Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 October	16 October >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 ^Talk 01:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Shamsuddin[edit]

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

Poorly written, subject not mentioned in either source InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [changed per comments below about sources] ~~Delete~~. As noted by the nominator, the current article has no references whatsoever that actually mention Mir Shamsuddin. I've found brief mentions in unreliable sources [1] [2] and brief mentions in what may or may not be reliable sources [3] [4]. It's possible he could be notable, but at this point proof is lacking. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source 4 is a journal entry with numerous sources from Oxford University. Source 3 is an organization for sufis in Pakistan. In addition, here are other sources that mention him:
this source www.icpsnet.org/description.php?ID=231 by the International Center For Peace Studies mentions him in the context of Islamic Law in Kashmir.
ejje.weblio.jp/content/Mir+Shamsuddin, perhaps unreliable, but says that he succeeded in converting nearly two thirds of the Kasmiris to Shiite Islam.
budgam.nic.in/pgHolyPlaces.htm states that he has a tomb.
www.cknp.org/cms/culture-play/cultural-routes/conservation-and-research/ of Central Karakorum National Park also mentions that he spread Islam in the region.
books.google.com/books?id=8J3YdskW00sC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=mir+shamsuddin+iraqi&source=bl&ots=Y6S6ksx-j9&sig=OX9emRz_t9uBfoWnoi-7R_cWpoc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KSdDVKG8H8yzyAT4pYHICg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=mir%20shamsuddin%20iraqi&f=false is a book titled Lanakh Through Ages that also mentions Mir Shamsuddin.

These individual sources establish at least some notability for the subject, even if not all three of them are reliable. My only suggesion is that the article be moved to Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi because that is what the sources seem to call him (the article itself puts "the Iraqi" after his name in bold in the first sentence of the article). PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fourth of the four sources given by User:Traveling Man is an upload of a reliable source - the original is a chapter in this book published by Oxford University Press. In addition, this book, which also seems to be a reliable source, devotes most of a page to his career, and GBooks produces at least a few more passing mentions (as well as a number of false positives). Where one is looking at religious figures of about 500 years ago from outside Europe, there does tend to be quite a degree of systemic bias - with what look like two solid sources, I regard notability as established, though we could certainly do with more. PWilkinson (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Potter[edit]

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

Unremarkable academic. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Ignore the Guardian result when doing your verification searches, she is a different Claire Potter. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also be wary of results for Clare Potter! But I note it is an unsourced BLP. Mabalu (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, full of WP:OR, and no real claim to notability. Not that it bears on notability, but article is likely an autobio or fanpage, as it was created as the first article-space edit of a new SPA. 15:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC).
Weak delete for lack of evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. She's a recently promoted full professor at a good school, though, so most likely the people who promoted her know more than we see here. The complete lack of references is also a problem, but a fixable one. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC. Quis separabit? 02:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Euryalus (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Tarvydas dress of Rebecca Twigley[edit]

