrelevant gang" raid. Surely not. --Gary Dee 19:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gary, that's not how we establish notability. Perhaps you should read WP:N. The presence of federal officers or choosing to use federal charges over state have no bearing whatsoever on notability. Please use a policy based argument, not WP:IHEARDOFIT. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will recommend to Keep, based on the sources which I added to the article. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Antrocent, You underst(ood)and the position. Gary Dee 21:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources show they exist. They don't provide any significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not notable by our standards. Very little coverage in independent reliable sources: Basically, several alleged members of the gang were arrested in January. They used to be in one neighborhood, now they are in another. Insufficient coverage. Fails WP:GNG. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUnremarkable bunch of hoodlums.TheLongTone (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Delete. --Gary Dee 15:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, your !vote is both ways.....you cancel yourself out. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination does not present a valid rationale for deletion, and there are no delete !votes present in the discussion. It also appears the nominator has withdrawn, in which they stated "I agree - withdrawn" in a comment in the discussion. Additionally, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of sources within articles, and AfD is not in place to promote article improvements. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal Assault

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

This article has stood for almost four years. How come no-one has added anything to suggest that this might pass WP:GNG? Laun chba ller 17:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, not sure the article in its current format as a neverending list of bands is appropriate, but the festival does seem to be notable. iDnes seems to report on it regularly[5] [6] [7] and so have lidové noviny [8] - filelakeshoe (t / c) 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty I think the entire article from the start of Brutal Assault 2014... to the end of Brutal Assault 1996... should be WP:TNTd. I'll blow it up, and see if I encounter any opposition.--Laun chba ller 21:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Distinctive title. There is notability, and when there is notability you have to write the article. It is good to see that 19 sections have been erased from the article. I think there are no serious issues with the article anymore. OccultZone (Talk) 03:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - withdrawn.--Laun chba ller 07:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Nasuman has reinstated the cruft with no added edit summary.--Laun chba ller 10:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a serious issue? ..I mean the extensive list of bands performing at Brutal Assault? Or the dates and locations? I don't think so. The list needs refs and maybe better layout but it is informative and I believe it is correct. It also shows that many famous bands played there which might suggest to you that Brutal Assault is not an unimportant local concert for 20 villagers. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes - as far as I can see, its existence on the article violates WP:CRUFT.--Laun chba ller 12:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:CRUFT is an advice/essay rather than policy or guideline, see the template {{essay}} at the top. We have many articles constructed in a similar way, see i.e. Glastonbury Festival 2008 or Hammerfest (festival). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable and well known hard rock festival, the biggest event of this kind in the Czech Republic, widely covered in the mainstream national media: [9], [10], [11], [12] (iDNES), [13], [14], [15], [16] (novinky.cz), [17], [18], [19], [20] (Lidové noviny) etc etc. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonably well-known, and easy to add references. RomanSpa (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. This nomination is nonsense. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:04, 10 June 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 19:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piakai Henkel

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the J-League Division 2 is fully pro. While this is true, it is also not relevant since he has not played in that league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY still stands. No indication of any other achievements garner significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has signed to Fagiano Okayama FC in a professional capacity, so while the nominator is correct that he doesn't pass WP:FOOTY now, he has a chance of passing it later if he plays professional games and performs well in them. On the other hand, he might drop out due to injury and not playing any. Since we aren't a crystal ball, we shouldn't have an article until a definite claim to notability can be proven. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There would be a good case for, instead of deletion, moving the article back to draft space (without a redirect), such that it could be easily restored if WP:FOOTY is met in the near future. --LukeSurl^{t c} 11:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about userfying, but to be honest my gut feeling is that if he starts becoming a notable pro footballer, most of the article will focus on that, rather than his earlier amateur and semi-pro achievements, so I would expect a major rewrite anyway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GiantSnowman. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cherryholmes III: Don't Believe

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

Notability concerns. Simply being nominated for an award is not enough to satisfy WP:NALBUM, and I am seeing no evidence to suggest that it passes WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 15:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added content and references to the article; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 19:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per WP:HEY.--Laun chba ller 19:29, 9 June 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. Valley2city^‽ 00:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve volk

