Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 December	19 December >

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 Articles author blanked page. Speedy deleted Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Economic Impact of Farmers' Markets in the United States

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

The article creator states, "there is scarce literature on the overall impact of farmers’ markets on the U.S. economy." As such, this article is almost completely synthesis (Wikipedia articles must not contain original research) and almost completely unreferenced (material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source).

This article is also a content fork of farmers' market. The A10 CSD tag for an article with the same content and a similar title (The Impact of Farmers' Markets on the U.S. Economy) was recently removed by the article's author. (Due to the article's considerable length, if deleted, it should probably be userified within the article creator's user-space, as a courtesy.) - tucoxn\^talk 23:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Karoo#Nama Karoo biome (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 00:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nama Karoo

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

We already have an article on Karoo. ubiquity (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Karoo–Nama Karoo biome, where the topic is already covered. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Karoo–Nama Karoo biome as per @Northamerica1000. Quis separabit? 19:46, 22 December 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. Mr.Z-man 03:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hege Lofthus

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

WP:NN leader of NN organization. Speedy declined by Bbb23 a few days ago. The Dissident Aggressor 21:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, delete. Now that the organization is deleted any claim of importance is lowered as well, but if a BLP PROD and an AfD can't take care of this... Drmies (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything useful at all on the Norwegian search engine, Kvasir, not even a news report mentioning her being married to Torstein Lofthus. I added her maiden name and one reference - she won a domino championship in 2011 - from the Norwegian page, but the maiden name didn't turn up any news coverage either. I had thought EGTYF/ACTIVE might be more notable, but it also doesn't seem to have hit the news at all, and I gather someone's tried and that has been deleted. So I haven't removed the BLP-PROD despite having added a source, although possibly someone in-country or with subscription access to Aftenposten will be able to find coverage I can't see. In which case ping me; it seems as if she ought in theory to meet GNG and I'd love to be proved wrong. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the BLPROD, so that the article doesn't improperly get deleted if it survives this AFD process... I have not spent the time to muse over WP:NATHLETE to see if World Domino Champ in and of itself qualifies her for an article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Domino is highly underrated, Yngvadottir. Bishonen and I have spent many a polar night playing dominoes, by the light of a bear-fat candle. This is why we are sharp as a tack. As a tack. Tack, Drmies (talk) 01:55, 21 December 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. I agree that this does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Nor do I see coverage that takes this past ONEEVENT. Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Munif Ashmar

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

Non-notable person, extremely biased sources, POV language. Baatarsaikan (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm a minor contributor who made some clean ups. The article is tagged for checking the neutrality and it should be discussed in the article talk page (not here). The article is notable per WP:SOLDIER and as you know he was named as the hero of the self-sacrifice operation in a press conference by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the third Secretary General of the Hezbollah. Mhhossein (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:At first about POV language: This is not a reason for deletion. This is editable.Problem with neutrality is not a suitable reason for such a nomination!. using of the phrase Zionist soldiers just was a Carelessness. I edited that and changed to Israel soldier and about self-sacrifice I am trying to find suitable phrase.

Second about notability: I am an inexperience user but I know in WP:SOLDIER is written: 5. Played an important role in a significant military event according to this phrase Ali Munif Ashmar is notable. Also there are many Third-party sources about him and I guess if you can read Hebrew, you find the news about him in Israel news.I am creator of this article.Hananeh.M.h (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non-notable suicide bomber martyr; article is wholly anti-Semitic bigotry; sources are Islamist propaganda outlets. While waiting for deletion, have redirected article to Suicide attack.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do not redirect an article in the mids of an AfD. If the notability concerns you bring it up at the article talk page until this AfD is completed.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep POV concerns are not settled via an AfD it is solved by discussions at the article talk page. It also passes per WP:SOLDIER.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it fails WP:Soldier, completely and utterly. To start with, "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." But there are no reliable sources, let alone significant or independently verifiable ones. Next... (quoting WP:Soldier's requirements verbatim):

In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

1. Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour; or

2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or

3. Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or

4. Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof; or

5. Played an important role in a significant military event; or

6. Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat; or

7. Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them; or

8. Were the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war; or

9. Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.

Ashmar fails to meet any of these.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet any of the notability guidelines for a soldier. Even if he did, the article is way too biased to preserve as is, and deserves to be blown up and started over at the least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPL and WP:BIO1E. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability General notability guideline: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.Hananeh.M.h (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 04:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue Massacre

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

After browsing sources, I'm not convinced this crime is notable enough for its own article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes various subsections of WP:EVENT. A GBooks search for one of the perps reveals what appears to be significant coverage of the murders/murderers in a couple academic books discussing behavior and motivation, as well as a few other books discussing the relationship with goths and young murderers.[1] The article name does not appear to be very prevalent, so I would suggest ~~1997 Bellvue, Washington murders or~~ Wilson family murders. (The New York Times referred to it as the "Wilson family killings".[2]) Mentioned in an episode of Wicked Attraction. - Location (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 19:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An episode of the TV crime series Wicked Attraction has dealt with this spree-killing.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has been the subject of media, passes in large WP:EVENT. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it's certainly not notable enough to be treated as a proper name, but my bold attempt to fix it was reverted. Dicklyon (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 04:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded scientific theories

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

This article misuses the term scientific theory. The majority of this list is comprised of ideas, hypothesis, and protoscience that do not fit the modern definition of a scientific theory. The fact that the term theory is so often misapplied makes revision of this article cumbersome and unlikely. As time goes on, more and more subjects like the rain follows the plow will be added, necessitating research and discussion by individuals who understand what a scientific theory is. The current state of this article suggests that such editing will not take place. Xyrtex (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. It may well be that the term 'scientific theories' is misused here, I'm not sure. But it is useful to have a list of ideas that were at one time widely held by the best minds on the planet, and later determined to not be valid. Such a list shows growth and change in human knowledge over the centuries. YBG (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't the title be Superseded Ideas in Human History or something like that? The misused term scientific theory permeates the article to the point that it should be entirely rewritten under a different title. In order to be correct under the current title, all of the models, hypothesis, and the ideas that did not arise from the scientific method should be deleted.Xyrtex (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this class of abandoned ideas should include those listed in the article History of science, but "Ideas in Human History" seems a bit too broad, as it would encompass areas of knowledge such as rhetoric and literature and other humanities. Natural philosophy is another term that has been used historically for these areas of inquiry, but I don't think it would a helpful in this case. YBG (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restrict it to Scientific theories that were proven wrong, not those that are incomplete (that'd encompass pretty much all of modern physics, I think). No valid reason for deletion has been provided; this doesn't descend to WP:coatrack. Our ancestors genuinely believed in some funny things (e.g. Isaac Newton and alchemy), but who are we to brag? There are plenty of nutjobs out there with even sillier notions with much less justification. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But once again, most of the list are not scientific theories and alchemy is most certainly not. Perhaps a visit to that page would clear this up. The casual use of the word theory does not apply here. Is Wikipedia the place to decide if a branch of thought is a scientific theory?WP:SUBJECTIVECAT If so what authoritative sources can be used to settle disagreements? If you want a list of the funny things that our ancestors believed in, than the term scientific theory has little relevance.Xyrtex (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dial down your snarkiness. Phlogiston theory, Caloric theory, Steady State theory, etc. were all scientific theories of some standing at one time or other. It could use some cleanup, but that's not a valid reason to delete it. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not trying to be snarky, just frustrated. Of the 46 items in this list, 30 are not scientific theories; 2 are not superseded; 8 I'm not sure about; and 6 are good examples of superseded scientific theories. I see your point that some type of article like this is useful, but with the current title, it uses the list to improperly define what a scientific theory is. This is a problem because many people are already unclear about this definition. For what it is worth, I think that this article can be viewed as propaganda for the anti-science view that scientific theories (i.e. evolution)are just guesses or theories in the common use of the word. So how should I clean this up (I am actually asking for help here)? Should I delete all of the hypothesis, models, and philosophy, or should we find a new title that is not misleading?Xyrtex (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of these issues could be resolved on the talk page. If one were feeling particularly bold, one could simply remove any off-topic, unreferenced text. I think a rename might be a better choice than wholesale deletion of examples, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite An article should not be put up for deletion over a terminology dispute. Go to its talk page and gather consensus for a rename and rewrite, or go ahead and do it yourself—I don't think you'll find too much in the way of resistance. You just need to decide on a good name. Superseded scientific ideas? That covers theories, hypotheses and even protoscience, I would say, but I'll defer to more qualified editors. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the real issue is one of scope and terminology, and those issues do not belong at Afd, unless the article is so foul that WP:TNT applies, which is not the case here. Move discussion to Talk:Superseded scientific theories. I like special contributor 72.200.151.13's idea of renaming to Superseded scientific ideas. --Bejnar (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 04:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jannatul Ferdoush Peya

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

Actor does not indicate enough significance to pass WP:ACTOR. Only one nomination as an actor. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Own major national pageant; nominated for major national award; well covered in media. Passes WP:ENT. – nafSadh did say 18:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Apparently we don't have criteria for beauty pageant winners, but there was a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (people)/Archive_2014#Beauty pageant contestants where most of the editors thought that the winner of a Big Four national pageant is notable. That would mean that Miss Bangladesh qualifies.– Margin1522 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: No policy-backed argument has been made vis-à-vis the (other) relevant content-specific guideline (WP:NMODEL), the general notability guideline, or "what Wikipedia is not"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 19:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:ENT, had major roles in award winning films and telefilms. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – She hasn't had enough significant roles to qualify under WP:ACTOR. Unreleased films don't count. Nor is there much evidence that the modelling career is notable. WP:GNG depends solely on the beauty pageant win. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:53, 19 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vani Bhojan

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

Does not pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG 999Creep (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actress and is still upcoming not notable yet.ரவீந்திரன்
Delete There do not seem to be WP:RS to establish notability. Maybe this is WP:TOOSOON. Also possible WP:COI in creating this article - although that is not a reason to delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:22, 21 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Practopoiesis

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

I debated speedying this under A11, since it only seems to appear in works by the user who created the article, but I'll elaborate further and note that the cited sources, other than ones authored by the user himself, don't actually mention this concept, and despite the creator's posting about his theory all over the internet, it nonetheless appears to be a hobbyhorse of one individual. An IP who may be the creator removed the PROD without addressing its concerns. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for self-aggrandizement & non-notability. As far as Google can discern, this term does not exist outside the writings of one "Prof. Dr." Danko Nikolic, and I'm reasonably confident that no peer-reviewed literature containing it exists either (or it would have been referenced by the article's creator, who is otherwise proficient in making an article pass as well-written and seemingly respectable). See also the article Autopoiesis, where the user Dankonikolic (Danko Nikolic, I presume) has been adding his own works as references to articles (an obvious conflict of interest, and user's other contributions will need to be checked.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Delete it. I am guilty of the crime. I guess I will have to wait until practopoiesis gets more famous and more often used by other authors. I will try deleting it myself but I am not sure whether I know how to do it. (Danko Nikolic) Update: I could only delete the text, not the article.

See Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete given the apparent concurrence of the article author. PianoDan (talk) 15:51, 24 December 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. No prejudice to recreation if reliable sources can be found. Any recreation should go through AFC. Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selvi (TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG and non notable program 999Creep (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with necessary tags to improve article, as it currently lacks references). - It's an Indian TV show within the last ten years with 499 episodes featuring at least eight cast members who have their own articles.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable serial and lacks WP:RS note article has not been sourced since 2006 .182.65.148.126 (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any Reliable source there are many serials in various channels and all of them are not notable .VanishingRainbow (talk) 13:50, 23 December 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 Glory (EP). Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murda Bizness

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

Non-notable song. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Song did not chart, fails WP:NSONG. Mentioned on Billboard that it "fizzled" as a song release.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glory (EP) - If the song isn't notable, it could be a useful redirect instead. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 01:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Cloutier

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

Non notable model. Some covers, some works, just that. damiens.rf 16:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be notable and multiple reliable sources exist that establish this. Appeared in the SI Swimsuit Issue, which is a significant threshold for model notability. Also has appeared in multiple spreads and features in countries outside of Canada, which seems to indicate she is known internationally (Croatia)[3], (France) [4], [5], [6], (Croatia) [7], (Argentina) [8], (Vietnam) [9]. Also appeared on the cover of Details with Adam Lambert in 2009, according to New York Magazine [10]. EDIT: Also has appeared in multiple international issues of Elle magazine, including the July 2010 Canadian edition [11], on the cover of Elle Spain in December 2013 [12], The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As said in the nomination, "Some covers, some works, just that.". She is a prolific model, but there isn't much published about her that could be used to substantiate a biography. We can write, at best, a compilation of here jobs, as in a curriculum vitae. --damiens.rf 13:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A compilation of jobs is basically what all model biographies are. They are models, hence work in major magazines, photoshoots, and fashion shows is exactly what gives them notability and thus what the article is about. —Lowellian (reply) 08:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SI issue alone is sufficient for notability as a model, and she has far more work beyond that in hundreds of magazines, work that is easily verifiable as User:The Master has demonstrated above. Furthermore, much of her work is named work; she has sufficient recognition in the modeling industry that she is identified by name, rather than just some anonymous model in advertisements. —Lowellian (reply) 08:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"SI issue alone is sufficient for notability as a model" - As much as you'd like it, this is not what WP:NMODEL says. --damiens.rf 13:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NMODEL does not point to specific "models" criteria, but instead redirects to a generic "Entertainers" notability section, most of which is written for actors and musicians. However, the parts of that "Entertainers" notability section that could be relevant to models include "multiple significant productions" and "prolific contributions to a field of entertainment", both of which have been amply demonstrated by User:The Master above. Furthermore, in the modeling industry, the SI issue is one of the highest honors, and it is among her work. If that is not sufficient, then almost no models meet notability criteria on Wikipedia. It would be like saying an actor who has both a large body of work and been nominated for an Academy Award is non-notable. —Lowellian (reply) 23:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has achieved a significant level of notability as noted above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being on the SI cover is not an inherently notable achievement, sorry. If nothing has changed in this person's live since AfD #1, there is no valid reason to retain this article. Tarc (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- SI is one of the most prestigious accolades in the modeling industry. By that logic, an actor being nominated for an Academy Award is not an inherently notable achievement either. And this argument also supposes that SI is her only accomplishment. Above, a large body of other modeling work in notable publications has been demonstrated. —Lowellian (reply) 23:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Sarahj2107 per CSD G7 (only author requested deletion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sympatme

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

The name is speld wrong N-xx22xx (talk) 12:21, 18 December 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 userfied. by agreemenr with nominator and article author JohnCD (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Pursglove

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

He is only a local councillor and a candidate for Parliament. Neither of those satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. If he wins it will be re-created but there is no reason for him to currently have an article (other than as an advertising tool for his candidacy). Being a candidate for a marginal seat does not make him notable. Being 18 when he was elected a councillor is not notable as many others have been elected at that age. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:POLITICIAN, being an unelected candidate does not confer notability, and I do not think his local council activities do, either. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the original poster of the page I'm fine with seeing it go into some invisible state until after the election but I'm not sure how to do that Wschosta (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wschosta: if you like, and if the nominator agrees, I can "userfy" it - move it to a user subpage at User:Wschosta/Tom Pursglove as a parking-place until the election. JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCD: that sounds like an acceptable solution to me Wschosta (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: as nominator, do you have any objection if I userfy? Then the AfD can be closed. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to that. The article as it is would be a good start if he does win the election. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 22:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCD: my only other request would be to put a redirect from his name to the General Election 2015 page (apologies for my lack of knowledge about how to do these things) Wschosta (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC) (whoops, forgot to login again)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EastGate Pharmaceuticals

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

Article doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG and no independent sources seem to be available, just a few press releases. Nik thestunned 15:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now or userfy. Yes, this is a tiny company worth only ~$50,000 in total shares outstanding, however my main concern is WP:Bite. The primary author is a new editor who only joined on September 2014 and he already has a bunch of deletion nominations on unrelated article. Based on the wide varied subjects he edits per Xtools, he's clearly independent of those companies he's written about. He's hardly two months old and has already contributed to over 300 unique pages. In order to avoid discouraging him, we should avoid deleting all these article and kindly point out that he should be reviewing the notability guidelines. I'd be open to revisiting this article in AfD in a few months. (Note: may include this argument in multiple AfDs) —CodeHydro 18:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Eastgate Biotech, Inc. Enough cites to be WP:GNG are available if one searches under all the relevant names. I am also disturbed that the first CSD was so soon after the last create edit that there was not possibly enough time to have done any significant type of WP:BEFORE. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything under that name but press releases and stock information.1,2 Is that l+atter an indicator of notability? You got some reliable source I can see? Nik thestunned 09:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't entirely sure on the rules of this but I have found that per WP:LISTED: "independent press coverage and analyst reports" should be found for publicly traded corporations. I can't find anything like this for either of the names here =/ Nik thestunned 09:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have to look into this but prima facie I would say if the stock of a company is traded on NASDAQ it has some notability however, if the share price drops below $.10 we would be looking at an historical company. As far as the new editor someone can explain that the many failures of Thomas Edison didn't stop success. Otr500 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 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 nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Sajak

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

Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. Way too early in career LibStar (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She may be early in her career, however she does not fail WP:MUSICBIO. There are plenty of non-trivial mentions of her in third party sources if you just Google it. [13] [14] [15] [16].. and that's just from the top half of the first page of results... —CodeHydro 15:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Additional examples of substantial coverage: Billboard [17], Fox News [18], Washington Examiner\PopSugar [19], CMT [20]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Tanzania, Abu Dhabi

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

ails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. and some have been previously deleted. note there is also no bilateral relations article to redirect this to. Also nominating for the same reasons (consulates are even less notable):

LibStar (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the now firmly established consensus that embassies are not inherently notable. They are required to meet WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG like everything else and these don't. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Embassies are not notable until they have shared a presence in a notable event. Noteswork (talk) 03:56, 24 December 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 Ella Eyre. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 01:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feline (Ella Eyre album)

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

Unremarkable album whose artist's page exists. Laun chba ller 14:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ella Eyre. No confirmed details yet, may never happen, but as it appears to currently be planned redirect it for now until there are sources available to write a proper article. --Michig (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ella Eyre. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Much of the article is speculation: namely, the list of "possible tracks". There's simply not enough information at the moment to write an article about the subject. Per WP:NALBUMS: generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. Until sufficient information becomes available, a redirect will suffice. Mz7 (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G3 (partial hoax). Bbb23 (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noe Garcia

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

Non-notable extra/bit part player, sourced only to social media. Creator may be a sock of User: Noegarcia951 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, self-aggrandizing WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and likely a blatant hoax. --Drm310 (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-aggrandizing blurb by the subject and his sock account. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:13, 18 December 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 by Fuhghettaboutit per WP:G11 and WP:G12. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Titomirov

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

Contested BLPProd. Restored after WP:UND request (by someone claiming to be the subject of the article). Still no inline references, overly promotional, questionable business/corporate biography notability. Hasteur (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also a 93% confidence factor of Copyright violation Hasteur (talk) 11:55, 18 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. P. Rathna Swamy

