Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 July	24 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Orson Scott Card bibliography. Overall consensus is to redirect so no point dragging this on (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bully and the Beast

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

Does not meet WP:NBOOK, non-existant book which has been proposed for many years but never published. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Orson Scott Card bibliography. The Bully and the Beast article is almost entirely boilerplate; the only fact that it has that the bibliography article doesn't already have is "based on the short story 'The Bully and the Beast'". That single fact doesn't warrant an article of its own, so add it to the "notes" line item in Orson Scott Card bibliography. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 11:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Finlay McWalter's concerns. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Peel (chef)

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

Only a single ref and that appears to be a dead-link. Fails WP:GNG totally. Nothing about the text suggests that notability will be easy to demonstrate. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Peel is a highly notable chef. Google shows 116 references in The New York Times alone including [1]. This article needs work, not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the New York Times coverage, he is discussed extensively in a book called Super Chef: The Making of the Great Modern Restaurant Empires. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He's notable, even if the article needs more citations. There are plenty out there. Maybe you could add some. I'll add one now. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep – Passes WP:BASIC. For starters, see the news sources available in this search (don't forget to scroll forward past the first page). See also section D of WP:BEFORE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there has been a little bit of WP:HEY, but mainly because this would never have come to AFD if Nom had followed WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe China 2012

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

Doesn't seem notable on its own. No other Miss Universe China years have articles, and the only references I can find to this event focus on the winner Xu Jidan or Miss Universe 2012 as a whole. — Earwig ^talk 23:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NEVENT. I'm surprised pageant article lover hasn't appeared here. LibStar (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G11 (by Jimfbleak) (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if Strangers Come to Supper

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

Non-notable self-published novel. Article appears to have been created by the novel's author who appears to be keen to add mentions of his publications to various Wikipedia articles. DAJF (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Donaldo Rivera: Wikipedia has a looonnnggg page describing the criteria for articles about individual books: Wikipedia:Notability_(books) -- probably more than anyone needs to know, but you can take a look at WP:BKCRIT which is a short list that defines the "bottom line." Bottom line is that this book has a long way to go before meeting any of those criteria. Also, since you are the author of the book in question, you should also look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. It's generally not appropriate to write about yourself or your own products. However, I would bet that there are a lot of articles here that could use some help from someone well-versed in anthropology, so I hope you stick around and join us in making this a better encyclopedia. LaMona (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I never realized that I'd done anything wrong.Donaldo Rivera (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NOTE. It's also spam and a WP:COI violation. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't this article be speeded? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, this qualifies for speedy deletion. I'll put up the appropriate SD one. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article was speedy deleted. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gbenga Oluwasola Oyewole

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

A college student that fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that established the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found no good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin --- the page creator Geetimbz (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabnite. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I am confused why there are two open nominations for deleting this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure puffery, fails WP:NOTRESUME. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning student awards and attending social events are not evidence of notability. Another "web developer, social media expert, online public relation official and entrepreneur" who doesn't warrant an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DOSarrest

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

no valid sources for notability. 3, 4, & 7 are just mentioned. 8 is not the London Stock Exchange, but a press release service they run -- AS search of the LSE site shows they are not listed there . Nothing else here is even remotely reliable DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft/userfy if wished) as my searches found no good coverage aside from this (and one result in Books), here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, searches for any substantive information just come up with more press releases. — Brianhe (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karm Sanyasi Krishna

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

A book on Krishna. No sources in the article. Unable to find any reliable English sources. Only sources available are YouTube, social media and this. Not sure what half the articles is talking about. Bgwhite (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all we should have an article about the author, and then individual articles about his work may be added if notability can be established. I prodded this article but the original author removed the tag without addressing the concern. De728631 (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article gives no indication as to the significance of the book. Google returns eight hits for the title in Devanagari script and 21 in Latin script, none of them indicators of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author page is AFD tagged: J. L. Verma. Irrespective of whetther the author page passes WP:N, the book does not seem notable. Very few sources even while searching in Hindi ChunnuBhai (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Others users are commenting that J. L. Verma may be notable and I'm not commenting about that yet as I'm not prepared to comment but my searches found no good sources for this book. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Cotopaxi

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

Local event, fails WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG AND WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. sovereign°sentinel 04:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Chimborazo

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

Local event, fails WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG AND WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. sovereign°sentinel 05:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Carchi

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

Local event, fails WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG AND WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. sovereign°sentinel 05:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable pageant....William 10:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bolívar

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

Local event, fails WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG AND WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Pate Design

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

no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:COMPANY sovereign°sentinel 04:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as basically unsourced spam. CorporateM (Talk) 07:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches including the simplest found nothing at all and a look at the history shows an IP located to Middletown, NY removed almost everything (which I'm not sure if that meant they wanted to remove content) but either way this is not notable to Wiki standards yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quickly and SALT: blatant promotionalism. Quis separabit? 21:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is a bit troubled (especially regarding sources), I wouldn't be hasty for salting yet (if restarted with same content, maybe or yes and especially yes by third time). SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PartStore.com

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

promotional sand non notable. "Partstore.com offered expert advice and money saving solutions to prolong the lifespan of electronic gadgets and optimize battery performance" 8 employees!! DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:COMPANY. sovereign°sentinel 04:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I presume a lack of notability for any organization with under 100 employees that is engaging in routine business operations, unless proven otherwise. In this case there is 8 staff, all press release-type sources, and no claim to notability. Pretty easy case. CorporateM (Talk) 07:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Delete for now (and draft/userfy if wished) as my searches found nothing else to suggest better sourcing and notability here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe the references passes WP:CORPDEPTH. This isn't surprising for a electronic replacement parts company with 8 employees that is #286 on the Internet Retailers Top 500 List. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Long

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

Subject fails the general notability guideline as well as WP:POLITICIAN. Could not find significant coverage in independent reliable sources either for his academic career or for his political candidacies. JayJasper (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plus, all the sources in the article are either primary, non-reliable, or provide only trivial coverage of the subject. No evidence of notability.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This individual's sources are negligible, and he doesn't appear to have any notable works in his field, and was a non-competitive candidate Spartan7W § 19:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing he has done to date makes him notable. If he makes a significant showing the the New Hampshire Primary or Iowa Caucus, or gets lots of press, we can recreate the article with better sources, but at present a mention in the article on the 2016 Republican Nomination will be sufficient.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm not sure that he'd even pass WP:PROF. There are currently no reliable, secondary sources about this person, but if somebody looks, they might be able to find something. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northside, Atlanta

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

No supporting references. I can't find anything reputable on the web to indicate this actually exists. Not mentioned in Neighborhoods in Atlanta. ubiquity (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not from Atlanta or familiar with its neighborhood so I can't comment about this but it may actually exist as this and this mention it (including a 1983 book) but there's nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a tag for This article is racist as hell? Please can we Delete. filceolaire (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Poor quality, no references/categories. Tagged appropriatelyLimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean L. Cohen

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

No indication of notability, no secondary sources provided, does not meet notability guidelines as either an author or an academic. No "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required Scr★pIron^IV 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Without even doing any actual research, as the nominator should have done, the first line of the article tells me she holds an endowed chair at an Ivy league university. That's a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could be stronger, but the professor is frequently cited (~5K for one book I checked), widely held in libraries. I did some formatting and added full cites and ISBNs for the books that I found. LaMona (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A h-index above twenty clearly satisfies PROF in this relatively low citation field. Multiple papers with 100+ cites are notability in any field. Cohen's most highly cited works have 4969, 1458, 290, 209, 187, 172 and 124 cites, according to GScholar, not counting cites of translations into Spanish. James500 (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep under WP:PROFESSOR, a professor at a major university holding an ednowed or named chair automatically passes notability. And be sure, please, always to remember WP:BEFORE E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will be happy to withdraw this nomination, and request a Speedy Keep. Notability is established; I failed to recognize it. mea culpa; mea maxima culpa Scr★pIron^IV 21:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Optica (journal)