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

No reliable sources found, included sources are wikilinks to pages where she isn't mentioned. 1 external link: no mention. Non-notable. Nominated for AfD as the PROD tag was removed. Jarkeld (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the article claiming that she's done work for various companies, I can't find anything out there about her at all. This is fairly telling, so it sounds like she's one of millions of people that try to go into various businesses and fail for whatever reason, then try a different business and fail again, and so on. She just isn't notable in the slightest and her association with other businesses does not translate into notability for herself. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non-notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like an interesting career, but I'm not seeing any particular notability here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per above. I did my own sweep, using Australian news sources, did not find anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:19, 14 June 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 Deleted (A1) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of keynote speaker by name: S

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

Article is not a significant list Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination already expresses your opinion regarding deletion. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article for speedy deletion because it doesn't even state its own topic. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 9 June 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 and redirect to Medical error. Content deleted before redirect as a POV essay. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical harm

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

This article is written as an essay and violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. It is based on a claim that the term "medical harm" came into use in the medical community after a 1991 article in the New England Journal of Medicine. This is not true. The correct term is Iatrogenesis and Medical error and WP already has those articles. This article is almost entirely an essay and editorializes the author's view of the topic with sources that don't support everything being claimed. I considered a merge, but there doesn't appear to be anything useful to merge especially as the sources don't always support the claims. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Merging seems impractical. Essay-ish. Original research. Lacks secondary sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to deleting this content, but I think "medical harm" is a plausible search term. In any case we shouldn't leave it as a redlink. After deletion, we should create a redirect to iatrogenesis.—S Marshall T/C 17:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge somewhere, not sure where I have a lot of uncertainty about the right terms for this concept, and perhaps this article should be merged, somewhere else, but "medical harm" might not the same as a "medical error" - I am not sure. I tried to differentiate some terms in this table.

collapsing for readability

Difference between terms
term	Medical error?	Unnecessary health care?	side effect?	Adverse effect?	Wound, as from surgery?	Social stigma from seeking treatment? (as for mental illness or HIV)	Medical debt?	Patient abuse?
Undesirable health care outcomes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Medical harm	yes	yes	yes?	yes?	yes?	yes?	yes?	yes?
Medical error	yes	yes	no	no	no	no	no	no
Iatrogenesis	yes	yes	?	?	?	?	?	?

I think there are ought to be some Wikipedia article for "bad things associated with health care", but in the academic literature I find no overarching term. It may or may not be the case that iatrogenesis is the same as either "medical error" or any other layman term. SW3 5DL says that the terms are the same, and it seems plausible, but I find no sources to verify this. In contrast, the content currently in the article for iatrogenesis seems to me to go far beyond merely medical error and into the space of harm resulting from unerring treatment, which made me wonder if iatrogenesis is the same as "bad things associated with health care", which might be the same as "medical harm". I am really confused at how to coordinate these articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to ~~Iatrogenesis.~~ (Changing to Medical error, see below) This is an essay, not an article. To answer Blue Rasberry, my understanding is that iatrogenesis is any kind of bad health outcome that results from medical treatment - whether from an error, a side effect, or an unavoidable result of the treatment or advice given (for example, iatrogenic hypothyroidism after surgical removal of the thyroid). I don't think "debt" or "social stigma" or "abuse" should be considered "medical harm" in any case; they are not medical outcomes, and they can happen in an interaction with any type of service provider. (For example, seeing a lawyer can also cause debt, stigma, and abuse; should there be an article on "bad things associated with legal care"?) BTW I notice that our article defines "Iatrogenesis" as preventable harm resulting from medical treatment, but then goes on in the lead to say that it can also include results of treatment which are not preventable, such as scars from surgery. Maybe the word "preventable" should be removed, but that's another discussion for another place. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Blue Rasberry's chart above is grossly in error and POV/OR in itself. Medical errors/iatrogenesis do cause harm. The wrong medication given to a patient can cause harm. The wrong name on a surgery schedule can cause harm. Yes, medical errors cause harm. These are not different concepts. Iatrogenesis and Medical error are also called 'adverse events.' Yes, they are the same thing. Check the medical literature again. Read the journal articles.