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

Biography of an academic and civil servant who does not appear to meet notability requirements, neither WP:PROF nor Wikipedia:Notability (people). His name can be spelt Rathnaswamy or Rathna Swamy, and I have looked for sources using both spellings, but not found anything that indicates that he meets WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 11:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This could be deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7, because no credible assertion of significance is made in the article. The only sources available appear to be the subject's own works. I find nothing that constitutes significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable either as a academic or Civil Servant.ரவீந்திரன்
Delete. Whoever wrote this (seemingly the subject) has little idea about how notability and sourcing work nor about the proper content for a biographic encyclopedia article. It is very cluttered with indiscriminate minor accomplishments, footnotes that don't mention the subject, and long unsourced essay-like sections. Any notability that might exist here is well hidden. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:OR. Lack of secondary content. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Garvin

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

Appears to be an autobiography, References don't appear to establish WP:N War wizard90 (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that the article should be deleted and is in accordance with WP policy. Wizard90 does not provide sufficient grounds for deletion. Article complies with reliable sources (e.g. Sports Illustrated, Gazetta, and recipient of awards), user policy, guidelines, and overall good and featured articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguevarra1980 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One minor award in a minor film festival, the only claim to notability of any substance, is not sufficient to establish notability. As noted, this is a vanity autobiography of a non-notable person.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A "Best Actress" award is not a "minor" award, in my humble opinion. Sports Illustrated is also a prestigious publisher and individual was featured by said publisher as a model. She is also the face of an Elizabeth Arden perfume although that does not appear to be referenced in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguevarra1980 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an award given by a very minor film festival. One published photo does not make her notable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that Mguevarra1980 is a new account whose primary purpose seems to be editing this article & has seemingly taken over building the page from User:Kerrygarvin.TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non-notable T&A girl (I'm calling her that because 100% of Google image returns depict her scantily clad) with a suspicious IMDB entry (claiming three films, all unreleased indie/homemade projects, each with zero reviews or commentary). Supporting refs, at best, appear to be blog-lists for wank material. The accompanying picture's uploader (Mguevarra1980, who comments above) appears to have taken it from Garner's Facebook page (the image otherwise has zero Tineye matches), so that fails proper accreditation and will have to be deleted as well. Article contains zero biographical information; her Facebook page contains zero biographical information, and her "website" links under "About" on Facebook as well as her Youtube uploads are merely links directly back to the Facebook page. A modeling site is the best Google could scrounge for (alleged) details. At this point, we essentially have no way of determining if "Kerry Garvin" is a real person's actual name, or is the new pseudonym of a washed-up porn-star seeking to break into semi-respectability.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If we could Keep purely based on Images [21] I would but unfortunately we can't ....., Anyway back on topic - The article seems like more of an advertisement, Plus the cites aren't exactly brilliant (IMDb being the worst!), Anyway despite myself searching I can't fin any shred of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 01:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QuEST Global

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

Company is not notable WP:N. Clearly no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources WP:ORG. Some passing mentions in business press about take-overs etc. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages WP:NOTCATALOG. Thanks -- Marksterdam (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marksterdam (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak Keep - Hmmmmm... I may be wrong here, but looking through the sources I'm seeing more than passing mention in a wide range of business press. Plus, this place seems to have 5,000+ employees. I know head count isn't a criteria under WP:CORP, but 5k employees strikes me as a lot. This article is probably just poorly referenced, not non-notable. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Shifting from keep to weak keep per rationale below NickCT (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Marksterdam's request, I'm noting that direct coverage of Quest exists in Forbes, Times of India, The Economic Times, Business Standard, Trade Magazine Aerospace Manufacturing and Design.

Looking at the sources again, I'd probably call coverage of Quest in Indian media "extensive". Coverage outside India is fairly limited. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NickCT. I think the Forbes article, fulfills WP:CORPDEPTH and is a valuable find. The others strike me as very much passing references of routine business announcements and are probably the result of PR annoucements. Hoping for more votes. Marksterdam (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Marksterdam: - re "others strike me as very much passing references of routine business announcements" - Ok. Point taken for some of those specific links I offered. My counter point is that Times of India, The Economic Times and The Business Standard are all moderately high quality RS. I'm seeing 44 mentions in the Times of India/Economic Times, and 21 mentions in the Business Standard. Granted I haven't gone through them all, but would you argue that none of these will fulfill WP:CORPDEPTH? Seems unlikely.... NickCT (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NickCT. I think as an engineering outsourcing company they do work with many notable companies and this accounts for a great deal of the passing coverage. Their acquisitions and spin-offs clearly garner interest from the specialised business press such as the Economic Times as they do feature routine announcements of these. Most likely, based on quotes within the articles, these stories are often PR led. However, I'd say none of this means they pass WP:CORP and belong in a general Encyclopedia. Perhaps a more specialised business Wiki such as WikiBusiness may be more suitable for this engineering outsourcing company.

As an example, looking at the first half of the Economic Times links from Google that that you reference this is what I see:

Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business.

Passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business.

Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business. Only a few sentences of background information.

Inclusion in lists of similar organizations.

Passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

Passing mention. Article about a spin off company. Not about Quest Global.

Passing mention. Article about outsourced about parts used for Airbus.

Passing mention. Article based on a competition run by the company. Clearly a PR led piece.

Invalid result. No mention of Quest Global.

Passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

Invalid result. No mention of Quest Global.

Passing mention. Routine business announcement. Very little about Quest Global.

Inclusion in lists of similar organizations.

Passing mention. Routine business announcement. Very little about Quest Global. Based on quotes seems PR led.

Routing business announcement. Some information about Quest but hardly in depth.

Some of the above may contain a few sentences about the background of the company, but for me clearly don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Marksterdam: - Ok. Granted none of those sources aren't what I'd call "high quality". They'd all be "low to mid quality". That said, there seems to be so much "low to mid quality" material that I'm finding it really hard to see this as a delete situation. Given I'm having trouble finding "high quality" references, I'll shift from keep to weak keep, but I think that's as far as I'm going. We may need more eyes on this to find consensus.

BTW - Some direct coverage in the House Business Journal. Not that that's a great source either.... NickCT (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 05:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Okay, here is the significant coverage of subject in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, -[22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], (highbeam -[39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]), etc. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include [47], [48], [49], [50]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 25 December 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. No prejudice to re-creation if reliable sources can be found. Any new article should go through AFC and be considerably less promotional than the current one. Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Taxila)

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

advertising The Banner talk 02:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. - The ChampionMan 1234 02:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I struck a big swath of text in the article as a copyvio. This did away with most of the NPOV issues, so the subject should be evaluated on WP:N at this point. As the policy for educational institutions in this area is hazy at best, I would have abstained from a !vote. However, the fact that the college doesn't even exist yet, combined with the fact that I can't find any (English; if someone finds enough reliable Swedish RS's, I'll change my !vote) reliable sources to establish WP:GNG puts it over the top for me. Deadbeef 07:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (revised from Keep). It's in Pakistan, not Sweden. There's mention of Swedish language sources above, but I think there are none, perhaps there are non=English sources in one or more of Pakistan's languages however. It's a college. If it is open, and not "upcoming", then it is to be Kept, as Wikipedia AFD standard for high schools and higher is that they are automatically deemed notable / kept. See wp:NSCHOOL. The article existed for a long time, for many years, and i think the college is open. So i voted Keep at first (but have revised).

However I am bit unclear on the relationship of this article for "Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Taxila)" to the similar article topic of Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Rahim Yar Khan). And there also is UET Taxila as a school, and as towns/cities there are Taxila, Wah Cantt (near to Taxila), and Rahim Yar Khan. The webpage at http://www.swedishryk.edu.pk/ documents well enough that the Rahim Yar Khan school is open. Including, for example, by various notes of events from March, April 2013 and since, in the colleges' events/updates webpage at http://www.swedishryk.edu.pk/updates.html. I edited the article a bit, may have introduced error, so am undoing my edit next. If it is a college though, it is an obvious Keep. --do ncr am 21:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be in disagreement with WP:NSCHOOL, which is what I was referring to (and I think you meant to refer to). Can you explain how the school passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG? Deadbeef 21:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I came back and revised my comment, which was at first a Keep vote, not seeing your comment following mine. So I may have undermined the applicability of your comment/question about mine. Actually now I am not sure that the article should be kept or not. I probably won't comment further, will leave it to others to sort out the several schools and locations. Sorry for generating confusion. Out, --do ncr am 21:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the article there is statement "Swedish College of Engineering & Technology traces its geneses to December 2009, when it started its operations in Wah Cantt and Rahim Yar khan.", i.e. there is assertion it was open in 2009 in both places. Wah Cantt is near Taxila, might be considered the Taxila campus. Rahim Yar Khan is more than 800 kilometers away, far to the south. Seems likely that the Taxila vs. Rahim Yar Khan schools are distinct enough to be separate schools and have separate articles, but I honestly am not clear on what is available. Over and out. --do ncr am 22:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does appear to exist and as a degree-awarding institution should be kept per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not again the Common Outcomes as an argument... The Banner talk 15:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not an argument, but an illustration of consensus. You should look that word up some time. It's how Wikipedia works and without an understanding of it you really shouldn't be using AfD. Also a bit rich from someone who thinks they can nominate an article for deletion with a single word! If it is advertising, that's easily overcome by an bit of editing. What we're here to discuss is the article's notability, not its content. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, my friend, you should look up the word consensus. Shouting hard is no part of consensus, although it is one of the favourite tactics of the keep-the-school-crew. The Banner talk 17:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Description reads: "The Swedish College of Engineering & Technology, Wah Cantt, is an upcoming college in the private sector surrounded by expanding industrial neighborhood...." So, does this place even exist yet? "Upcoming" implies it doesn't. And, given its totally disingenuous name (obviously not in Sweden), I can't help but being dragged toward the conclusion that its ulterior purpose is as a diploma mill for systematic H-1B visa fraud.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:13, 18 December 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. Mr.Z-man 03:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elban Krishna