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

PROD removed without any reason given. Only sources are a press release, the journal's homepage, and an editorial in the journal itself. PROD reason still stands: New journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Changed to "keep", see below. --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A respectable academic publication and it seems easy enough to find a source which confirms this. The worst case is that we would merge into another page such as The Optical Society per WP:ATD. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, it exists; yes, there are press releases; yes, it seems to be respectable. No, that doesn't mean that it is notable. --Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the delete function is not warranted as our editing policy is to preserve such information. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect/merge~~ to The Optical Society. While I believe this journal will become notable in time, this seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON to me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it to Keep after it's been found to be indexed in Science Citation Index and Current Contents. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Headbomb. Everymorning talk 23:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Wikipedia:Notability says: ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Fgnievinski (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I object deletion via PROD. According to guidelines a single editor's objection to PROD prevents the article from being deleted via PROD and leads to a potential AfD.
- Indexing: There is no reason for this article to be suggested to be irrelevant. Keep in mind that is still a stub: There was not yet a section on indexing. I have just added it. Also, different to the claims of the editor who suggested the deletion request, of course the journal is already indexed. Like with any journal that is only a year old it is not yet listed in the impact factor lists of ISI and Scopus, but it is already e.g. in the Science Scitation index and as such pending for addition to the scitation index itself.
- Regarding the publisher: OSA is a respectable and the most important and a community-driven, non-profit publisher for international scientific publications in the field of optics. This is proven by numbers of articles and scitations. It has clearly devoted a full editorial office and board for this journal which it has made clear and is campaigning for as their primary journal of high-quality optics. The journal is clearly backed by the scientific community as is shown by the list of editors across the most important institutions in optics around the world. All these fact are clearly visible from the references of the article.
- The number of scitations to the articles in this journal within the first year, according to the ISI Web of Knowledge Index are very relevant.
- Disclaimer: I am in no way financially connected to OSA, the journal or any competing journal and I have no publication interests in this journal. My interests lie in the quality of this article and the quality of the wikipedia in the field of optics. --Akriesch (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the proposed deletion has already been dismissed. The proposer then escalated by starting this new process — Articles for Deletion. This new process is decided by consensus but it doesn't seem that there's consensus support for deletion by this method either. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the above reasons for keeping the article are irrelevant (publisher, editor, editorial board, authors: WP:NOTINHERITED). However, the indexing in the Science Citation Index Expanded, unlikely as it is for a journal this young, does check out and makes the journal meet WP:NJournals. As there are other good faith !votes recommending redirecting the article, I cannot withdraw the nom, but I change my !vote to keep. As for BEFORE: I checked GScholar, but because of the general journal name that was not very helpful. I did not think of checking Thomson Reuters, given the young age of the journal. Clearly I was wrong about that. As defense I can only say that journal articles that start listing trivia (like number of articles published, or how notable the authors/board/whatever are) are usually a sure sign that the journal in question is not notable yet. --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh A. Cagan

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

Non-notable actor. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) Tinton5 (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the strongest keep, but he's written for two notable films and his script was the one that was apparently used for shooting. He also wrote several episodes for a notable show. (OK, not the most notable show but one that passes notability guidelines.) As an actor he's unremarkable but he would pass notability for his writing for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I was intially going to say delete or redirect to one of the films but I suppose this brushes a little bit towards notability (and I suppose there are enough links mentioning him (albeit minor and passing)). SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Josh's written scripts for notable films and TV episodes, which makes him notable. Katerina dunaway (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC) — Katerina dunaway (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Sofiamar (talk • contribs). [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. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Anderson (actress)

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

Actress with only minor roles, practically zero independent coverage. Article and other related contributions of primary contributor appear to be purely promotional. Fru1tbat (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She's been in Catch Me If You Can, but she's way, way, way down the list of credits. She gets a paragraph and a photo in this Guardian article about dating and IMDb, and that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My initial sweeps did not find much but I could change my mind if new sources are found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMDb says it all, not much for an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural closure. Whatever the size of the museum, or the depth of coverage, not a single !voter has appeared in three weeks to support deletion. (This was originally included in an AfD started on July 4, and separated later.) A merger of the three museums should be debated on the talk page of any one of them. Closed somewhat early after a relisting to make way for the discussion. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kite Museum

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

I've created a separate AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beauty Museum. Even with article improvement it fails WP:ORG. 4 of the 5 current sources merely confirm existence, the 5th source confirms opening times. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is part of the People's Museum complex and so it would make sense to cover all the museums housed in that building together. Andrew D. (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Leib Krinsky

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

Possibly non-notable subject with my searches finding nothing particularly good with the best being this (Masters of the Word says it was one of the most popular supercommentaries) and there are some other relevant results with other questionable ones here and here. Aside from that, there wasn't anything to suggest good improvement or a better understanding of the article. It's worth noting this began as this and after improvement as this with no further good improvement since then (very likely any in the future). SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when do we post articles here because they possibly are non-notable? Debresser (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one to say that and I may believe it as non-notable but others may not so that's why it's nominated for input. SwisterTwister talk 17:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major 19th century scholar and author of a large, 3-volumn commentary that continues ot be read, cited, used by scholars and students of Jewish law. At the one cited by nom: this (Masters of the Word says it was one of the most popular supercommentaries) clearly demonstrates. User:SwisterTwister might want to simply withdraw this nomination.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, it seems that's the only good source. SwisterTwister talk 17:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I would only withdraw if more good sources were unearthered because the article can still be considered unacceptable and unsourced at this time. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: additional English sources turn up under Judah (Yehuda). What can be sourced are descriptions of the existence and significance of Krinsky's book, and citations to Krinsky's (5 vol.) book/commentary by other scholars. I don't find sources for the biographical details, although I have no reason to the biographical section of being inaccurate. I added some reliable ones.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this important WP:N & WP:BIO that cites more than sufficient WP:RS & WP:V references. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes a credible claim of notability which is backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verstraete in mould labels

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

No evidence that this company is in any way notable. Text smacks of ownership, puffery and advertising speak. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wasn't able to find enough significant coverage in indy, reliable sources. Some industry news writeups, but not enough to pass notability threshold at this time. Also, stubbified the article... -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Tech N9ne

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

Trivial list. Everything important is listed in his discography or on his album pages. Koala15 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My comments at the last AfD still stand. The purpose of this list and the a discography are different and the nominator is incorrect to suggest otherwise. The nominator should have paid attention to the previous nomination before adding this to AfD. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only is the list extremely long but it's also unsourced/unsourceable anyway, Most of his singles are at Tech N9ne discography so I personally see no need whatsoever for keeping this article?. –Davey2010^Talk 16:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sound recordings are no less sources than print material. The albums themselves are a reliable source for the songs they contain, as well as their length and production credits. postdlf (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A long list of non-notable entries (bar one or two exceptions). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.D. (professional wrestling)

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

Team does not meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources other than WP:ROUTINE match results. Nikki♥311 17:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: In order for this and the related Team Bella's articles to survive AFD is to determine if they don't exist solely to support the current Bella Twins storyline. At this moment, they do. However, the way they present themselves hints the chance that BAD would continue as a team into other storylines as an independent stable, but that would be speculation and assuming WP:CRYSTALBALL. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 08:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I doubt they'll continue to team once this current storyline is over, currently they do not have anything to give them notability as a team, they're a section on each member's article at best. MPJ -US 08:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamirlan Kozubaev

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable.Juliette Wenst (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Giant Snowman 08:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Petrovský

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played a cup match for a fully pro club. This is factually incorrect. He did make an appearance for Skalica in the Slovak cup, but the club was playing in the non-fully-pro 2. Liga at the time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per new sources below, it appears he does meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. I reevaluated my vote. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. Has played in the Slovak Superliga a fully professional League in the 2009–10 Slovak Superliga season for Senica as per this. He played in this 2-1 win and this game. While his appearances were in 2010 as a teenager the Subject is only 23 years and is currently playing in a fully WP:FPL and consensus is for giving him a grace period as he has made his debut in a WP:FPL. Thanks Sir Sputnik for pointing it out I put the wrong link and summary clearly meant his appearances for Senica do not know how I missed it.Thanks again . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As nominator. It seems he has FPL appearances that I missed, as such the article meets WP:NSPORT. Ashbeckjonathan and GiantSnowman you may want to re-evaluate your !votes. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Mangu-Ward

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

I do not believe that being the managing editor of a relatively small magazine means automatic notability. While the internetz prove she has written many things in different venues, I did not find secondary sourcing that discusses her in any detail. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah, meh, I cleaned up the article as best I could, but it seems like I could only find pretty trivial mentions. This [2] is the best source I found, but it's bloggish and still not super notable. As a point of curiosity, do our deletion guidelines contain any guidance on if a journalist or writer's own publications ever make them notable? I think Mangu-Ward is an interesting case of someone who has been widely published (not just in Reason), but who has not been the subject of much secondary coverage. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She is the managing editor of an influential magazine. She regularly appears at think-tank events, book talks, and (my opinion) is prominent in the under-40 demographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by History.fact.checker (talk • contribs) 23:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a bit of a presence as a pundit. But she is not Editor in Chief of Reason, she is Managing Editor. Nor is Editor in Chief Matt Welch a mere figurehead, or a doddering old guy they keep on the masthead. Reason is respected, certainly, but having the # 2 job does not produce notability. More problematic is the fact that I found notheng substantive and in depth about her. No profiles. Just plain not sufficient reliable secondary sources to support an argument for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Aviation Software

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

Fails WP:CORP. Article looks like an Advert. LibStar (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:CORP. A small company with only 11 employees, and the majority of the article is a list of clients. I found no hits in Gnews or Gbooks, and nothing substantial or independent in a general web search. Reyk _YO! 06:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Routine business of just 11 employees. Most of the page is basically spam CorporateM (Talk) 07:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PowerISO