In addition, Blue Rasberry fails to see that the current article Medical harm is nothing more than an essay and violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. It should be deleted. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Below are a few sources:

SW3 5DL (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quibble a little: IMO iatrogenesis is NOT synonymous with "medical error". Iatrogenesis is broader and includes all adverse outcomes caused by treatment. You can have iatrogenic conditions even where there was no error, such as side effects of a drug. --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are the same. They are both 'from the healer.' And side effects from a drug are not in themselves errors. The risk of side-effects are weighed against the benefits. Chemotherapy will make your hair fall out. AND it can also cause you to lose your hair permanently or if you hair comes back it will not come back the same. But the risk of hair loss does not outweigh the benefit of the chemo killing the cancer. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make my point exactly: they are NOT the same. "Iatrogenic" is not synonymous with medical error. Iatrogenic hair loss is "from the healer", but it is not due to an error. All conditions caused by medical error are iatrogenic, but not all iatrogenic conditions are caused by error. To put it another way, medical error is a subset of iatrogenic conditions. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SW3 5DL I do not need to be convinced of anything; I admit outright that I have no idea what terms to use for any of this. I am just trying to learn your perspective. Does this seem right to you?

collapsing for readability

SW3 5DL's perspective
term	Medical error?	Unnecessary health care?	side effect?	Adverse effect?	Wound, as from surgery?	Social stigma from seeking treatment? (as for mental illness or HIV)	Medical debt?	Patient abuse?
Undesirable health care outcomes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Medical harm, Medical error, Iatrogenesis	yes	yes	no	no	no	no	no	no

Thanks.

You are also correct that the content in the medical harm article is awful and that it is an essay. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your question was addressed to SW3 5DL, not me, but I will just say that I do NOT agree with this chart because I do not agree that "medical harm", "medical error", and "iatrogenesis" are synonymous. Why are we debating this anyhow? We seem to be agreed that the article under discussion does not belong here; are we looking for a redirect target, or what? --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN I do not agree that this article should be deleted, just that all or almost all the content in it is very bad right now. There still could be an article called "medical harm" if that is a real thing that is not either or both "medical error" or "iatrogenesis". What do you think the difference is between the three? Is medical harm the same as either of those other two things? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, "debt," "stigma", and "abuse" do not belong in this discussion at all. Those seem to be your own addition to the conversation. They are not mentioned in the article under discussion; they are non-medical outcomes; and they are things that can happen in a variety of contexts and are not unique to medical situations. The definition you are proposing here is way too broad IMO, and it is not supported in the literature. What references I could find at Google Scholar[21] seem to use "medical harm" as synonymous with "medical error". So this term could be redirected to "medical error" (earlier I suggested a redirect to Iatrogenesis, but based on my literature search just now, usage of this term seems to be limited to medical error and does not include all forms of iatrogenec illness). But IMO the term "medical harm" is not sufficiently well defined as a distinct entity (apart from medical error) to be worthy of a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN Okay, so it seems that you "do not agree that "medical harm", "medical error", and "iatrogenesis" are synonymous", and you also think that there is no such term as "medical harm" and that those words are not distinct from "medical error". It seems that you think "Iatrogenesis" and "Medical error" should be separate articles, but I am still unclear on what you feel is the difference between these two. SW3 5DL gave good sources providing supporting evidence that these concepts are the same.