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

Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources doesn't meet the Wikipedia's standard of inclusion and qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"2nd unit cameraman"...? Delete--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete, autopromotional vanity page with no claim of notability. Cavarrone 09:25, 22 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bucknam

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Article uses primary sources and may have potentially been written by the subject. Can't find good sources to confirm notability. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 06:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I don't know. This guy seems to get lots of passing mention in primary sources, and one or two pieces with more direct coverage. I'm leaning towards non-notable. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. Could only find primary sources. LibStar (talk) 15:53, 22 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin American Mortgage Company

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

Listed on a 500 list, which shows it was profitable (until 2004), but making money is hardly notable in the business world. Other than that, just mentions their sponsorships, which is effectively continuing the sponsorships, promotionally. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable local business.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Highbeam returned one detailed article on the firm, now referenced into the article. This does quote someone's opinion that the firm's founder "is admired in the industry". It still feels to me that this is just a local firm going about its business, but identification of any further detailed coverage could take it to the verge of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete comments point out lack of independent reliable sources, and assertions that the topic is a leading authority often cited by others has been challenged. Comparing the comments with what is available in the article, the delete comments hold up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Fagan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. My research has found no independent sources that discuss, interview or talk about Fagan other than routine coverage. Article itself doesn't provide any sources that meet GNG. I like the guys work, and own some of his books, but can't see how he is notable. Shudde ^talk 07:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shudde ^talk 07:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shudde ^talk 07:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has plenty of citations in google scholar. As one of the leading rugby league historians, I'd say he meets the "widely cited by peers or successors" part of WP:AUTHOR. Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know where you get the "plenty of citations" or "widely cited" - I find one work by him that has been cited all of 16 times. He is mentioned in other articles, but mentions do not establish notability. The big problem with the article itself is that 6 of the 8 references are BY him, not about him. #8 is just a library catalog listing of his book, and #1 doesn't mention him at all. In other words, there is not one reliable source. LaMona (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Close call. In the interests of moving this process along, my opinion is that this seems to be a recognized experts in his field of historical study and is thus worthy of inclusion, even if the sourcing is very borderline. Carrite (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dismal GScholar citation record, absolutely insufficient to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Neither do I see any evidence of this person passing WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. As for the above !vote, if this were a "recognized authority", there would be sources confirming this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 26 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Surrey Students' Law Society

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Student groups are not inherently notable. There's nothing in this article that shows notability and I can't find reliable sources to show notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite This student group is just as notable as any other student group that has established pages on Wikipedia (for example UCL Law Society ). There is verifiable evidence for all the information given which can be found in other publications (especially hard - not online publications), and its significance is further augmented by the fact that it is an integral part of the student experience at one of the highest ranked UK universities. Furthermore, it includes more references, citations, and sources that show notability than other pages of the same ilk, like Cambridge University Law Society. Therefore I suggest we should Keep the article but suggest ways it could be improved. Conyemenam (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep University of Surrey is a rising university with a strong student body, there is no reason why this page should be deleted. In regards to the lack of reliable sources, neither UCL nor Cambridge University Law Society Wikipedia pages have "reliable sources of notability." Should it be decided that this page be deleted, it should only be fair that other society Wikipedia pages also be deleted for the same reason.131.227.138.76 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC) — 131.227.138.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This wiki page should stay as it's informative for new and potential students looking to come to Surrey to study Law from all over the world. It is very similar to other Law society wikipedia pages like Cambridge University Law Society and The Law Society, University College Cork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.34.20 (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC) — 131.227.34.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They haven't done anything.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The couple of press releases offered as references are not evidence of attained notability, nor are multiple searches (Guardian, Highbeam, Questia, Google) locating anything that is. The best I could find was this brief interview with someone who had been involved in the society but that does not discuss that particular society in itself. Fails the WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and rewrite~~ Student law societies are historically important parts of the English legal profession. There aren't too many organizations in the world that are significantly more important than this one. The number of distinguished former members must be quite enormous. This is not just an average student society. Per the comments above; not an average student society. Give the editors a chance to improve the article. Conyemenam (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your assertion that "There aren't too many organizations in the world that are significantly more important than this one" please provide evidence. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also notice you have already provided a "Keep and rewrite" opinion earlier in the discussion, so I have struck the second !vote. AllyD (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete no notability established beyond the university. Thus failing WP:ORG. The swarming of anon IP single purpose voters just confirms the lack of notability. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I choose this route to see if any replies can sway my opinion. I like that we are admonished not to "vote". I do see this article is referenced as opposed to the mentioned Cambridge University Law Society. My comments concerning that can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge University Law Society (2nd nomination). I do have somewhat of a problem with "Give the editors a chance to improve the article." and "There aren't too many organizations in the world that are significantly more important than this one". "Cambridge University Law Society" was created in 2006, survived an Afd over 8 1/2 years ago with similar statements, and look at it today. It was commented "no notability established beyond the university". If the Irish Times is considered reliable that is not actually the case with The Law Society, University College Cork or with this article if the same is true with the reliability of this reference.

The issue per Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH is a stipulation that a criteria would be "significant coverage" that includes "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.". A marginally persuasive argument could be seen with "it's informative for new and potential students looking to come to Surrey to study Law from all over the world". Wikipedia as well as editors certainly champions education. I am a proponent of local prominence but notability should not be argued because of subjective importance nor an assumption (or indirect reference) that it is inherited. An article can be edited during this discussion so it would not be against the "rules" for interested editors to find some relevant reliable sources, include them, then I would say go do the same on the other above articles. I bet you thought I was going to say "well done" --- and I might. Otr500 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 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. Mr.Z-man 03:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Propa

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

Non-notable radio personality. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Talented young man, but no major achievements yet. WP:TOOSOON. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A 3yo article with zero references? Delete.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:34, 18 December 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 Procedural close. . Should belong at RFD. Discussion on where the redirect should occur should take place on the Talk page or on userpages. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cleanup of ambiguous and confusing article title left over after a move Bhny (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect This is really an RfD not an AfD. I cannot imagine that this would be wanted as the title of an article distinct from Distinction (sociology). So what harm in keeping it as a redirect? WP:Redirects are cheap : Noyster (talk), 10:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The harm is that a Distinction (social), such as a knighthood or Nobel prize, isn't the same as Distinction (sociology), so it would be redirecting to a wrong article. This is what I have previously fixed. Bhny (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind "social distinction" would be an odd way to describe a knighthood or award; but OK, an alternative is a redirect to Distinction - the disambiguation page - where readers can make the distinction for themselves: Noyster (talk), 15:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirected to Award (and added Title to the see also for Prize. I'm reasonably confident that not too many people are ever going to type in "distinction (social)" into the search field. Also created NP social distinction, redirecting same.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that. Bhny (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – True, nobody is going to type "distinction (social)". But they might type "social distinction" and expect to be taken to an article on the term as used by Bourdieu. Looking at the results in Google for "social distinction" I don't see anything about awards. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – After checking usage on Wikipedia, "social distinction" does in fact seem to refer mainly to distinctions within society. So after thinking about it, I was bold and redirected both "social distinction" and "distinction (social)" back to Distinction (sociology) instead of Award. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page had links from about 20 pages that were all about awards and none about sociology. (I personally went through and removed all the erroneous incoming links) What google says is irrelevant. People who edit will wikipedia will continue to link to "Distinction (social)" when writing about a person getting an award. There really is no reason for this page to exist, but if it stays it should redirect to Awards. Bhny (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this discussion belong on WP:RFD, not here. AfD is for articles. About the reversion, I'll let it stand because my policy is to avoid edit wars. But I'm having a little trouble following you. The redirect page Distinction (social) currently has 8 incoming links, 2 of which are versions of User:Jokinen/Taste (sociology) and none of which refer to awards. You said that you personally removed erroneous links. Why were they erroneous, and what exactly did you do? – Margin1522 (talk) 02:31, 22 December 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 both. Delete per arguments provided by "delete" !votes and per WP:TNT. If this had not been at AfD, I would have speedily deleted it as G11 (irredeemably promotional). Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Mackey

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

Sources consist of a few passing mentions, which is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE either.Mdtemp (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I'm listing Jerome Mackey's Judo Inc here as well, as both articles seem to share common ground and the latter was a csd nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The writing style makes it really hard to judge notability and the reference format makes it hard to judge quality. I tried helping the main author with similar articles but (excuse if I misunderstand intent) but it seems that they believe quantity of references and pieces of information will somehow push this article to WP:GNG. The prose does not make a case for notability and I will need a bit more time to examine the references before I vote.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, an earlier article on him was speedily deleted.Mdtemp (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability Established