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

No assertion of notability or third-party sourcing ViperSnake151 Talk 16:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only third-party sources are software download sites, which do not establish notability sovereign°sentinel 05:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least this software's image format (.daa, Direct Access Archive) used to be quite (in)famous, if only because it could not be opened in any other application (while quite popular to "share" disc images due to its compression features). This would make it rather likely the software itself is notable as well. —Ruud 10:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of whether they are notable, the current page is made up entirely of primary sources. Removing the poor sourcing means effectively deleting the article. CorporateM (Talk) 07:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War

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)

I believe this article to be highly inaccurate of the reality on the ground in Syria, having viewed the sources for map changes it seems they are based on word of mouth from unknown Twitter users while changes being broadcast in internationally recognised media outlets are ignored, one example of the inaccurate bias on this page is the reliance on the source of SAHR/SOHR which is a man living in a council flat in London with ties to Jihadist terror networks in Britain, who is currently under investigation by the British police. Sohr reported false claims and continues to do so on false advances and use of chemical weapons on civilians which was actually the "rebels" (Saudi/Qatari/Lybian terrorists). False reports of Government use of chemical weapons, and false reports on "rebels" (Foreign Whabbi Terrorists) advances. I will continue to seek this pages deletion as there is now a more accurate and up to date page with information correct as of June 2015, as we see on this page some information has not been changed since 2011, again total bias mostly in the "Rebels" areas that were lost years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although better sources than Twitter should be used; unless they are coming from trust worthy groups or individuals.WikiMania76 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bias is not a reason for deletion. Fix it instead. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War? What were they before and what will they be after? Pumpkins? Rename Status of cities and towns in the Syrian Civil War, clean up and shrink the ginormous map. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete False information from top of the page to the bottom. Delete the lies. — 86.40.57.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:20, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep Any incorrect/poorly sourced information should be corrected/deleted, if it can be shown to be such. Most of the article appears to be correct, and deletion would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This article also features the most regularly updated map (in the form of the template) available. Banak (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have no particular love, or even sympathy, for pro-rebel SOHR, but shouldn't this article (and the corresponding template here) just be fixed with better sources instead? A lot of those city history texts are horribly out-of-date too. I would like to point out that I remember at least one other attempt to delete this map (as a template) for other reasons: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 28#Template:Syrian civil war detailed map. Conversion to an article was an interesting proposal back then, but since we have both the article and the template now, it does not matter anymore. Unless there is some doubt on whether or not we need to keep them as separate pages. I support renaming, as proposed by Clarityfiend. Ceosad (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Jackmcbarn and Ceosad. Cleanup rather than delete. It appears from the wording of this nomination that while SOHR may be biased, the nominator may also be biased. I also think we need to be careful of SPAs in this discussion. Happy to support a rename to a clearer title. Would be interested to hear what the other article mentioned by the nominator is, and whether the two need to be merged in line with WP:POVFORK. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I keep track of this map because it is the most up to date and usually, most unbiased. Any bias is normally removed because of the dedicated following and editors this article has. I know this article has had problems in the past but problems can always be fixed. Alastairjc (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep My perception of SOHR as a source of information is that even though they are pro-rebel/anti-regime/anti-IS, they endeavour to honestly report on the progress of the war. Such a task will invariably suffer from the occasional error, but there is no evidence that SOHR is deliberately misrepresenting the facts on the ground. For this reason, SOHR is viewed by various news media as a reputable and reliable source of information, and is widely quoted in news reports. No one has a monopoly on the news. I suggest that anyone who establishes a reputation for credible reporting should be used as a source of information for this page regardless of what media (twitter, etc) they employ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnabuihe (talk • contribs) 15:50, 26 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

for all reasons mentioned.Alhanuty (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I understand it, the nominator is not asking for the map to be deleted, but the list of information about the status of various cities/towns. My main problem with the article as it currently stands is: 1) Including that huge map in it is redundant - a prominent wikilink to Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map at the top would suffice. The inclusion of the big map makes the article take too long to load and choppy to scroll around in (I imagine it's even worse for those with bad internet connections). 2) A lot of info is likely out of date as the nominator says, because the map generally gets more attention. Nevertheless, this is a useful list of more detailed info, with links to relevant maps. Since the big map itself lacks this feature (you can't click on most cities/towns to see more information about their status), this article still has a use, despite parts of it being outdated. Esn (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, my vote is to Keep the article, but replace the big map at the top with a prominent link to it instead. Something like "For a detailed map of the current situation in Syria, see Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map". This would also help with useability. Clicking on a city name when I'm on the map page currently brings me to detailed info about that city on this page (if there is any), but because this page transcludes that map, it takes a very long time to load and is inconvenient. I think making this page quicker to load would encourage greater use of it, and could lead to faster corrections of any errors. Esn (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-We must strive to find reliable sources, instead of burying our head in the sand.--Catlemur (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If one feels that territorial changes reported in reliable sources are being ignored, they can make the needed changes. A perceived lack of updates is not a valid reason for deletion.--Tdl1060 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This map is lacking with credible sources and also neutral editors,if you carefully watch the map is olny edited with pro-side sources from pro-side editors to show olny they advancement of they faction they support not the real situation.46.99.115.51 (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC) — 46.99.115.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Issues with actual inaccuracy/unsuitable sources ("biased" does not automatically imply "false" or "unreliable" - the talk page has a better guidance as to which sources can be used) are for the talk page, not AfD. Now having the map be slightly smaller would be desirable but not an AfD concern either. I don't think this is a newspaper-like article, just a regular article that is frequently updated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: its the only source that connect the map with news and its highly accurate, I compare it with the news every day there are some delays but over all its the one of the best sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.247.75.158 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~ The map and the information contained within this wikipedia page is a complete fabrication with no real sources only "Tweets", it is a dream that people want it to be like, not the reality on the ground. A complete map for Terrorists Jihadist supporters to keep up their moral high, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 28 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination is already an implied Delete !vote, so I've struck this one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with User:Jo-Jo Eumerus's take on the issues. This is a notable and in scope topic that just happens to get updated a lot. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia not a news site, which might warrant making the map less prominent. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Despite the claims made by some, and the occasional issues with accuracy, the map is for the most part a very accurate representation of front lines and which sides control what. No other maps of the Syrian war are updated this regularly, and no other maps connect the map and the towns with the news in the way this one does. It's a valuable resource that needs to be kept. 86.155.95.11 (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pushing it. Sure, the war and its events are notable--but not all events are. Organizing this by locality is an invitation to be all-inclusive and recentist, and we're not the news. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Similar maps are used on Wikipedia for other conflicts in Libya, Yemen, and Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.213.117 (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid argument. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Without an explanation why it is "invalid", that's not really a counterargument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.213.117 (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its the best Wikipedia Template map made, and its used widely outside WP. Note why so many Anons want to delete it. Its fair enought to keep it. It can be improved. But we should be more meticously with the sources. Despite SOHR being used as a RS by Western Media it canot be trusted as a 100% reliable source. I agree with User SyrianObserver2015, the guy with the Flat in UK, have some links with Islamic Rebel Groups. Remember the Twitter ISIS account blocks, FB Sohr comments dissapeared in the same fashion at October 2014 and January 2015. A lot of Pro Islamic accounts that comented on SOHR faded away in thoses dates.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of what you say has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. As for "the best template map", I clicked on the article two minutes ago. It just loaded, having crashed Firefox once. It looks awful, being about four times as wide as my screen, and scrolling is well-nigh impossible. The legend is overcomplicated, there are blinking gifs, I can't figure out what's what. There seems to be some sort of floating image in the center of the map; I don't know what it is. How is this map good? And that's not even taking into account the matter of sourcing, which is not up to snuff with WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 23:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Melamed

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the mayor of a town not large enough (9K) to automatically confer notability on its mayors, and as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future federal election — but neither of these are claims that pass WP:NPOL. While there is a bit of stuff here about the town's role as a junior partner in some of the 2010 Winter Olympics events, that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Of the eight sources being cited here, further, fully half of them are primary sources like his own federal campaign website, the city's website or the Federation of Canadian Municipalities — and of the four that are left, two of those just passingly namecheck his existence in the process of failing to be about him. So there's not enough reliable sourcing, substantively about him, to claim WP:GNG instead. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if he can be sourced a lot better than this, and he'll certainly qualify for an article if he wins the federal election in October — but an unelected candidate for office only qualifies for a Wikipedia article if you can make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already notable enough for an article before he became a candidate, and there's not enough substance or sourcing here to put him in that camp. Also conflict of interest, as the article was created by Melamed's deputy campaign manager. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~. Not notable for federal candidacy or Olympic negotiations. Question is: Is Whistler a "cit[y] of at least regional prominence" (quote-unquote)? If it is, then being mayor of said prominent resort municipality would satisfy NPOL, barely. This article should be a lot more neutral-worded, though. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The basic standard that's applied at AFD is generally that the place has a population of close to or above 50K. That's not a hard and fast rule, because it can be swayed "smaller in" or "larger out" if there's a compelling reason for such an exception (such as a smalltown mayor being unusually sourceable as more GNG-worthy than the city's population would suggest, or a large city's mayoralty being a ceremonial post that just rotates annually among city councillors rather than being directly elected), but consensus has established 50K as the base standard for whether the city has the level of "regional prominence" needed to be automatically eligible for inclusion on the mayoral criterion itself. Anything smaller than that needs to be either much better sourced than this is, or have a consensus established that the city qualifies as a "special case" for some reason. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you Bearcat. So "prominent" city is generally 50K+ with a few exceptions. Does Whistler qualify as an exceptional case? I checked a comparable city, Mont-Tremblant, Quebec, which also has world-famous skiing and a permanent population of ~9K. I could not find one article about one of their mayors. Clearly Mont-Tremblant is not considered "regionally prominent", and therefore neither is Whistler. So, with this new information, I change my vote to Delete. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it Whistler is a city known around the world and is one of the premier tourism destinations in North America. A community it is certainly much more notable than many cities much larger. Also, it is one of the few cities to host any part of the Olympics or Paralympics. Yes, it was not the formal host of the 2010 Winter Olympics but it was the host of the 2010 Winter Paralympics which were by far the most successful paralympics to date. Ken Melamed was mayor for that event and on the international stage because of it bern99 (talk)