You are correct, I just personally and without support from literature thought that there might be a term for "Undesirable health care outcomes" and that medical harm might be it. I agree with you there are no sources defining medical harm in that way. Do you feel that I understand what you have said? Thanks for talking this through with me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blue Rasberry. Yes, I think you have understood me very well and I thank you for your openness to discussion and evidence. As for whether Iatrogenesis is the same thing as Medical error or not, it isn't necessary to resolve that at this discussion - if we are agreed that "Medical error" would be a good redirect target for this term. --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speaking of the literature - as nominator notes, the article claims the term "medical harm" came into use as a result of a 1991 NEJM article. But that journal article, or at least its abstract [22], does not seem to use the term "medical harm" at all. It uses the term "adverse events"; it also mentions "medical injury" once, in the context of malpractice litigation. This is further evidence that this article is not based on sources, but is the author's opinion or synthesis.--MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge somewhere, not sure where~~ I changed my position. This article should be merged and become a redirect to some other article. I am not sure what, but either Iatrogenesis or Medical error seem like candidates. There is disagreement about whether those two are the same. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to medical error~~ Okay, the current thought is that "medical harm" means "medical error", and that medical error is the much more established term. We do not really have good literature saying that, but we have some so-so literature which supports that idea, and it seems intuitively sufficient to everyone here I think. An outstanding issue for elsewhere is whether medical error and iatrogenesis are the same, but that is a different discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it can't merge. It's an absolute invention by the editor who created it. User:MelanieN has got it right when she noted the claim to the term "Medical harm" coming about after the NEJM article is false. I noted the exact same thing which is why I nominated it for deletion. The article should be deleted and the term 'medical harm' can redirect to 'medical error,' though IMO 'medical harm' implies an intended act of harm. Iatrogenesis/medical error are acts of omission not deliberate acts of commission. They are the result of a failure to follow a protocol, a missed directive, the wrong order, etc. But certainly not intentional as that term seems to imply. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect to "iatrogenesis/medical error" It has not been established that "medical harm" is a term used in any consistent way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep redirect. At the least the figures in the prevalence section seem referenced & are significant. Nom is perhaps not being entirely objective here - there is salvage. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A thorough and objective reading of the article and an examination of all the sources, as I've done, will show this article is essentially a WP:HOAX. The article creator references a website several times that, in itself isn't RS, and doesn't mention 'medical harm.' Nor do any of the sources. The author has written an article entirely from his POV. He appears to have added in sources for the medically recognized term 'adverse events' which do not use the phrase 'medical harm' nor do they claim medical harm. The claim of 'medical harm' is entirely the POV of article's creator. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that there is nothing worth merging here (although I don't see any justification for calling it a hoax). Even sources that at first glance seem solid, turn out to be POV and not peer-reviewed - for example the JAMA reference which is really a "commentary". The one solid reference is the NAS report "To Err is Human", and it is already cited in the Medical Error article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of WP:Hoax is an attempt to make something that is false appear real. That appears to be the case here. The term 'medical harm' in itself is not a neutral term. It implies intention. To take that term, which doesn't even have currency in the medical or lay literature, and then give it the appearance of a valid article by applying sources to it does suggest hoax. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to medical error. This is an effort to put a new label on an old bottle. bd2412 T 19:27, 12 June 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 01:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Complected Man

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

A dedicated article about a conspiracy theory that hasn't been referenced extensively by reliable sources, per WP:NFRINGE. One of the JFK assassination conspiracy articles may be a better fit for this content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fringe conspiracy theory content with no obvious signs of mainstream coverage in reliable sources. There are hits from a few conspiracy theory books (and, of course, lots of hits from conspiracy blogs), but I don't see anything that makes me think that this is an actual academic topic. It's better suited to a conspiracy-themed wiki on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Umbrella Man (JFK assassination) The Umbrella Man does seem to have received some mainstream attention, and the "Dark Complected Man" seems to be identified as a sidekick of his in the conspiracy literature, kind of Robin to his Batman. He gets a fair few hits in conspiracy books. Maybe there are more under variations of the moniker. I can see nothing in mainstream publications. Paul B (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no proper noun entitled "Dark Complected Man" in any reliable sources, therefore, there should be no redirect. The phrase "dark complected man" (similar to "light complected man") is used to describe many people in many sources, so it is not unique enough for redirect. The mention of "a dark complected man" in conspiracy-related sources that are not self-published (of which I count three) give only very trivial mentions in connection with the Umbrella Man, so the subject does not meet requirements for a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 15:23, 10 June 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 19:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nad