Notability author this is very referenced and a good article Author of significant book(s) on their style; - e.g. a book that is recommended study for the art (e.g. by an organisation they do not lead) or by someone who is an artist from a different style and/or school, but beware vanity press. Yes four books
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability#Schools_and_organisations
Note: unless the art/style is notable, a school or organisation teaching it is unlikely to be. Hence these criteria are similar. Criteria supporting notability Subject of an independent article/documentary: see above, and consider if it was the style/art and the school/organisation was an example. yes
Long, externally verifiable history Yes
Large number of students yes between 4000 and 5000 in 1974
Regular or large competitive successes in inter-school/ organisation tournaments where the style is notable.n/a
Multiple wide spread sites: an organisation 2 or 3 in a 30 mile radius is a lot less likely to be notable than one with 30 schools in different countries. These are the extremes but illustrate the point. yes multiple states
CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a school or an organization. As far as being a notable author, what has he written about his style that is recommended by those not connected to him?Mdtemp (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHe was the a pioneer in the field by being the first franchiser of martial arts schools. He is similiar in notability to Tiger Schulmann CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments still no vote. All that tells me is that the Tiger article has its own problems and may need a visit. The franchising of Martial arts schools was (is?) an American phenomenon and being the first to do so in a large way has some claim to notability (notoriety). I would like to see that backed up by good (clearly formatted) references.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in one of the references it says he had 3 schools in NYC and 8 others. I wouldn't say that's franchising in a large way, but your view may be different.Mdtemp (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither would I which is why I asked for references backing up the statement.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found nothing to show he meets any of notability criteria for martial artists. However, I still haven't decided about whether or not he meets WP:GNG. I've looked at a number, but not all, of the sources listed in the article. I found some that don't even mention him, but most are passing mentions or things like lists of schools. Given his legal problems, there may be enough coverage to pass GNG, but I haven't had the time to do enough research. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Papaursa [51], [52], and [53] CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More passing mentions.Mdtemp (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Life Magazine [54], Black Belt Magazine full article about him. [55], New York Magazine section on him. [56] CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not mentioned on the Life cover, the BB article is about martial arts by mail marketing, and the New York article is a list of dojos. Nothing to show significant coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MDTemp, he qualifies on General Notability Guideline. He is an author, owner of the first franchise of martial arts schools, and there is significant coverage of him. By martial arts schools qualifications he fully qualifies. Take a look at martial arts schools. There are significant coverage of him in many areas. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He definitely doesn't qualify as a notable martial artist. I also haven't seen the coverage necessary to convince me he meets GNG. I see lots of passing mentions and some coverage of his stock mail fraud case (WP:BLP1E), but not multiple examples of significant independent coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The founder of the first franchise martial arts school in the United States makes him notable. His organization certainly qualifies him more than American Top Team, Brazilian Top Team, Evolve MMA, and Tiger Schulmann's MMA. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I finally got the time to search for sources for Mackey. I did a google search on his name and judo and went through every hit listed on the first 8 pages of results. My conclusion is that there is not enough significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. There's no doubt there's a number of passing mentions, but I don't believe that's enough for WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did fine one from Life Magazine [57]

Delete The Life "article" (2 paragraphs) is more about judo than Mackey. Even if you consider it significant, GNG requires multiple sources and I don't see them. I do like the little kid throwing the instructor through the air--totally unrealistic but in keeping with the views of martial arts at the time. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am named in a Time article on the martial arts. Made my day when it came out but it doesn't make me notable. Passing mentions are just that.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alright, I will state the case

The first to establish the franchise system of martial arts in america
school in 3 states
responsible for the teaching of over 4000 students.
Helped to establish martial arts throughout the East Coast by bringing in from Asia many noted instructors and making them instructors at his schools.
the sheer number of passing mentions in numerous books, black belt magazine, magazines, show GNG. The listing is well over 50.
the author of at least 4 books.
now if you look at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability#Schools_and_organisations
His organization, of which he was the owner would qualify. Possibly maybe create a page about Judo, Inc and redirect Jerome Mackey to it. Since his organization fully qualifies. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI just created page if you believe redirect is a better idea. Jerome Mackey's Judo Inc. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just crossed through your second keep vote. Lots of passing mentions still don't make significant coverage. Nothing to show he's notable as an author. Nothing shows he was the first to franchise schools and arguably his chain wasn't that big--if all of the dojos combined had only 4000 students in their history. I know individual schools that have had more students than that. Finally there's even less coverage about Judo, Inc. than there is of Mackey himself. Papaursa (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Papursa, This was over a 15 year period and when martial arts was confined to adults. This was before martial arts became martial arts schools became inundated with children. Additionally, there are numerous sources that state he was the first to franchise martial arts in America. The numerous sources are in the article! CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you mentioned indicated he was all about teaching children and none of the sources say he was the first, just among the earliest. In addition, as mentioned earlier in the discussion, there's no indication he franchised in a major way. Papaursa (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like the article. 24.103.234.74 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I like the articke . Highly referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.108.64

— 98.14.108.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep would seem to pass WP:GNG from the amount of sources. User:Mdtemp did you notify article creator? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the keep arguments appear to be based on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:GOOGLEHITS, neither of which is a valid reason for keeping an article. No one is pointing out significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to have the sources to meet GNG or the achievements to meet MANOTE. Besides the author, no one has put up a valid argument for keeping and the author hasn't proved his case. Jakejr (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jerome was featured in an article in The New Yorker.[8] Jerome was the subject of an article in Life Magazine [54] and another time in the same magazine [55], an article in the Readers Digest , an article in the New York Sunday News, Multiple Mentions in Black belt Magazine in different years including August 1969, is a martial arts author, and he pioneered the franchise system in martial arts, and more! CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I don't think there's enough to show he meets WP:GNG and I definitely don't think he meets WP:MANOTE. The article on Judo Inc should definitely be deleted. Astudent0 (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HE has served as a pioneer of the franchise martial arts in the United States, multiple mentions in black belt magazine, an author of multiple books on martial arts, taught over 5000 students, across multiple states, in the readers digest, life magazine, and sports illustrated. This is WP:GNG. Remember WP:MANOTE is a guide not law. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:55, 23 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Fawcett

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

Article on an author does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria or GNG. Person co-authored a handful of shared-world fiction a decade ago. Only refs are to Publishers Weekly book descriptions, and a fleeting and incidental reference in the Los Angeles Times. (Also, as an aside unrelated to the AfD, note that editor claiming to be subject of this article complains the bio is inaccurate, "professionally damaging" and causing him "financial harm.") BlueSalix (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR criteria. It's worth noting that Bill Fawcett, I believe, is the one who made the comment on the board. "Quinn Fawcett" is the apparent name of the "team" or "writing duo" of Chelsea Quinn Yarbro and Bill Fawcett. The former also fails to clear the hurtle of notability as well, but that's a different page perhaps. Anyhow, not much coverage (substantial, something other than standard PW review, etc.) for his books or him.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge into Chelsea Quinn Yarbro~~. The problem is that there has been no official consensus that trade reviews don't count towards notability, although there is a general consensus that they are greatly depreciated in comparison to longer, meatier reviews by other outlets. I think that this is partially because some of the trade reviews won't review anything they're handed and do give negative reviews. There has been the idea that trade reviews solicit books and are guaranteed to give positive reviews and Kirkus is a good example of how bad trade review outlets can be, however there are exemplary ones like the Library Journal and Booklist that do argue that trades can still be usable. However in this case what we have is an author (supposedly) that has taken to a BLP board to complain that someone is writing negative things about him. (I can't see what in the original article about him (Bill Fawcett (writer)) was so negative, personally.) Anyway, my thing is that the books in this article could very easily be merged into the existing article for Quinn Yarbro, who does pass notability guidelines. She's extremely prolific- so much so that I'd actually recommend creating a spin off article to include all of her written works (Chelsea Quinn Yarbro bibliography), which would easily be able to encompass the books under her various pseudonyms- it's reasonable to have a spinoff article for a bibliography if a notable author is particularly prolific. There's really no reason to have separate articles for a pseudonym when an easier alternative is available, especially if someone is complaining that something is harmful to their career. I'll try to bang out an article for her bibliography in my userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes- I had absolutely no idea that she'd written this much! A separate bibliography page has long since been overdue, I think. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done- the bibliography is now live, so the article should redirect to Chelsea_Quinn_Yarbro#Pseudonyms, where lower down in the page there is a link for the full bibliography, which includes her work with Fawcett. The main page does say that she has worked with Fawcett, so this will comfortably contain the same information without really needing a separate page for the pseudonym. We also have the side benefit of having CQY's full bibliography (as far as I can tell), whereas her page could only contain a small portion of it due to her being so incredibly prolific when it comes to writing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's what he wants. 70.192.83.88 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find any mention of the volume of a writer's output lending anything to credibility via WP:AUTHOR. For the record, I think the argument of "Author X has written and published so many books, he is by default notable" a weak argument. Moreover, the issue isn't that a review in the NY Times Book Review is "meatier" than one in Kirkus, it's that the NY Times Book Review is a stronger source. That it has a better reputation. Been around longer. Has earned a better reputation. Has a better readership. That kind of stuff. Also, another thing for the record, it's excessive to list every book an author has published, especially if they are prolific, because, generally, there's a risk of veering into WP:RESUME, and lastly, reading some comments on the AfD lately, I have to say, (borrowed from elsewhere), words are like leaves and where they most abound, much fruit of sense is rarely found.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not arguing for his article to be kept, just saying that CQY is notable and she's notable enough to where listing her bibliography would be worthwhile. Merging the series into the main page would make it fairly unwieldy, hence the page for CQY's work as a whole. I mean, they don't hand out the Bram Stoker Award for Lifetime Achievement to just anyone, after all, and she's one of a fairly small handful of people who have been given the award. That kind of award is given to the person for their work as a whole, which is another reason why we should try to list as much as possible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR ukexpat (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. First of all, we don't have an alternative process for handling joint pseudonyms of two notable authors; there is no primary redirect target, and there's no reliable way to assure that duplicated content in the separate bios would remain in synch and consistent. Better to treat this as no worse than a legitimate spinout article; it's not unusual to see articles like this for sustained collaborations between notable musicians. Second, the dismissal as insignificant of PW reviews is just plain wrong; Publisher's Weekly is quite selective in its choices of books to review, and there's a pretty-well-established consensus via many prior AFD discussions that multiple PW reviews strongly signal notability. Third, there seems to be a lot of coverage out there; the "author"'s books were also regularly reviewed by Kirkus (another strong signal of notability, though not literary quality), there are a few dozen newspaper reviews showing up in Newsbank, including one in USA Today (albeit rather brief). GScholar even turns up a few hits in academic journals, which may not be enough on their own to establish notability, but certainly suggest it. As Tokyogirl quite accurately argues above, there's no case for removal of the content of the article; this is a discussion over the form in which the content should be retained: This really isn't a discussion about deletion, and would be better closed summarily. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a reference to support "Publisher's Weekly is quite selective". From their own site: "The book review section, not added until the early 1940s, has grown in importance over the past 75 years, and it currently offers opinions on 9,000 new books each year." Their page for submissions gives no information on selection. [58]. Last I heard, about 30,000 non-self-published books come out each year; we don't know how many of those are submitted to PW; even if they all are, 1 in 3 is not "quite selective".