Keep it Hi all. Thanks for this excellent feedback. This is my first article and I'm determined to make sure it's accurate and unbiased. I'd say Whistler is definitely a city of regional importance despite the AFD guideline regarding population. Even though there are only 9,500 permanent residents in Whistler, there are over 2.1 million overnight visitors every year. As a world-renowned tourist destination, it is not only of regional importance but of provincial and national importance. ^[1].

References

^ http://trade.whistler.com/about/stats/

I'll work on adding more secondary sources this week and will edit for more neutral wording. Are there any sentences in particular that seem bias to you? Cambutt (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2015 (PST)

And what about Whistler's local politics is a topic of any broader interest to any of those tourists? Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added new references Hi again. This was bugging me so I went through and added some new references tonight. Please review and let me know what still needs work, if anything. Cambutt (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2015 (PST)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. McGrath, Charles (2010-02-20). "Whistler Mayor Revels in Olympic Spotlight". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-07-31. Retrieved 2015-07-31.
2. Atkinson, Cathryn (2008-03-28). "How hope for a soaring future taught Whistler's mayor to love the Games". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2015-07-31. Retrieved 2015-07-31.
3. Ogilvie, Clare (2005-11-21). "Whistler elects pro-environment mayor". The Province. Archived from the original on 2015-07-31. Retrieved 2015-07-31.
4. Ogilvie, Clare (2008-11-16). "Meet the other Olympic mayor". The Province. Archived from the original on 2015-07-31. Retrieved 2015-07-31.
5. Dupuis, Braden (2015-04-23). "Green Party candidate Melamed launches election campaign". Pique Newsmagazine. Archived from the original on 2015-07-31. Retrieved 2015-07-31.
6. Taylor, Alison (2011-05-20). "Ken Melamed goes around the world for work: From Whistler to Switzerland to China and back home". Pique Newsmagazine. Archived from the original on 2015-07-31. Retrieved 2015-07-31.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ken Melamed to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject was profiled in the major newspapers The New York Times and The Globe and Mail for his involvement in the Olympics and has received non-Olympics coverage in The Province and Pique Newsmagazine. He easily meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of longterm importance is presented or accepted (mentions like this one are prima facie not in-depth discussions); NOTNEWS and NOTMEMORIAL apply. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Danny Gonen

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

This is nothing except a memorial article for a non-notable person killed in an (unfortunately) commonplace event. Violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL as well as WP:NOTNEWS. Also a fine example of WP:RECENTISM; within a month or two this event will be almost entirely forgotten. Creator named it "Terrorist Shooting of Danny Gonen", which suggests an improper purpose. Zero^talk 16:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion about article's original name is false.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it was the original name, here is where you renamed it. And I'll note your comment "starting article on awful, cold-blooded murder" on your creation edit. It was indeed awful, but that is not and has never been justification for an article. Zero^talk 00:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, after TheLongTone prodded it for deletion on the NOTNEWS argument I changed the name in the belief that LongTone had mistaken the article for a merely horrific but "routine" criminal shooting, not realizing that it was an act of terrorism. And that others might repeat that error. In fact - at first - I thought that you had made the same mistake when you brought it to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nom has clearly failed to perform WP:BEFORE, I am a major fan of WP:BEFORE. Editors who perform due diligence as per WP:BEFORE are unlikely to nominate articles that, like this one, cover a topic that received in-depth media coverage, is well-sourced, and is part of a routine Wikipedia practice of having articles that cover episodes of terrorism; recent examples of this policy include 2015 Chattanooga shootings (the article on which I modeled this article and title), and 2015 Boston beheading plot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For some background on how the Wikipedia community is performing on issues like this in the ARBPIA topic area, editors may benefit from reading http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/12/24/wikipedia-all-murdered-israeli-children-are-murdered-by-arabs. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Routine news does not belong in an encyclopedia, theres another place for that. And yes, this is routine news. nableezy - 16:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pr the above WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. In other news; 21 year old Mohammed Ahmed Alauna was shot and killed by Israeli forces yesterday, (see Haaretz-article). What is the chance on seeing an article called the Shooting of Mohammed Ahmed Alauna? Exactly zero, I believe. Huldra (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the snow is falling I PRODed this as WP:NOTNEWS. PROD removed by article creator who described the PROD as "frivolous". Not so. 13:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep As per WP:GNG the most important of the several policies that distinguish notable events from routine news and events. WP:GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." I point you to in-depth articles on this terror murder in the New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, Haaretz, and elsewhere. I remind editors raising WP:NOTNEWS that WP is WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy based argument. An event with this breadth and depth of coverage does not have to demonstrate ongoing impact to be WP notable. Under WP:EVENTCRIT an event has to meet WP:INDEPTH, which this event objectively does. Nevertheless, this shooting has had demonstrable impact (in article since the creation) on the Israeli conversation about whether to agree to a prisoner exchange that Hamas is requesting this summer (for the bodies of soldiers, or for the return of a mentally ill Israelis who crossed the border into Gaza). It is argued that since this was one of 6 recent terror murders carried out by convicted terrorists released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, a fresh exchange endangers the lives of Israelis and is, therefore, bad policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment While working on another AFD I came across this keep iVote [3]:

User:Libertarian12111971 argues "if this article is marked for deletion, then it honestly wouldn't make sense if the 2013 Santa Monica shooting, 2013 Hialeah shooting, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting, Clackamas Town Center shooting, Southern California Edison shooting, etc., etc. articles aren't." The article under debate was kept. From this and other recent AFDs I see that there has been a trend to keep shooting attacks as WP:NOTABLE.

There is, of course, also a clear tradition of keeping ideologically motivated terror attacks as notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a killing where 1 person was killed, 1 wounded. In comparison: 2013 Santa Monica shooting: 6 killed, 4 injured; 2013 Hialeah shooting: 7 killed, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting: 3 killed, 4 wounded; Clackamas Town Center shooting: 3 killed, 1 wounded; Southern California Edison shooting: 3 killed, 2 wounded. How many fatal shootings are there in Chicago every year? Several hundred, I believe. We do not have an article on each of those. As for ideologically motivated, sure, I´ll vote "keep" on this article the day Wikipedia have an article called Shooting of Mohammed Ahmed Alauna. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG isnt a policy, its a guideline. WP:NOT is a policy. nableezy - 21:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably look at where that link goes. It kinda says that basing whether an article should exist because others do is a poor argument. Which is what you are going. nableezy - 22:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:GNG. The case received much int'l coverage and over a month later, there are still articles that mention it. The fact the murderer was released during Gil'ad Shalit exchange, makes this more notable. 06:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC) — 109.64.140.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete*, no lasting impact. Wikipedia is not a daily newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - editors write No lasting impact but the fact is, over a month after it happens, it is still being mentioned in multiple news sources. The assertion it has no lasting impact isn't only premature but also inaccurate (to say the least). 21:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC) — 79.178.39.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS
You're proposing to delete this? Seriously? It's got, like, coverage from a shtload of New York Times, Guardian, Washington Post articles. It's got a whole section of serious-sounding analysis of political impact, and it doesn't take a genius to see why if a couple of guys who go hiking get offed by a terrorist scumbag who was already a convicted terrorist/murder/scumbag doing time until some genius negotiator let him out of jail, that this sort of incident might, just might, tip a political debate about letting more terrorist scumbag murderers out of jail. Oh, you also don't have to be a genius to look at the datelines and see that coverage of this thing continues, or to realize that since they caught the guys who did it there will be a trial(s) and lots more coverage, and more debate about giving get-out-of-jail-free cards to terrorist scumbags KEEP.SummerSchool55 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC) — SummerSchool55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per Malik Shabazz. — Cliftonian (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Piper

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

All plot, one source, and questionable notability Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are sources out there. The film was the collaboration of two notable filmmakers, so there is probably better sourcing than I've found so far. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although my searches found nothing but I suppose this article is acceptable for now at least with the current sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak Keep In agreement, a "lost" film will not usually have the same level of sourcability as might something still available, but it was aired by Nickelodeon and has made it into the enduring records of the involved notables. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Percy Jackson & the Olympians terms

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)

The article is completely unreferenced and consists of listcruft: the listed terms are just words from Greek mythology (e.g. "Ambrosia", "Oracle") and/or phrases from Percy Jackson & the Olympians. Any notable Greek phrases already have their own articles; any Percy Jackson subject-specific terms should be defined in context (e.g. explained within a plot summary). There is no need for this list - which has been tagged for over 2 years with "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for stand-alone lists" - to exist. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not pass judgment; I only want to describe what I have seen.