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

WP:SYNTH of two separate incidents were Estonian soldiers were killed at roughly the same location. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear case of WP:SYNTH with 2 separate IED attacks (which most likely aren't notable on their own). Also google search for "Battle of Nad" + Estonia doesn't indicate any actually relevant event.--Staberinde (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH and review the rest of EasyMoney7Cash$ (talk · contribs) contributions in light of his username and this edit. --Sander Säde 13:38, 10 June 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 19:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pali Institute

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

No evidence this meets WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hesitated over this one, because of its claim to be the only outdoor education program accredited by the WASC, and because it does serve students through 12th grade. However, it is not a diploma-granting institution so WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not apply. That leaves WP:GNG, and I could find no outside coverage in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indepth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 10 June 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 19:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction Apparel

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

This is not a notable company. It was started just last month. The article was written by someone with an admitted conflict of interest (cousin of the business owner) and the article has been edited by the owner of the business as well. The sources used in the article are not independent or reliable (except the New York Times reference, which doesn't even mention the company at all). May qualify for speedy deletion as well: WP:CSD#A7. Peacock (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Mabalu (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — LeoFrank ^Talk 03:22, 15 June 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 19:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Len Kabasinski

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

Notability as a director not established, martial art credential is minor. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Perused 10 SERP pages, didn't find sufficient WP:RS to justify WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage--IMDB is not a reliable source. Nothing to show notability as a director or martial artist. 109.201.154.178 (talk) 19:59, 12 June 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 Turkish Naval Forces#History. WP:NOTBURO. In the future, simple redirects like this can be WP:BOLDly done instead of being sent to AfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of Turkish navies

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

Practically an empty article, just consisting of links. All these links are found in Turkish Naval Forces which has a comprehensive history and links to Ottoman Navy. Suggest this page be deleted Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Turkish Naval Forces#History. This article did once have substantial text which was merged there some time ago. There's no point in having this as a separate page with no substantial content. In my opinion, this could easily have been redirected without a debate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 June 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) 06:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Monteverde

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 08:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I googled him and there is nothing there. The article has just one dead ref. I think he probably does have the achievements listed in the article but that isn't enough to convey notability. Szzuk (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Dobbe

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

Deprodded. As I noted in my prod: "This person doesn't seem to pass WP:N, failing WP:BIO including Wikipedia:Notability (creative professionals) requirements." Hosting Eurovision Contests does not seem, IMHO, to significant anything but high-profile but not-notable career achievements. If she is a Dutch TV icon, an influential figure, or such, proper sources should be presented. The current source ([23]) mentions her once - in passing and is hardly satisfactory. I couldn't find any significant English coverage, and neither I am seeing it in other languages, through help from Dutch speakers would be appreciated. Dutch Wikipedia's article, while a bit longer, does not seem reliably referenced. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As being the hostess of one of Europe's most recognised television shows, this article should not be deleted. I have found 2 valuable sources http://www.mediacourant.nl/?p=132905 and http://www.beeldengeluidwiki.nl/index.php/Willy_Dobbe, which are both in the Dutch language. I will try to extend it ASAP.

You'll be pleased to know, that I have now extended the article Mrluke485 (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2014 (CET)

Keep I agree completely with Piotrus that hosting a songfestival is, IMHO, not sufficient to make somebody notable. The Dutch WP is often of little help, given the (very) lax sourcing standards there. In any case, the article was incorrect in stating that this was what she is mostly known for. She is much better known as announcer and presenter of programs like Zevensprong. I have found some sources (at least two of them are RS and in national Dutch newspapers), which should be enough to pass GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I removed the second source added by Mrluke485, because that is a wiki consisting of user-contributed content and hence not a reliable source. --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrluke485 and Randykitty: Thanks to your expansions I am now ready to withdraw the nom. , Mrluke485, please study the edits by Randykitty - they do a much better job proving that the subject was notable. What we are seeing now is that many of your articles I tagged as notable are notable, but you are not making it clear in them. If you could expand more of your past articles like such, we wouldn't need to bring them here. Let me know if you intend to work on them, and I can delay reviewing of your work for few months. I do want us to keep them, and not to see your work wasted, but we have to respect WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus I did extend the article though, before Randykitty also extended it. However I thank him for his help. But what also doesn't get to me is why have you waited until now to propose my article for deletion, when you had more time to it, when I first created them. Mrluke485 (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2014 (CET)