There's nothing selective about Publisher's Weekly. Less so with Kirkus. BlueSalix (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your overall figure is way, way off, by a factor of 10, making your "1 in 3" analysis nonsense. That total should be more like 300,000.[59][60][61] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never made a "1 in 3" analysis. That comment was left by LaMona, who did not sign her comment, just like you didn't sign yours, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Feel free to check-out WP:SIGNATURE if you need help. BlueSalix (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about forgetting the signature. ~30K/~10K = 1 in 3. From the page you cite: "Bowker reports that over one million (1,052,803) books were published in the U.S. in 2009, which is more than triple the number of books published four years earlier (2005) in the U.S. (April 14, 2010 Bowker Report). More than two thirds of these books are self-published books, reprints of public domain works, and other print-on-demand books, which is where most of the growth in recent years has taken place." And I specified "non-self-published books", although I didn't even consider that PW would include reprints, etc., but I'm sure they don't - so removing, say 70% (= more than 2/3), we're back to 30K, and 1 in 3. PW doesn't cover PD works, and self-published books are under a different program at PW. LaMona (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. No. No. No. No. 30% of 1,000,000 is 300,000. This is not subject to debate or consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I can't count. But we still don't know 1) how many titles PW receives for review 2) how many it selects of those. So I'm still questioning PW being "very selective". This is a statement that needs a RS. LaMona (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nice analysis by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 00:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Hullaballoo. Content can be modified if we decide the BLPN's Bill Fawcett claim has merrit - though a quick Google raises doubts. Artw (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Kirkus review is no more a sign of notability than a PW one. Both are trade journals. Both review a lot of authors. Both accept payment. Throwing a statement out there how one is another weak point in Wolfowitz's analysis, particularly, "there's a pretty-well-established consensus via many prior AFD discussions that multiple PW reviews strongly signal notability," which is neither here nor there with this discussion, and "GScholar even turns up a few hits in academic journals," yet another limp towards clearing the hurtle of notability. I'm afraid it falls short. And, for the record, my response to tokyogirls' "comment" refutes her "argument." Going back to BlueSalixs' original post, this author does not meet WP:AUTHOR.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular comment on the trade reviews (although I will note that there has still been no official consensus on whether or not they are considered invalid for notability purposes), but I do have to stress that I believe that CQY's work as a whole merits an article because she received a major award from the HWA for her work as a whole. Stoker Awards are pretty darn notable and less than .01% of the people involved in horror have received one- let alone received one for their life's work. Only 44 people have ever received a Stoker Award for Lifetime Achievement since its inception in the 1980s. It's not a small achievement by any means. However this is somewhat of a moot point since the topic at hand is whether or not the specific pseudonym should merit an article, not about CQY's work as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with rationale. - I've been following this AfD discussion for several weeks, while I contemplated the comments of others and the best course of action to pursue in this AfD. As I see it, we basically have three choices:

1. Keep a separate "Quinn Fawcett" article, more less as it is now;

2. Redirect the "Quinn Fawcett" page to either "Bill Fawcett" or "Chelsea Quinn Yarbro";

3. Delete "Quinn Fawcett" and add duplicate text to both "Bill Fawcett" and "Chelsea Quinn Yarbro" regarding the Quinn Fawcett partnership.

This is the common problem we face with any duo or partnership where the individual partners are also notable. None of the three options is ideal, given that "Quinn Fawcett" is of marginal notability at best, making a stand-alone article somewhat problematic. A redirect to one of the two parent articles, by necessity, makes a choice to redirect to one or the other of the two literary partners, and not redirecting to the other. Deleting the "Quinn Fawcett" article requires the insertion of duplicate content into both parent articles, giving due credit to both Fawcett and Yarbro for the works of the "Quinn Fawcett" partnership. Having thought about this, and recognizing that there is no perfect solution, I have decided to treat this article as a "spin-out" of content from two notable subjects, and to register a "KEEP" !vote in favor of the "Quinn Fawcett" article. At the end of the day, there is no harm in keeping it, and provides the most logical structure for the two parent articles, fully recognizing that other AfD participants may reasonably disagree with me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aerospeed (Talk) 13:47, 26 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Buster

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

Unreferenced biography article created over 7 years ago, tagged with an unreferenced tag over 6 years ago. Should instead redirect to Gunbuster, a more notable term. Sources welcomed, if anyone finds them. Mika1h (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the proponent wishes to delete this entry because it has a similar name as some cartoon character. There was a hatnote on this article indicating where to go for the cartoon character but because some people might get confused it is suggested that this entry is deleted. It is clear from google searches that this author wrote several propaganda books during WWII and thus during a time of austerity this makes the author somewhat notable. The fact that there are negligible electronic records indicating this author's status does not mean that it is not worth having an entry and hoping for additional editorial input in future. This issue continually arises for books written before the advent of Google and it is a shame that there seems to be a move for wholesale removal of data which only has scanty reference on Google. I'd go and search the NLA for more info if I had time but I have a paying job to go to. Gillyweed (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIO, "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Just because you presume the person is notable doesn't mean it's worth keeping. If you can't find sources through Google, maybe visit your local library. You shouldn't have created the article at the first place if you didn't have any sources. --Mika1h (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind advice. I created the article seven years ago and several other authors have helpfully added to it. I'm sorry but I don't have time to pop down to the local library and trawl through the archives to save a stub. However, the material that currently exists is helpful and is not contradicted by any of the fairly poor sources currently accessible by google. Just because something cannot be googled does not mean it isn't notable. The world did exist before google. Gillyweed (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was only able to find the one source online, but a google books search brings back a ton of hits so I believe article improvement should be possible via those. I am unconvinced by the argument that this article is causing significant problems for manga readers. Artw (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The books look barely notable on their own. I'd be interested to hear from User:Michig and User:Gillyweed what WP:AUTHOR criteria they feel are met here. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am relying on criteria 4(d) - represented in major institutions. In this case the National Library of Australia contains multiple copies (which is unusual for a non-Australian author) and criteria 3 - independent reviews. I am now looking for them and finding some. Gillyweed (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think "galleries or museums" from 4d is meant to include "libraries"? That seems like a stretch. NickCT (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why not? The National Library of Australia doesn't collect everything (unless it is Australian), and thus the fact that a Pommy book remains in the collection (and hasn't been de-accessioned) indicates that it thinks that the book should be represented in its collection. Gillyweed (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Books from the 1940s aren't always going to be easily sourced online, but we have the substantial source added by Artw as well as multiple mentions in other books about WW2 literature, as can be seen, for example, in the results of a GBooks search for <"Gun Buster" Dunkirk>. (Some examples, mostly viewable only in snippets: [62][63][64][65][66][67] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arxiloxos: - Which seems to be an argument for why the books might be notable, not an argument for why the author might be notable. The article, as it currently stands, appears to be a biography about the author. Not an article about a series of books. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me, this is a difference without substantial consequence. Either way, the appropriate result is an article that includes information about the author and his books. Editors might disagree about the article's title, but one way or another, Gun Buster would be kept either as the main title or a redirect to whatever other title is chosen.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more material and more references. If I have time I will do some more work on it tomorrow. Gillyweed (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos: - re " difference without substantial consequence" - With respect, I think you've gone way wide of the mark here. If you can't see the substantial difference between a WP article about a book series and a WP article about a person, you might want to take time to consider how WP works and look at other comparable articles.

Under your logic we could just wrap Mark Twain into The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. That's clearly not right. NickCT (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems feasible to tease biographical details from the many references which are out there such as this. The topic seems more notable than the rival animé which seems to be a routine potboiler. Andrew D. (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was listed it has been improved dramatically with many more references and I believe now clearly meet the requirements for notability. Gillyweed (talk) 06:32, 23 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schuerger

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

vanity piece, no independent sources Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Michael Schürger has indeed produced and acted in films, but I can find no sources outside of film sites like IMDB. His latest film, Far Rockaway, does not appear in Variety. Since he is also a musician, perhaps someone can find sources relating to that genre. Also, I note that there is no entry in WP:DE, although I also know that WP:DE is rather strict about BLPs and especially those involved in popular culture. It is possible that WP:EN is therefore seen as a more amenable WP source. LaMona (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete for WP:OR in a BLP. Vrac (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dear LoMona, what exactly do you mean by "no sources outside of film sites"? I'm really not certain, but I'm tempted to ask: Do you expect to find fish at the butcher's? Anyway, he is a link to a daily paper I fished out of google in a split second: http://www.rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/krefeld/schluff-film-in-new-yorker-kino-gezeigt-aid-1.3767428 Budybla23 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... film sites like IMDB..." - IMDB is a site listing films, that anyone can edit. Therefore it is considered not a reliable source. There are other such sites, from Rotten Tomatoes to the "mashable" film section. So perhaps a clearer description would have been "social sites that list films and let anyone make changes." Does that explain it to you? LaMona (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, not anyone but only the producers are allowed to make entries in IMDB, and they get carefully checked before published.Budybla23 (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His most significant credit appears to be being a "segment director" of The Fallen (2004). Far from enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acting President of the United States