The list currently does not cite any sources, though it could easily cite the book series it refers to. It might be hard to find non-primary and/or objective sources.
It is a useful resource within the scope of its subject; i.e. several other articles in its category refer to this list, and use it as a way to keep individual plot summaries and other such descriptions short (by collecting oft-used information elsewhere).
Outside of its subject, it provides a quick way for internet users to find a definition of a term which has a meaning by itself, but is often used differently in the Percy Jackson & the Olympians universe. To people who have no interest whatsoever in Percy Jackson & the Olympians and have never encountered one of these terms somewhere like on a fan-site, it is not useful.

In short, this list is useful to a reasonable number of people and fairly extensive, but it is difficult to determine if it meets 100% of Wikipedia's notability and "encyclopedic" requirements for list-type articles.2ReinreB2 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utility is not a valid factor when determining whether a topic is suitable for inclusion within Wikipedia. If it's useful, maybe it could find a place on Riordan Wiki (with relevant attribution). Yes, primary sources could be used in the article but that doesn't establish notability. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Percy Jackson series is not Rick Riordan's entire body of work; he's also written other mythological YA series and books aimed at adults. This list would be for fans of the Percy Jackson books only, of whom there are many, which I think would justify keeping this page. If sourcing is an issue, wouldn't adding references take care of that? Methychroma (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited; just because Riordan's works are notable does not mean this page is. Adding references (reliable independent secondary references) certainly would help; can you find any? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- What exactly do you mean by "independent secondary references"? Methychroma (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean sources that are not related to Rick Riordan or his publishers. For instance, a book review that provides substantial description of how terminology is used in the series, and explains why it is such a crucial part of Percy Jackson, would be an independent secondary source. A dictionary with terms from the series on Riordan's website would not be. But I highly doubt anything like this exists in the first place; hence my nomination for deletion. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia rarely has lists of terms or items used in a series. Characters are fine, but not terms and items. The only exceptions would be in situations where these terms or items have received coverage in independent and reliable sources. Primary sources and passing mentions in book reviews are not good enough. This is essentially WP:LISTCRUFT when you get down to it and things that as stated, would only be of interest for fans. Because of this, this is something that would be best suited for a fan wiki. If anyone wants to transwiki this to an appropriate wiki (like the Riordan wikia), feel free. However as far as Wikipedia goes, this isn't really something that would qualify list-wise. I'd go as far as to say that very, very few series (book, film, etc) would actually merit this type of page. I can't find anything that would really show that these terms/items are notable. There are plenty of primary sources and fan pages, but nothing that would really be considered reliable. Also, in case anyone tries to go gain people from other sites, be aware that AfD is not decided on a vote and unless any of the Percy Jackson fans made arguments based in policy, their input wouldn't really help keep the page in the slightest. Because this has been mentioned, I'm going to tag this AfD with "not a vote". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this list is written in a WP:INUNIVERSE perspective. While it is definitely useful to readers of the book series, it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. sovereign°sentinel 06:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as this is something better suited for a Wikia or other fan-related website. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article on ununoctium would only be useful for those with an interest in chemistry, too. It's a convenient reference to Riordan's work, and maybe it can be put on a fan wiki as well. Methychroma (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is that utility is irrelevant. Ununoctium has an article because it's incredibly famous, incredibly important to a major scientific field and well documented by reliable sources (look at the 59 references). Terminology in Percy Jackson is none of those things. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Heffernan

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

He appears to be an amauter cyclists racing for an amatuer team who died in a non-notable race. He doesn't meet the criterea for notability for cyclists or the notability for cyclists at Project Cycling. Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. All the references are about his death; a cyclist being killed on the road is, however unfortunate, not a significant event in itself per WP:BLP1E#3. Qwfp (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qwfp. Snappy (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jpg

Keep When you call him a cyclist did you not see he was a triathlete who competed for the Irish national team! He competed for a national team on an international level so he is notable. It would be nice if you read the whole thing through before rushing to judgement first.18:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Masterknighted (talk)
TRIATHLETE [4]Masterknighted (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct usage is he appears to have been -- He appears one does not make judgments based on appearances one goes below themMasterknighted (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Qwfp; as he fails the notability threshold for cyclists, if he reaches the threshold for Triathletes I'm fine with keeping this page, if not delete. XyZAn (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP He was a member of the Irish national team! He was an accomplished Triathlete who competed on the international level.Jimgerbig (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Triathlete! Member of an international team! There is precedents for inclusion.Comprised (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets notability guidelines. There are reliable sources provided. Also there is some room for expansion. Tinton5 (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC
Point As you can see I have updated the page to make the two disticnt stages of his athletic career more clear. Masterknighted (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Cirrus SR-20 Crash

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

non notable student plane crash with no fatalaties Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable aircraft accident. Wikipedia is not a news service. reddogsix (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single light-aircraft accident is generally not notable and should not be included in Wikipedia, per WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. There are hundreds of such accidents around the world every year, most no more notable than an ordinary car accident. WikiProject Aviation has some useful thoughts on the relative noteworthiness of aircraft incidents at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above GNG, NOTNEWS, etc., etc..
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William 11:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable by any scale, non-fatal accidents happen all the time. MilborneOne (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete as argued by contributors above; this is one of 66 aircraft accidents in the USA in July alone and one of 740 in the USA for the year so far, all of them will most likely have received news coverage somewhere but that don't make any of 'em notable. YSSYguy (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (ironic that the article creator is User:WeAreNews) and non-notable nature of this crash. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Girl Quest

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

non notable game Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:G12 as copyright violation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia is licensed under cc-by-sa so it's an attribution issue, not a copyvio (unless it's coming from somewhere other than Wikia) – czar 04:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry about that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Nothing more than passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 04:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable video game. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article lacks reliable sources to show notability. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course as not only is the current state unacceptable, I'm not finding any good sources to suggest improvement or better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable game, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 15:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defeat this monster with snowballs - An unremarkable game lacking coverage in either Japanese or English. Given how cold this AfD is at the moment, the article should probably be put out of its misery. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW and as an article created by a sockpuppet. I don't see this closing any other way, so I'll end it a bit early. If anyone can show that this would potentially pass NFILM then I'll re-open this, otherwise there's no reason to let this drag on for another 3-4 days. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Ronald McDonald: McTreasure Island

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

non notable film Gaijin42 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article creator has SPI filed at this time. Depending on outcome, article may be able to be deleted per WP:G5. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a (brief) search for sources shows only some announcements, PR activity and passing mentions in lists. The article itself establishes no claim of notability. GermanJoe (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it say's it on google that there's a film about his article even wiki's. But I already did research of the rules on wikipedia and a wiki like this http://mcdonalds.wikia.comview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=The_Adventures_of_Ronald_McDonald:_McTreasure_Island. Does not count as a source, so there should be a better one out there somewhere. TheSimpsons98 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts: Writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); French:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); French Alt::(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); French ALt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - It exists and can be watched,[5] and while spoken of in multiple books,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12], et al, they all recognize it as an ill-considered feature-length marketing concept for MacDonald's. Despite the article being properly sourcable, I do not see this looong commercial from 1989 as meeting WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update Turns out the article was created by a sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FrozenFan2/Archive so it can be G5'd if anyone is so inclined. MarnetteD|Talk 04:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altskeith

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines, lacks reliable sources and currently reads like advertisement for the property. Liam McM (Talk) 14:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and no support for moving elsewhere as the only option is the 1959 film 39 Steps where they filmed; my searches found nothing particularly good with the best being here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some reliable sources do exist. There was some coverage in the Herald when the property went on sale in July 1998 A lochside Trossachs treasure It was also a mentioned in a list of "venues with a difference" in the Scotsman in December 2009- VisitScotland says come here for Hogmanay – then escape the crowds. It is a historic building, but not enough to demonstrate notability in my estimation. Interesting to see that when the article was created in 2007, someone had used the template for a village, which it clearly is not. The other option for a place to move it to would be the Loch Ard article, as the building stands on the north shore. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see notability. Dalliance (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Symbid. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gambitious