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 01:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basil M. Abad

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

Nothing in this article indicates why he is notable enough for a WP article. Fails WP:SOLDIER, not notable IMO. Otherwise we have to include everyone listed on the Honolulu memorial Gbawden (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, clearly fails WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No apparent notability whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. EricSerge (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 11 June 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. Consensus is that the subject meets WP:GNG. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Boulter

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

Non-remarkable player. No wins in jr majors, no fed cup, no main draw WTA events, no $35,000 wins. The project is pretty darned lenient on notability but she doesn't make it that I can see. Every players gets a writeup or two but there are probably a 100,00 players with minor ITF wins. Per WP:NSPORTS and Tennis Project Notability Guidelines there is nothing notable here. At least not for anything tennis related. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Boulter is indeed a Remarkable Tennis Player. She was runner up in a Jr Slam. She is the Number 1 Jr in the United Kingdom and has been for many years. She has won a $10K ITF event and come runner up in many others. She is top 10 in the world wide Junior Rankings and a top 500 Professional Player (Not sure where you get the 100K from). I would turn your attention to other Young Tennis Prodigies (Ivana Jorović) who have Wikipedia Pages. I am confused as to why you are indeed putting down an incredibly talented Girl with a large UK following? Think you should wait and see how she does over the summer season. She has worked incredibly hard to get to where she has & deserves some recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.201.233 (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

There are always exceptions, so "perhaps" gng will find it so for this person. Per wikipedia notability guidelines for tennis, she does not meet them. You must WIN a jr' slam to be notable (per guidelines). $10,000 ITFs are nothing and do not meet guidelines for inclusion. Top 10 jr. does not cut it either. Per guidelines Junior players are presumed to be notable if they have won at least a junior Grand slam title or have been in the top 3 of the junior ITF world rankings. She has not but Ivana Jorović has. Top 500 pro doesn't make it either. I'm not putting her down, she is simply unremarkable. She may be one day so this should be placed in userspace until that time, but to open the door with for your reasons is wrong. Now, could she meet gng because the British press builds her up more than other countries do for someone of her stature? That's always possible. But she does not meet notability for her actual tennis ability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple independent reliable sources in major publications including the BBC suggests Boulter meets the general notability guideline. Recommend trimming article substantially with material only based on references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Tomwsulcer - She meets the general notability guideline. International publications such as the BBC and Telegraph deem here "notable" enough to write articles on her. Although she has not met the Wikipedia tennis guidelines.. her achievements are not to be sniffed at & hopefully after a successful summer season she will have fulfilled these guidelines (note they are just guidelines & not rules). I suggest it is kept on the basis of her achievements being close to the guidelines in place and her fulfilling the [[WP:GNG]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.197.155 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG: most references are from local press sources, but there are reports from the Daily Telegraph and BBC cited, and coverage on tennis/sports websites[24]. It may be unfair that British tennis prodigies get coverage beyond their actual achievements, but that's the way the media works. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sourcing is not a problem, but I have doubts about notability. Junior sportspeopel are generally not notable (even as high as no. 10). Her world ranking considerably below 500 seems indeauate to make her notable. TOO SOON. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 14 June 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 06:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Dragon of Cold Mountain

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

Was listed as Prod as no sign of notability, delisted from this by article creator after an edit that did not appear to make it noteable. Bringing it here for consideration. Amortias (T)(C) 10:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep seems like it should be notable. Thinly sourced but it's still a month from starting; coverage should pick up closer to and after it starts. Noticed zh.wp has a much more developed article (though no better sourced) so linked it to this one.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added two refs to establish notability. Definitely beyond production so not a future release. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:49, 2 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 05:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources added by Philg88, The article needs alot of improving tho!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 07:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stubbish right now though given both that it′s a series from a major network (TVB) and the pre-broadcast coverage it′s had in the press, coverage should increase once it broadcasts. This fan blog [25] gives details sourced from Apple Daily′s commentary (from this, I think?) for instance. Similarly this fan forum [26] has placemarker threads for ratings data, interviews, and magazine scans covering it; once it starts they may be useful for finding the original sources or even prove useful as convenience links. --91.125.29.135 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 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 Rathfriland#Education. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iveagh Primary School