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

This article is poorly sourced and is redundant in light of other well-sourced articles on the same subject (e.g., Presidential Succession Act and Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Large portions of the article appear to be unsourced conclusions. To the extent there is any material that is salvageable in this article AND is not mentioned in other articles, such as the ones referenced above, such material can be moved to such article or articles. SMP0328. (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the acting president of the United States is unquestionably notable, as evident by the term's frequent use in media, educational and legal sources spanning several centuries, and that its not nearly poorly written enough to justify a nuke and pave. Also, I do not believe that the articles you list adequately cover the topic. Both of the articles listed were specific laws and amendments passed during the mid 1900s, while the acting president is a specific position that has a history going back to the late 1700s. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Spirit of Eagle and would further note that a general overview article for the topic is really necessary for overall topic comprehension, given the varied history of presidential succession. Indeed, if it came down to merging articles, this is the more important topic article, not those of the individual laws. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the sourcing? This article has almost none. As for Philosopher's suggested merger, such an article would be gigantic. Regardless of what happens to this article, the articles I cited should remain independent articles. SMP0328. (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting a merger, but making a point about the respective importance of the articles. Sourcing is important and should be done, but the encyclopedia is not finished and I don't see the current lack of sourcing as terminal for the article. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is clearly notable. The other articles mentioned by the nominator are in-depth sub issues of this primary article. Concerns about flabby writing and bad sourcing are normal editorial matters, not grounds for deletion. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 24 December 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. Arguments that the blog is notable are not convincing (and not supported by sources). While WP does indeed need better and more coverage of women and minorities, that coverage still needs to comply with our notability requirements. Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Nock - A Halfbreed's Reasoning

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

advertising The Banner talk 05:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak delete unless someone can clean it up (since I won't be that person, I don't have the right to say keep) (WP:TNT). Fails WP:NPOV, sources primarily from a Wordpress (fails WP:RS) apparently written by person who is the subject of the article, and its large block of text suggests a copyvio, though that might not be the case. She may be notable, but a google news search reveals only a few, mostly blog-based articles about her. — kikichugirl ^? 05:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy – I think this fails under WP:NOTESSAY ~~and probably WP:AUTOBIO~~. The RS cites are about the topics, and not the subject. The editor is obviously knowledgeable about the topics, so I think she should be encouraged to create and/or contribute to articles on those topics instead of using this article. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – After reading this, from Kikichugirl's list, it's now clear that the author is a college student who thinks Wikipedia should have better coverage of minority and women figures. I'd just like to say that I agree with that 100%. If the article gets taken down, as we are discussing here, she wants to revise it. So I think that's another argument for userfy. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to change my !vote given substantial improvements to the article. I am also a college student who thinks Wikipedia should have better coverage of women and minority figures, but per WP:TNT a lot of major changes need to made. AfD is not cleanup, but if I'm not going to be the one cleaning it up, I don't feel I have the right to !vote keep. However, I have changed my !vote to Weak delete — kikichugirl ^speak up! 04:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This news article should provide some context. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now that has been mentioned on the gender gap mailing list. Right now, though, the WP article is very poor. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The blog doesn't seem to be notable, nor the person, so there is little point in userfying it. The non-primary sources are referring to issues that are touched upon by the blog, not about the creator or the blog itself. Useless for Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She co-founded a think-tank at the University of British Columbia and she is editor in chief of The Indigenous Studies Undergraduate Journal. I know I need citations for these. Working on that. If I could get some help - this is being widely posted to FB and forums, I think help will come. - I think we could fix this page and we could do some great PR for the gendergap and also the nativegap - by helping new people fix articles rather than just blindly deleting them. --CDA 19:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions have nothing to do with the gendergap but rather with policy. It wouldn't matter who created the thing. That said, if you can prove the blogger to be notable then converting the article into a bio would be fine. It would need retitling and about 98% of the existing content would have to go, so basically you would be writing a new article. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if this discussion is being plastered across umpteen forums, FB etc then perhaps we need that template at the top of this page - the one that says something about "if you have come here because you have seen this mentioned off-wiki then please note that AfD is not a vote" etc. I've not seen it for a while & can't remember what it is called. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:Articles_for_deletion/Chelsea_Vowel is probably related, as a result of the same project. I !voted delete there. The basic problem is that we need a better "Before writing your first BLP" guide for new editors. This is the type of article that everyone wants to write and one of the hardest to do well, regardless of gender. That would help. Also maybe we could make some policy adjustments. We could promote the Native Writers' Circle awards to the status of major award. Just declare that any writer on that page deserves an article automatically. On the merits I think this would be an easy argument. Those are very good books. About this article, per Sitush, I think a BLP is what it is. We have to go on the BLP and/or writer criteria. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is really about the blog and not a biography of the author. It was written as a class project at Mount Royal University where the instructor failed to teach proper Wikipedia form. The article merely summarizes the content of the blog entries, and the blog does not meet the notability guidelines. Hlevy2 (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, feels promotional, almost all the sources are to her blog, the rest are generic books about the wider topic. Also, it's an essay, and overall, has too many long quotations with little commentary, pretty much running afoul of the NFCC. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed most of the article, as it fell afoul of NFCC. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've done a bit of clean-up & added refs, also rabble.ca started in 2001 and they are quite choosy about who writes for them. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, talk page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, talk page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You added this as a source and it is pretty useless: a blog of the seemingly very minor undergraduate association which just quotes her own cv. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article states She is Editor in Chief of The Indigenous Studies Undergraduate Journal There was a "citation needed" template at that point. The link I added is to a re-posting of Nock's blog, the re-posting was by Matt Ward. Ward has added Nock's bio to the bottom, which includes the statement "She assisted in starting up the Indigenous Studies Undergraduate Journal as Editor". Your comment is based on the assumption that (1) Nock made her cv available to Ward, and (2) Ward did nothing towards checking it out for himself. You cannot possibly know either. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, WP:Pretty useless produces a red-link and not any WP policy. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The likelihood that Nock made the cv available is high: it is common for authors to provide a potted bio. The journal seems to have no particular merit - it appears to be a campus publication for undergraduates, not a full-blown academic publication. Your source is itself a Wordpress blog that, as you say, is basically reblogging. We need multiple independent reliable sources that discuss her or her blog in depth, not things like this. Maybe revisit WP:SPS, WP:RS, WP:GNG? - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: "Ward's" blog is actually the blog of the FNSSA, ie: the same organisation that publishes the journal and which is a "student-run organization for any student on campus" with around 30 members. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The likelihood that Nock made the cv available is high – that's a matter of opinion not fact. Nook's main claim of notability is her blog for rabble.ca, which is demonstrable. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:42, 26 December 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. No objection to creating a redirect to a suitable target. Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calibre(unit)

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

Non-notable unit of measurement. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. War wizard90 (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article has been moved to Calibre (unit) PamD 06:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merge to English units? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am ok with merging this and several other articles created by this same editor into relevant measurement articles, most of these do not need their own article and are dictionary definitions only. Thoughts? War wizard90 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned about the reliability of the source. I put a list of the pages created here noting that they appear to be based on Other Systems of Units by François Cardarelli. The author link does not seem to show relevant credentials that would warrant relying on the source for novel information: if the book confirms what is in more established sources, the alternatives should be used, and claims that are not confirmed elsewhere should not be used in Wikipedia. I've asked the editor whether the book contains more information than tables showing equivalences such as 1 wrap = 240 feet. Depending on what extra details are available, I'm inclining towards deleting all the pages (or perhaps redirects for some) rather than literally merging. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the same book source lists "Wrap = 240 ft" (and it does, I've seen the page in Google books), but the Oxford English Dictionary has no such meaning for "wrap". It does show a linear measure, but it's shown as 3564 yards. If the OED doesn't know about the 240ft version of "wrap", this casts doubt on the reliability of the source. (I wondered if it was a typo for "warp", but there's no 240ft unit in OED for that either.) PamD 14:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is obviously the same topic which we have at the US spelling:- caliber. As the alternate spelling is a plausible search term, we should obviously merge. Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a unit, and not the same as Calibre or Caliber (artillery) which are about a numerical attribute of a weapon.Pam D 00:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The calibre of a gun is the diameter of the barrel which is commonly given in hundredths of an inch, e.g. the famous Colt 45. And hundredths of an inch is what the page in question is talking about. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked about this at Talk:Caliber#Caliber as a unit. My Shorter OED makes it clear that "calibre" originated as a measure of the diameter of a bullet or cannon ball, and I can't find any information that calibre/caliber is a generic unit of length (although the OED states that, by extension, the bore of a tube may be specified in calibres). Assuming no source shows calibre being used in a generic fashion, all the information about the unit should be at Caliber. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also asked about the reliability of the source at WP:RSN. Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of a reliable source that says it is a unit of measurement and not the aspect that is being measured. The full OED entry makes no mention of it as a unit. ("calibre | caliber, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, December 2014. Web. 21 December 2014. if a source is needed) GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Unlikely to become more than a stub — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing article is Caliber, and Calibre is a redirect to that article. No one is going to search for "Calibre (unit)", however if they did they would find Caliber. As noted above, I tried to get some interest at Talk:Caliber because that article needs a clear statement that 1 caliber = 0.01 inch. That needs to be fixed, but meanwhile the page under discussion is not needed. The issue of these articles has been raised at DRN. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue raised at DRN, has been move to ANI, per the request of the DRN volunteer. War wizard90 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete calibre(unit), and redirect calibre (unit) to caliber. Given the concerns about this source, we apparently can't trust its assertions, so redirecting the page seems the safest choice. calibre(unit) seems an unlikely typo, so we might as well trash it instead of redirecting it. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to some list like List of Obselete units of measurement or something. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't merge it anywhere, at least until somebody brings convincing evidence that it was used. After all, I read above that it's not in the OED; and it's not in 小泉袈裟勝 (Koizumi Kesakatsu), 『単位の辞典』 (Tan'i no jiten) 4th ed (Tokyo: Rateisu, 1981), a large and authoritative dictionary of units. Delete. ¶ See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UKline. -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Caliber. This isn't an independent unit of length, it's a shorthand term for inch-based units, in the specific application of small arms. It has no application outside this. Caliber could use expansion to clarify this though. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 26 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Investors Europe