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

no notability. None of the sources are sufficiently reliable. DGG ( talk ) 13:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. These refs come from vetted games sources:

Not an abundant offering, and not much coverage after 2012, but enough significant coverage for a small article based on reliable reporting. There are also more duplicate refs available, but I felt that this covered it. – czar 04:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent org Symbid#Ownership_interests works for me (even though they apparently only own 12%, it's enough for a few sentences on what the org does). Nice find, @Nowa. FYI, @SwisterTwister. – czar 17:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe draft/userfy instead as I considered the sources found and the ones I found including here and here but, as it seems there hasn't been much recent activity, I'm not sure what the future plans are. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Symbid‎. Notable at it's launch, but now Gambitious is a subsidiary of Symbid and not all that notable by itself.--Nowa (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Symbid. Nothing really to be merged in. Page should be deleted and redirected. The content about Gambitious on the Symbid is already just as substantial and written in a much more encyclopedic tone. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equal Rights Advocates

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

A worthy organisation with some local coverage; doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Lots of false positives on Google search because of its generic name. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Mangostar. Boleyn (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I'm seeing a good deal of coverage already included in the article which is well-referenced just not yet properly formatted is all. — Cirt (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep as even with detailed searches, results for other things appear but such as this (a few results) and the current sourcing suggest minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their nomination and there are no outstanding "delete" !votes. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional aperture

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

This seems to have been created by academic to promote their paper. I couldn't establish that it is a WP:NOTABLE topic. Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seemed easy to establish that it was a notable topic. See The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn I've looked again and this is clearly my error. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Records

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Finngall and Scientizzle. Boleyn (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found, no substantial improvement to the article since I tagged it for notability eight years ago. --Finngall ^talk 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest good independent notability with my searches finding the best results here. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bae Sang-jun

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

Non-notable footballer. Sawol (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL and no real Wikipedia article actually even to consider a little bit. NextGenSam619^t@lk 12:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL. sovereign°sentinel 15:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Ally Campus Alliance

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

Tagged for notability since December 2010. Standard searches did not reveal any substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of third-party sources. sovereign°sentinel 07:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches (News and Books) found results but nothing to suggest improvement and notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plaisio

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

Can't find any sources about this company. It may the case that Greek sources exist, in which case I will be happy to retract this nomination. Sam Walton (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of whether the org is notable (or if sources exist in Greek), the current article is 100% original research. Deleting the unsourced content constitutes deleting the article. CorporateM (Talk) 07:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Greek article basically looks the same and, existing since September 2009, there was enough time for improvement to be made. But it seems there is no possible improvement as my searches found nothing particularly good aside from this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racewear Ltd

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

Tagged for notability since December 2010. Unable to find any reliable, indy references that significantly discuss the company. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found no good sources to suggest improvement and notability and, considering how long the article has existed with no possible improvement, it's better to simply delete. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Quay

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

Fails WP:RLN and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG Mattlore (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Li Wenyang (boxer)

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. Very few fights and being one of the first Chinese to win a minor title (especially when Chinese have won major titles) does not speak to notabililty. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is routine sports reporting so WP:GNG is not met and winning a minor boxing title is not enough to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gail DeLano

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

Biography of a person whose only discernible claim of notability is "got covered in an episode of a reality show", and whose only sourcing is a single article in her local newspaper. Was nominated for speedy, but got declined — but the creator is making claims of significance on the talk page like "we should take interest in the psychological aspect her case, due to the astonishing amount of time and effort it must have taken her to disappear off the face of the earth, and what she must have been feeling in order to go through with it." Except that's got nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion standards — if enough reliable sources haven't deemed her "interesting" to earn her a Wikipedia article the normal and verifiable way, then it's not our job to deem her "interesting" for any reason that would involve engaging in original research speculation. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing good and the newspapers listed are the best sources thus there's not much for an article and minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about this case of its coverage rises to the level of notability that justifies inclusion in the encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete sad, sad event, but cannot find news sources to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Quest

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

Unsourced BLP. Makes claim to notability (innovator in field of turntablism), but no references to back it up. Standard searches did not reveal any reliable, indy sources that significantly discuss this person. Would reconsider if some suitable references can be found. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found nothing solid to suggest notability aside from this but it's not significant. There's simply not much for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of anything even remotely close to being indepdent of the subject. The subject's website and his myspace page are not enough to create an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Quechee Lakes Company

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

Unable to find any independent, reliable sources that significantly discuss the company. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete potential advert. Only source provided is prweb. LibStar (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing good aside from this, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The club has not achieved notability per WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Accordingly, the subject is not worthy of an article until/unless (1) it is promoted (significantly) higher up the football ladder, (2) it has some other football achievement to make it a notable club, or (3) it does something to cause it to garner enough significant, substantial coverage to make it notable. Accordingly, I am striking it from article mainspace. However, I am moving the content to the original editor's user space at User:Stu9891/Addlestone United FC to allow him to continue to develop the article or to salvage some of the content to other articles as mentioned in the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addlestone United F.C

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

Disputed PROD, original reason was "Club has never played above the notional level 16 of the English football league system, six levels below that deemed notable by WP:FOOTY" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update - since I opened the AfD, the article's creator has posted on my talk page "Hi Chris. I have not finished the article on Addlestone F.C, but the club was formed because the original Addlestone and Weybridge F.C, who have played at a high level on the football pyramid, folded. I would like to ask you that you respect the decision to allow me to create this article because of the town's need for another local football team." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - I have a soft spot for newer editors and I think the article should be kept and allowed to be expanded upon, not only is the article not hurting anything, but deleting it would discourage a new editor from further contributing. I approved this page when It was first created because I believe it has potential and other clubs at the same level have their own pages. ~Euphoria42 07:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give examples of other clubs who have never played higher than this level who have articles, because I'd be surprised if there are any........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOHARM for guidance on why these arguments are no appropriate for AfD. Other articles may exist on clubs at the same level, but these will be because that club has either played at a higher level historically or have competed in a national competition such as the FA Cup, per the notability consensus at WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - Please let me keep this page. There are a few clubs who have not played at the level you're stating but I need to start somewhere. It is relevant and local people have asked me to create the page, due to Addlestone F.C folding! I am doing it for good reasons. I reformed the local club as I want to create a link for the community. I already have a ground share with a club from the Combined Counties League. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu9891 (talk • contribs)

Comment - Please see WP:NOTHOSTING for reasons why creating a link for a local community is not an appropriate argument to keep an article. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Club has not played in a national competition per WP:FOOTYN, no indication of significant, reliable coverage of a non-routine basis to satisfy GNG. The club play at level fourteen on the pyramid. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep it~~ - Fenix down has just said that the club play at level 14. In any case, no matter what level the club is currently at, the club was formed as Addlestone FC folded. It is a 'phoenix' club and as such can surely link to that club's past playing experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu9891 (talk • contribs)

Please don't !vote more than once. The long-established cut-off point for notability is level 10, the level at which teams are eligible to enter the FA Cup, so 14 would still be far too low. However, double-checking our article on the Guildford and Woking Alliance League reveals that the top division is level 14, so this club actually plays at level 17 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:NOTINHERITED for reasons as to why being a phoenix club would not automatically confer notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus this club wasn't actually formed until 29 years after AWTFC folded. By no sane definition can it be regarded as a "phoenix" club, it's simply a new club started in the same town where another club played decades earlier...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - I was given the choice by the secretary Bob Dick, who is also Secretary of the Surrey F.A, that I could play in Division 1 or 2. I wanted one more season in Division 3 for experience, but we are well within our rights to play higher!!!! That would put us in level 15 or 16. We could've even put ourselves in the premiership which is level 14. Could you please afford us the courtesy to remain a page and gain the level you are stating? The constitution for this season can still even be changed, but we are intent on playing in Division 3 for one more season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu9891 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - playing in level 17 or level 14 is irrelevant, wht the club needs to have done is either played in a national competition, such as the FA Cup per WP:FOOTYN or garnered significant, reliable, non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - That is not even the reason why the page was requested to be deleted!! There are many, many clubs on Wikipedia who have not played a national cup whatsoever. Especially the FA Cup. I feel this is getting silly now. I have explained why the page should stay and I feel we are drifting from the original dispute. I would like to do more work on this article, so can I please have this case closed? We have played in the Surrey County Cup last season. Information that I want to put on the page!