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

NN primary school that provides education for ages 3-11. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Southern Education and Library Board. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable, with redirection to the school board or town in which they are located the preferred outcome. Carrite (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rathfriland#Education where I have merged the school. Whereas in the US redirecting to the school board/district is normal, in the UK usual practice is to merge to the lowest level locality article. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rathfriland#Education →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:17, 9 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 03:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discovering Gloria

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

Non-notable student film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 03:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I removed the initial tag for deletion since I clearly feel that this documentary meets the notability standard. While the article is under referenced (and has been tagged to reflect this), the genesis of the piece should have nothing to do with its notability. Should the article Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB be deleted? While all the citations are regional, they clearly point to the piece having an affect beyond the university for which it was done. Onel5969 (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you are arguing that Boaz Dvir is more famous than George Lucas, or just as famous as George Lucas? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colapeninsula... the answer would be neither. Bovineboy2008's sole argument for removal is that this is a student film. By that rationale, and that rationale alone, Lucas' student film should also be removed. Which I would also argue against, naturally. Onel5969 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My argument is that it does not meet WP:NF. Please don't reduce my argument. BOVINEBOY2008 19:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is not a student film. It started out as a thesis project in an MFA program. However, the filmmaker has greatly revised and expanded "Discovering Gloria" since successfully submitting it as his thesis film in fall 2013. It was 36 minutes long then. By the time he completes post-production at the end of the summer, the film will be hour-long, ready to air on PBS stations around the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.143.156 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Gloria Jean Merriex. From these references it appears to me that she is notable while the documentary about her is probably not. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this- the documentary is mostly mentioned in passing about the lady herself, who appears to have been absolutely amazing. If someone wants to create an article about her, this should absolutely be mentioned there in a subsection. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is a notable film for several reasons: 1. PBS plans to air later this year. 2. It has received a great deal of press in Florida, the only place it has so far screened. 3. It was made by an award-winning documentary filmmaker -- Boaz Dvir, who made "Jessie's Dad." 4. It features nationally respected educational reformers and researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.143.156 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Several improvements have been made to the page to better meet WP:NF. References have been added to demonstrate its notable coverage. Additionally, links to relevant Wikipedia pages have also been added. I'd also like to add that the University of Florida's College of Education regularly uses this film and its corresponding "Hip Hop Math" curriculum guide in teacher education courses and local teacher inservice professional development, providing "other evidence of notability" according to WP:NF. Finally, the film features a notable figure in education, as demonstrated by her prestigious WK Kellogg Foundation award. WP:NF Rachelwolk (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)rachelwolk[reply]

Keep seems to meet WP:NF now, based on current WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources showing a meeting of WP:NF. No matter where else this might eventually be mentioned, it meets inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NF and, not that it's needed in this case in my view, WP:HEY. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:43, 17 June 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 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carrefour Richelieu

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

NN 455,035 sq ft mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per nom. Some coverage on local listing websites but nothing reliable. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither of the references cited in the article establish that is passes WP:GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. One can look at the size of this mall, over 400,000 sq ft, and know that it is a regional mall, which based on the U.S. standards of icsc.org [27], mark it in the top 2% of centers. Regional malls impact a wide area and also tend to be venues, so wp:notability won't be a policy-based criteria for deletion...as indicated by WP:ATD, a non-notable but wp:prominent topic should be a redirect, in this case with the template "R with possibilities". The topic is already included in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The consensus, as reflected in the discussion here at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K square feet (at least; some editors believe the cutoff is higher) -- which this is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 04:08, 15 June 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. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Lake INN Athletic Club Does Not Clean Plates?

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

Nonsense page BollyJeff | talk 01:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G1 surely. Keresaspa (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drown per WP:A1. Also, the article now has a one-way ticket to WP:DAFT. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article as G1 and the related page Deer lake Athletic Club Does Not Clean Clean Plates? as A1. 02:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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.