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

advertising The Banner talk 04:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks more like a collection of links about a non-notable company. Google news search reveals mostly unrelated hits, general web search reveals self-published unreliable sources. Would tag for G11, but not unambiguously promotional enough for me. — kikichugirl ^inquire 04:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar trading portals are a notable and important subject for the global online trading community197.224.40.193 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is insufficient reliably-sourced coverage to demonstrate notability per the general notability guideline. My gsearch turned up nothing. Ivanvector (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, It does seem that investors europe and investorseurope are totally different on Google.com and the second (investorseurope) has 'About 163,000 results (0.30 seconds)' so this is clearly substantial. 'investorseurope portal' on Google has 117k. Please give this consideration. Financial Markets can be highly specialised as are these trading portals. Thank you. GibraltarFinance (talk)

Still it is plain advertising. The Banner talk 21:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP Theroadislong (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to quote 'not unambiguously promotional enough for me. — kikichugirl' 79.168.169.46 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC) It basically catalogues the evolution of the online trading portal as a venue for online traders, whether it's this company or other companies is irrelevant what is important is the evolution of this sector of the financial markets. It should perhaps be called a different name rather than Investors Europe as if it is indeed advertising (which is questionable) it is advertising online trading platforms? 79.168.169.46 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 23 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Gauge Valentine

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. Some mention in metal sites and blogs, as the band does exist, but these sites are not reliable sources (e.g. user-submitted or fan sites). --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not clear why the article was recreated after last deletion. Perhaps some salt is required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence that these guys meet the guidelines for inclusion at WP:BAND or the WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 05:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 22:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per as not notable and all the wrong references listed in the "Reference" section. WAIT!! There are no references so that would be a good reason to delete. I claim it fails Wikipedia core content policies and in case anyone disagrees the burden of proof is on you to grab one of the references and prove me wrong. The principles in the article are so famous that they are from little towns near Monroe, Louisiana.. Otr500 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 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. Vandalism Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karruche

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

Nonsense BLP article. Article was nominated for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed by the article creator. Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 01:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modular smartphone

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Message copied from my user talk page (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)) :-[reply]
- Why was modular smartphone deleted?. It in a bona fides bases include text from another Wikedia article that had copyrighted material. This text was deleted and included another one, after seeing the tag. But was deleted in any case. But copyviolation page continues: Phonebloks. The final text in modular smartphone was right.--Lagoset (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. It leans a little too heavy towards Blokstore in the opening, but this is an emerging technology with several new players entering the market. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 03:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- thanks, I am going to improve. The text from other Wikipedia article has been deleted and new text have been included in this page. --Lagoset (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - article shows promise and has shown major improvement since CSD tagging. Looks good for now, though it needs cleanup and maybe some expansion. @Lagoset: I'd recommend drafting in your user sandbox first, since you seem like a good author, and I'd hate to see your contribs CSD'd because you weren't finished. — kikichugirl ^? 06:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you a lot. I have improved from the initial redaction. Think are going to appear more news about the topic than can be included in the article or can be included text from Google Project Ara (to do it more lighter) or de-copyrighted from Phonebloks. --Lagoset (talk) 07:02, 18 December 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) 09:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paralikkunnu Juma masjid

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

This article is about a mosque (masjid), but here is not even one source to prove it's existence, and especially not it's notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - unlikely to be truly notable enough to go beyond the stub it is. A news search revealed only two sources, certainly not WP:SIGCOV. — kikichugirl ^? 23:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above not notable lacks sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:27, 25 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kattoor Kalasadhanam

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

There is no claim of significance, no reliable sources to prove the wp:notability of the subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Not seeing any sort of sources that would suggest subject meeting the Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can not find a hint of notability and there are no references.

I have had my hair cut in over 10 states (US) and my barber is one of the best and well known---- in my town. While I can appreciate editors wanting to make new articles there is a little issue of Wikipedia: policies and guidelines that should be adhered to. subjective importance has to be looked at through the eyes of the Wikipedia community. This article fails Core content policies and would likely always remain an orphan. I can not imagine this article even surviving a Speedy delete. We could relist it 3 or 4 more times and guess what? I am thinking it would not get any more notable. Otr500 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 01:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sommernatt ved fjorden

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

There is no explanation why this song is notable. There are no reliable sources that discuss the song. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand the nomination since there was no references, but the song is well-known and often played in Norway; I have added one reference about this. Iselilja (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any sources in the English article which establish notability, and Norwegian Wikipedia has no sources at all. However, Norwegian Wikipedia lists plenty of recordings of the song. If there are so many recordings of it, there may be reason to believe that the song is notable, although the article currently is badly referenced. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source I added was from the ordinary encyclopedia in Norway: Store norske leksikon. They don't have an article about the song specifically (normal encyclopedia seldom has such entries), but in an article on Ketil Bjørnstad they call the triple album Leve Patagonia! for pioneering, a musical epic and a milestone in Norwegian popular music. This particular song is described as a romantic pearl which is part of Norwegian song treasure; often played on radio and by bar pianists. Basically they describe it as an evergreen. And as you can see on NOWP it is recorded by a variety of artists. Iselilja (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when nomination was added this was a deletion worthy article. Now wth Iseliljas improvements it is not.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:16, 18 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serbian parliamentary opposition leaders

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

I never heard about a position called "parliamentary opposition leader" in Serbia. In Serbian parliament, opposition is always consisted of several parties, usually not in good relations to each other. So, there is never one leader of the opposition, but several leaders. This article claims that the leader of the largest oppositional party is the unofficial "Leader of the Opposition", but there is no reliable source to prove that such (unofficial) position exists. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For one thing a person or party is only in the opposition when someone else is in power, so not a defining characteristic. Borock (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader of the Opposition (Sweden), deleted for similar reasons. Actually, the whole list at Leader of the Opposition requires an overhaul by someone in the know: the title is usually applicable only to countries with strong two-party tradition. No such user (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No Such User is on the mark. This falsely projects a two-party system onto multi-party parliamentary systems. Carrite (talk) 15:11, 24 December 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 micropayment. Mr.Z-man 03:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microtipping

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

This is unreferenced and I cannot find sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Digital currency. This seems to be a fairly popular phenomenon involving digital currency. While it is relatively new, which would make it harder to search engines to index, that doesn't mean it's not notable. According to this source one company reports that 10,000 transactions daily of this type, which are 1/6th of the total volume of transactions. Also, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of Google results (I see ~170K results for 'microtipping'). Granted most results are not WP:Reliable, there is plenty of precedent for ignoring that policy in the case of relatively new phenomenon. While perhaps not quite firm enough for it's own article yet, I think it's worth a redirect. —CodeHydro 15:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Codehydro. Another possible target is Micropayment, which is a much more commonly used word. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Object Proposed Deletion Re. Codehydro and Bearian proposal to Merge and redirect to Digital currency or Micropayment. As pointed out Microtipping is a burgeoning phenomena. As such, I initially created the standalone article to provide microtippers the ability to factually define the act of "microtipping", going-forward. It was only flagged in the first place because I referenced two microtipping services; which was interpreted as G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Perhaps a Digital currency redirect would suffice, however, in my personal belief, does this topic an injustice by belittling its importance on the internet. Micropayments differer from Microtipping by the nature of its senders' intention. The act of sending a micropayment involves its receiver providing goods and/or services in return for said payment. Microtipping is purely a gratuitious act, in which one expects nothing in return. One may argue that Microtipping is a form of Micropayments. Please feel free make edits as you see fit. Vwm3nelson (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Consensus has formed for a merger, however two merge targets have been presented, Digital currency and Micropayment. Relisting to obtain more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to micropayment. When the day occurs that even 0.1% of internet users have micro tipped, then we have a phenomenon worth its own independent entry. Until then, ballyhoo about this "burgeoning phenomena" sounds like typical Internet 3.0 marketspeak, when the phenomenon is an actual everyday common event, it will get its own entry.-Augustabreeze (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to micropayment. According to this article in the Christian Science Monitor, it's apparently a real thing. However, this article in Fortune seems to indicate that there really isn't much difference. Maybe the intention is different, but I can't really seem to care. From my searches, it looks like the bitcoin community itself is the one pushing to distinguish the two terms. That's fine, but Wikipedia isn't the place to export this soapboxing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 20 December 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) 09:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humane Science

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

Prodded for being either an unsourced WP:NEOLOGISM or unsourced promotion of an institute called "Humane Science". The original editor has removed the prod but made no attempts to clarify either way or address the lack of sourcing.

Animal_testing#Care_and_use_of_animals already covers the same ground if this article is meant to be about carrying out animal testing humanely, while I can find no sources (or even any web content outside of their own site) about the "Humane Science Academy". McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has standards for what articles should include to be kept and what should be deleted. This meets no inclusion criteria that I know and fails with WP:DICTIONARY. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:WINAD. PianoDan (talk) 15:49, 24 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LogiGear

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

Almost all the sources are provided and StickyMinds seems unlikely to be reliable. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. In a search I found a Bloomberg listing [68] but otherwise nothing. No significant sourcing is provided in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 18 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Lippi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Harsh (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think there's a place for studio musician groups, but they don't seem notable enough yet. BTW the link to the SF Weekly cite has changed. It is now here. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 19:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Also the article seems more promotional which doesn't really help its case. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:43, 18 December 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) 08:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RIMES (company)

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

Doesn't scratch the surface of notability: proper discussion in reliable sources is missing. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 19:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attempt is made to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, such as WP:N or WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Not seeing any in-depth, independent coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:16, 25 December 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 Adequate Seven. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 01:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Fitzjohn

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

Bordering on a speedy deletion candidate, subject seems to be a session musician with no evidence of independent reliable coverage about him. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adequate Seven - I have found some sources including: here and here but I don't think there is enough coverage for him outside of Adequate Seven, a previous band he played in. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 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.