Comment - Where are these clubs? We are not drifting from the original dispute, this element of the deletion rationale: six levels below that deemed notable by WP:FOOTY is what we are discussing. If the club has not played at this level or not participated in a national cup competition then they need to show significant, reliable, non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. I kind of feel like I am repeating myself here. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to continue with this and I can assure ChrisTheDude that we will easily play at the level he stated. As mentioned, I could've done so this season. Stu9891

Please read WP:CRYSTAL. You have no way of guaranteeing that your club will "easily" reach level 10 (which in your part of the country would be the Combined Counties League Division One), and even if you could, it would take at an absolute minimum until 2021 to get promoted to that level. We do not keep articles for six or more years on the assumption that the subject will become notable after that time...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tongham FC - Here is just one club I am talking about. I can't be expected to search the whole database, but many more exist. They have NOT played in the FA Cup. Also, We can jump divisions. Depending on the players we have. We have the ground facilities to do so. As I have already said, I was allowed to move higher should I so wish. We already have the capabilities to play Combined Counties Football. We ground share with Hanworth Villa. It's level 9. I just wanted to ensure the short term goals of the club, hence why I have not rushed into playing higher. Having this page is relevant and can help it grow and become successful. Stu9891

Comment - they've played at level 10 before, though again, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please also stop using arguments that go against WP:CRYSTAL. When / if the club ever get to that level then they will be considered notable. Until then, you need to show significant, reliable, non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep it~~ - My vote wasn't counted. I am trying to update the article with content but people are deleting the notable points I am making. Also, Farnborough North End FC have a page. They're in the same situation as us. I would like a resolution to this please ASAP, as I am keen to build the page up. I don't want to spend hours on it for no reason. Please may I keep the page? Stu9891 (talk • contribs)

Comment - I'm not really sure what part of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS you're not understanding, although if you read the article more closely you will see they have played in the Combined Counties League division 1 which is level 10 as well as having competed in the FA Vase. As you have been repeatedly told, this club is well below the automatic notability threshold regarding the football pyramid. As such, you need to show the club have garnered significant, reliable, non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. To support your keep vote, can you please indicate where these sources are. By the way AfDs normally continue for at least a week, but often longer if debate continues, they are only closed early if there is an overwhelmingly unanimous decision to keep or delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please may you give me some examples then of what I should do/produce in order to satisfy GNG? What would be a good thing you'd look for?Stu9891 (talk • contribs)

Well, there is no set thing, but I would look for articles in newspapers of significant length outlining the history of the club, it's impact on the community, successes, failures and the like. I would be careful of using local news sources, as these are not normally acceptable given their limited readership, though this does not mean you need to show coverage in national media. Additionally, match / transfer reporting and various team lists / results sites are not deemed appropriate as these are considered routine coverage and alsmot never go into a great deal of depth. Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Stu9891, can you please not remove the AfD template from the article, as you did earlier today. The template quite clearly states on it that it must not be removed, and doing so is considered vandalism and could well get you blocked from editing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, no problem. I would just like an end to this. Either way. I just want to create the page. I can't believe people have such a problem, but there you go!! Would sponsors mentioning us on Twitter class as media coverage? I am still a little unsure of how I can satisfy GNG. We haven't been in a newspaper yet. I just would like to know how else I could make it work. As I have said though, I just want to make a very good article and for that I need time. Deleting it isn't going to help. Stu9891 (talk • contribs)
- See WP:GNG for what is needed, especially the bit about significant coverage. Passing mentions on Twitter definitely don't meet the requirements, I'm afraid. We appreciate that you want to make a good article about your club, but unfortunately WP has entry requirements. Just because a good article could be written about something doesn't necessarily get it a free pass into the encyclopedia........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could I use this article information with another page? Addlestone for example? Could I build info within the page that way? Could I use the article under a different category? Are there any other wiki-type set ups on the internet that could use this article? Stu9891 (talk

Comment - you could do as long as it is properly sourced and relevant. Addlestone I would say is not an appropriate place for much information from this article given the low level that the club currently play at, perhaps a sentence. Addlestone & Weybridge Town F.C. would be more approprite. However, given the fact that there is more than a quarter of a century between the original club folding and this one starting, it is not really correct to describe the new club as in anyway directly linked as a phoenix club, other than by geography. I note there is already a brief comment on the club's existence. Unless other sources can be found explicitly noting a link between the two clubs, I would say this would suffice. I don't know whether they have any specific inclusion criteria, but I would suggest the football wiki on Wikia, as a first port of call. Fenix down (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is not indication that the clubs has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and nor has the club played in a national cup competition, meaning it fails WP:FOOTYN as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As it is plain to see there are a lot of people who just want to make life difficult, why don't you just delete it then?? I can't work on the article until I know that it's being kept, so it's catch 22.
I would just like a resolution. Is that too much to ask? Delete it or keep it. Stu9891 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agent X (Brand)

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

No indication of notability. Google search reveals no coverage in reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I went through a bunch of search results, and the only possible source I found was the Binghamton Times link already cited, and I'm not sure if it's considered reliable, but even if it is, that's not enough. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smileverse. Both sites that are referenced are essentially created to be referenced here. Note that the author of the Binghamton piece is also listed as a senior reporter at bangalorean.net. This makes it unambiguous spam in my book and I will tag it as such. SmartSE (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 05:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew George, Jr.

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

WP:BLP of a chef and food writer, with no strong claim to notability under Wikipedia's inclusion rules for either of those things. This is written like one of the most appallingly transparent public relations advertisements I've ever seen on Wikipedia (which is saying a lot), and cites not a whit of reliable sourcing to support so much as one syllable of it — and the level of detail about his personal life is so intimate for the lack of sourcing that conflict of interest editing by the subject himself or someone who knows him personally is virtually the only possible explanation. Wanna know the worst part, and the only reason I'm not just speedying it out of hand? The article was created in 2005, so it's existed in this state for a decade. Headdesk and delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely abysmal piece of self promotion; worse, it's promoting a writer and is not even written in proper English. Searching for him i find a real review of his cookbook [16], a profile in a major regional daily [17], a profile/feature in a big city daily [18], another inn a national daily [19]. And lots more. and that was only after running a quick news google on "andrew george" "modern native feasts". Regardless of what his second book did or what he has dones since, he is a clear keep, despite the embarrassingly inferior article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But make sure the sources that E.M.Gregory listed are added and the style is improved. I have helped some with that but there is still a long way to go on both counts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Pack Lambert. Has received significant coverage in several reliable and independent sources. North of Eden (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School Life

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Does not establish notability independent from its parent genre, slice of life. PROD'd by at least 4 separate editors within the last month so there's at least that much support for removal. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Been on my watchlist for awhile now and haven't seen improvement. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a formal Japanese anime term or a genre that needs further analysis. Sourced by unreliable sources such as myanimelist. No JA wikipedia entry. There is already Category: School anime and manga to deal with the intersection of schools in anime and manga, and that would be supported by Education in Japan. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Alexandria, Louisiana

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insignificant event with no Significant coverage. Event appeared to have no enduring historical significance, per WP:EVENTCRIT. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The major source cited does not even call it a battle.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not concerned about whether an engagement is called a battle or something else, though I prefer "battle" in most, if not all, cases. The criteria for whether a Civil War action was a battle or something else is very loose. The type of action seems to have been a creation of Frederick Dyer in his 1908 work. Although the location may be the most important fact, I think most readers will look for the Battle of xxxxx and will not be looking for Skirmish at xxxx so I would rather see "Battle" in the title. Most, but not all, Wikipedia articles about Civil War engagements start with "Battle." In any event, skirmishing occurred around Alexandria, Louisiana in the Red River Campaign from about April 25, 1865 to May 13, 1865. Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123 notes this on page 488 while making no mention of the specific engagement on April 28. The same is true of The Union Army; A History of Military Affairs in the Loyal States, 1861–65 — Records of the Regiments in the Union Army — Cyclopedia of Battles — Memoirs of Commanders and Soldiers. Wilmington, NC: Broadfoot Publishing, 1997. First published 1908 by Federal Publishing Company. Vol. 5, p. 25. Of the three sources cited in the article, only one refers to an engagement on April 28 and that involves the Confederates throwing a shell or two at the camp of an Ohio regiment, the regiment forming for battle but nothing happening as the Confederates fell back. Certainly that can not be considered a notable battle of any sort. Meanwhile, a cavalry skirmish was occurring to their front. That much is mentioned by both Dyer and Union Major General Nathaniel P. Banks in his report to General Grant of April 30, 1864, found at [20] in the The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies; Series 1 - Volume 34 (Part I), page 191. That still does not make it a notable engagement because not much happened between the cavalry units either. Banks said that a Confederate reconnaissance in force on April 28 led to the expectation of a battle but only some sharp skirmishing between advance cavalry units of both armies occurred. Colonel S.G. Hill's report on page 331 confirms that the infantry formed in line of battle but no battle ensued. Dyer, Frederick H. A compendium of the War of the Rebellion. Des Moines, IA: The Dyer Publishing Company, 1908. OCLC 181358316 only gives Union units engaged and casualties. He lists the 2d Illinois Cavalry Regiment, 16th Indiana Infantry Regiment (Mounted) and 6th Missouri Cavalry Regiment as the Union forces engaged and no casualties. That is all these sources report. I could find no specific mention of this skirmish in Winters, John D. The Civil War in Louisiana. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1963. ISBN 978-0-8071-0834-5. I would characterize myself an inclusionist with respect to Civil War engagements, at least if anything of significance or even minor interest happened or resulted or if they were part of a larger campaign and several details are given in reliable sources. This is a minor 1864 engagement in which no casualties are reported and nothing much really happened. Its only significance was that it was a minor part of the Red River Campaign phase in which the Union Army was holding Alexandria and keeping the Confederates away from the river for about three weeks so that the stranded Union gunboats could be freed to move downriver. In this event, advance forces took a few shots at each other and retired. It would barely merit a sentence or two in the campaign article, which in fact it does not even have. I conclude that the event, which is barely mentioned in a few sources, is not notable enough for an article, although the skirmishing and the three-week holding action at Alexandria and its purpose should be mentioned in the campaign article. Donner60 (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Donner60's awesome research. Neither of the two ext. links or link to Alexandria, Louisiana at the bottom of the article mention anything about this either. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Author requested deletion DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Bhageria

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

fails WP:Notable. Self published book on Amazon is what the namesake is greatest known by per article creater. Many of the sources used are either blog like entries or commentaries provided by the namesake ie. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/08/25/learn-high-school-creativity/14569537/. The article looks to be an autobiography developed by either Mr. Bhageria or someone on his behalf per the editing history I have alluded to on Talk:Rajat_Bhageria#COI and Autobiography tags restored after the subject has appeared to make it appear that multiple individuals have worked on the article. His personal website and linked-in profiles that are worded remarkably similar (possible copyright issues with no OTRS on file). The article's overuse of what would on the surface appear to be a well resourced article is just a resume with many sub-par forum columns, brief mentions, and self submitted material. Calmer Waters 03:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeraphine ^(talk) 07:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - few hits on Google. Publishing a book is much too easy nowadays, especially with publishers like CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, which is the case here [21]. Materialscientist (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Design Life Cycle

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

Contested PROD. Poorly referenced original research. Article author has promised but not yet delivered improvements. The Design Life Cycle has also been speedied twice. --Finngall ^talk 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything in articles, books, or websites that uses the topic in the way this article does. While there may be a Design Life Cycle developing, it doesn't seem to have primary sources published yet. An article will need to wait for reliable, independent secondary sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and at best WP:TNT as my searches found nothing good and the article could use a restart. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) by Sulfurboy — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emilie Mover

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and although there is a couple of other sources out there, her mention is in passing and certainly not substantial enough to pass GNG. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator

Comment. not meeting wp:musicbio? Sulfurboy, I've actually never seen you make an edit that wasn't on-point before, but on this would one would like to point out the Juno Award (the Canadian equivalent to the Grammys - there is no higher, and is even listed at No. 8 with "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award."), and sources like these, all of which I would argue add up to non-trivial coverage of her. Exlaim.ca (Exclaim!), ref to Juno Award in National Post, [22], top 10 album at NOW Toronto, etc. But I'll look about for more, probably after a nap. It's late here. Earflaps (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winning a Juno is sufficient for inclusion on its own, and there's enough coverage to have a decently-sourced short article. --Michig (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article definitely needs content and sourcing improvements, but winning a Juno Award is an automatic keep per WP:NMUSIC #8 (it's even named right in #8 as one of the canonical examples of an award that passes #8.) Keep and flag for refimprove. Bearcat (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was my mistake. Closing for speedy keep. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, criterion A11, clearly made up by creator. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoichi dbz created character

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

Numerous grammar issues, no links to and from article, reads like a fansite. Also, fails to have any references or external links nor does it have any categories and fails to distinguish fiction from real life. Luis Santos24 (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the page tagged for speedy deletion. If the creator can't provide some evidence that it isn't something (s)he made up, it will be deleted per WP:CSD#A11. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Joe Farnsworth

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

This stuntman/actor fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. An interview on Black Sky Radio is about all I could find.[23] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as the two linking articles are not targets for moving there and my searches found nothing particularly good with the best being this. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for people involved in the film industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ClaroCOM

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, all I can find are press releases and vendor or directory mentions. Note that this company is not related to Claro Americas, a lot of hits will come up for it. They were sued by America Movil and changed their name to Ovnicom (the best ref I could find is about the lawsuit). Nothing significant in WP:RS for Ovnicom either. Ovnicom has been speedy deleted from es.wikipedia 4 times. Article written by COI user. Prod contested in 2008. Vrac (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus doesn't indicate any reason for notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing good to suggest independent notability and there's no good target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here on the validity of this list. Davewild (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nazis of non-Germanic descent

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

Reason First of all: please excuse my poor english. This List is not suitable for an encyclopedia because it is not notable, original research and is not verifiable. First: what may "germanic descent" mean? Germanic tribes moved all over Europe an futher into Africa during the Migration Period. It should be hand to find any European without any germanic descent apart from people who moved here from Asia and sorts. And in Germany on the other Hand there are the Sorbs which are of slawic descent. Even if you take "non-Germanic descent" as "parents not from the state of germany" you get to the Second questionable part: the List of Names seems to be totally random. Silesia for example was part of the german reich these days so people from silesia acutally had "germanic descent". Then Third: the most famous austrian Nazi is missing. You guessed it: Adolf himself. I think there is not use in this random list of names. Weissbier (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: if "non-germanic descent" means that these people have some "non-germanic" ancestors, this means that all Nazis were auf "non-germanic descent". See Recent African origin of modern humans. There more you think of it, the more bullshit this list is. I guess it's only purpose is to relativate things. "Look there were also Nazi-Jews, so the Jews are evil too". Primitive. Weissbier (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Remember that Austrians are of Germanic descent, so wouldn't count anyway! There is a difference between "German" and "Germanic": in this case the latter is being use to refer to people who are ethnically German, including most people from Germany and Austria as well as Silesian Germans, Baltic Germans, Sudeten Germans, etc (i.e. the people the Nazis referred to as Volksdeutsche). Ethnically German people don't have to be born in Germany and not all people born in Germany are ethnically German, which is what this list is about. I'm neutral as to its notability, but it is a clearly defined list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Necrothesp makes a key point. The Nom misunderstands the term, "non-Germanic descent."E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom's reasons for deletion are invalid. First of all, I'm not aware of any notability guidelines for lists, and the nom fails to specify which specific guideline it supposedly violates. It would meet the WP:GNG in my judgment. Secondly and thirdly, original research is not by itself a reason to delete an article, and it could certainly be verifiable if the proper sources were found and cited. I think it could, however, be trimmed to include only more prominent Nazis. So, in summary, is this article messy, disorganized, and filled with original research? Yes. Does it need a lot of work? Yes. Are these reasons to delete this article? No. --Biblioworm 14:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the cited books, a list of Nazis with some Jewish ancestry might be notable (and Jewish is easier to define than non-Germanic). However this list as it stands is less specific, and there's no evidence that nazis with some non-Germanic blood forms a notable topic. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting idea. I might actually like to work on such an article. --Biblioworm 16:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a list article. If it were a category, I would want to get rid of it. There are probably several different groups combined here: Nazis wth Jewish connections; Grerman residnets from elsewhere; those who neither lived in Germany nor were ethnic Germans. The subjefct is an intersting one and we should keep it. That is not what I expected to say before I looked at it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept depends on original research saying this group of people is notable as a group. Note that "non-Germanic descent" is being used to mean that some ancestor of the person was not Germanic, not that he/she had no Germanic ancestors. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any determination to place any individual on this list would have to rely on original research. Certainly, secondary sources might indicate that a notorious Nazi was of part-Jewish descent, or of Polish descent, or of Lithuanian descent, et al. But how is one to make a definite determination that the given individual is of "non-Germanic descent"? Ultimately, it would be up to an individual editor's discretion, which isn't a good way of adding encyclopedic content. North of Eden (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This grouping is original research. No indication that there is a scholarly consensus that having some none Germanic ancestry makes these people a definable group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expected to vote to delete. Then I gave the list a careful look. It is carefully crafted, with a deft hand for the nuanced shades of European ethnicity (Odilo Globocnik, Austrian Nazi, Germanised Slavic (Slovene and Czech) descent) and (Erich Kempka,[2] German Nazi, Ruhr Polish descent) The article does not exhibit the simplistic conflations of nationality and ethnicity that some in this discussion have accused it of. I do have a a caveat about sourcing. The two examples that I just mentioned link articles that include brief discussions of the family's ethnic origin. Some (Joachim Mrugowsky) link to articles that lack such discussions. I suggest that all names on this page need to be supported by WP bios that source the ethnic background of the family.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a good point, and I agree that the article is full of high-quality research. But even though there is no set notability standard for lists, list notability "is based on the group". I don't think there's any reliable source that articulates a definition or analysis of the relevant topic, "Nazis of non-Germanic descent". North of Eden (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Nazism and race, Nuremberg Laws, Aryan certificate etc. This lists people of dubious Aryanness, who would otherwise be unelligible for citizenship, party membership, military ranks, political offices, etc. Very interesting detail of Nazi history.--Zoupan 18:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://trade.whistler.com/about/stats/

[1]