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

Non-notable red dress. Would suggest redirecting to the page of the dressmaker, but she doesn't have one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non-notable in what context? I'm not an avid watcher of red-carpet events but I seem to recall that this dress is mentioned quite regularly in TV and radio commentary about sport events such as the Brownlow medal count. I see it on a par, in an Australian context, with the black dress of Liz Hurley from 1994. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of those articles that makes wikipedia look stupid and trivial, but it clearly meets our notability guidelines, so it will have to stay. Sigh! --Bduke (Discussion) 05:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this article, and my reasons for doing so are well stated in the two previous posts. Yes, the subject matter of the article may seem trivial, but it has been mentioned or discussed in the mainstream media pretty much every year for the last 10 years, both in connection with football and in connection with fashion, and is now routinely referred to as "That Dress" (as is Liz Hurley's dress). In fact it is arguably the second most famous dress ever worn in Australia (after Jean Shrimpton's Derby Day dress). Additionally, the wearer of the dress, the person she accompanied to the event, and the maker of the dress all fit the notability requirements, although the maker is not (yet) the subject of an article. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Mabalu has now created an article about the designer. Bahnfrend (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Despite the inevitable shudders of those who consider anything related to fashion, dress, and "women's stuff" trivial and automatically non-notable (a well documented attitude throughout art and design history), this dress certainly passes notability. Will have to bear it in mind for the 2004 article when I get back to those. Mabalu (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as silly as I find these articles personally, I can't deny there's enough coverage to propel this past the WP:GNG. Eagerly looking forward to a world where the human being inside the clothing is considered more important than the clothing itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Response. In this particular case, the wearer became a person of sufficient notability to warrant being the subject of her own article largely because she caused such a stir by wearing the dress. Bahnfrend (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also a friendly note to nominator - apart from notable exceptions such as Jean Muir, many fashion designers don't care for the term "dressmaker" which is seen as dismissive of the work they do. Mabalu (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why can't this be trimmed, compacted, and redirected to Rebecca Twigley? Quis separabit? 02:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. There are at least two reasons. First, the dress is independently (or, at least, separately) notable. You might as well ask why the article isn't redirected to Ruth Tarvydas (or 2004 Brownlow Medal for that matter). Secondly, the Rebecca Twigley (Rebecca Judd) article, if modified as suggested, would give undue prominence to the dress. Judd has now been a public figure for more than 10 years, and she has done a lot more than just wear one dress. Bahnfrend (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-dokey. Quis separabit? 18:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: per reasons cited by article creator, @Bahnfrend. Quis separabit? 18:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing vote -- no longer am sure. Quis separabit? 21:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. OK, I know that I should gracefully bow to the general opinion here and withdraw this. However, I'm with Bduke that this kind of article makes us look trivial and stupid, so I'm going to try to explain why.

Notability: This topic is not notable. It gets about 27 hits on Google, and every single one of them derives from this article; it gets 0 hits on Gbooks; removing the quotes from the title raises that to one useful hit.
Topic and title: We don't do this here, it's a kind of WP:SYNTH. We don't have articles on the Apocryphal Elizabeth-trodden muddy velvet cloak of Sir Walter Raleigh or the 10-inch diameter Alec Issigonis wheels of the Morris Mini-Minor or the Gold-plated Rolls-Royce-coachbuilt London taxi of Nubar Gulbenkian or the Small square black moustache of Adolf Hitler or the Prominent implant-enhanced breasts of Pamela Anderson, even though these are all topics which have been discussed in innumerable sources and are fully notable (though not necessarily under those silly titles) by our standards. Those topics are covered in their respective parent articles, just as this one should be.
Event: This isn't really about a dress, it's about one particular occasion when one particular person wore that dress, a single event. I don't believe it satisfies our requirements at WP:EVENTCRIT.
There's nothing here that couldn't just as well be covered in the excellent new article on Tarvydas (chapeau to Mabalu for that). If it is absolutely to be kept then it should be moved to an encyclopaedic title such as Ruth Tarvydas red dress. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the titling convention for other individual dress articles on Wikipedia (see Green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez. I think that if it was added to Ruth Tarvydas there would be undue weight on the single design when she did other dresses, to the effect that it would appear as if she had only done one dress in a nearly 50-year career, and having looked into it, I think it is a notable dress in its context. It has received commentary and coverage over a period of time. While not AS significant as the J-Lo dress or Jean Shrimpton's Ascot dress, it still has had sufficient impact. I wouldn't have created the article personally (although I am thinking about doing a few for significant historical dresses myself), and while I'm not completely unsympathetic to your point of view, I think the fact it's been done, done properly, and done well, makes it a clear fait accompli. Mabalu (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also - searching by the exact article title as quoted? Of course the Google hits are going to be skimpy. A search for general strings such as "Tarvydas red dress" pulled up an article about the dress itself and dozens of articles mentioning and referencing this exact dress - tens of thousands of Google hits, many of the first hits from newspaper articles specifically describing the dress, the controversy, and the sexual-political and social issues that it inspired discussion of. Similar results for Rebecca Twigley red dress and other logical Google searches. I think that this is clearly a very significant design from an Australian fashion viewpoint. In fact, we have a number of very similar articles on individual objects and have had for quite a long time - J-Lo's green dress was recently assessed as a Good Article. Individual dresses can be treated and considered as works of art, anathema as the idea may be to some. Perhaps in this instance it is also comparable to a book - people looked at her, and read all sorts of things, and then discussed their thoughts and interpretations to such an extent that the dress ceased to be merely a dress, but became a text. (I did MA History of Textiles and Dress - so I speak this kind of frock wittery fluently!) And many years after the fact, when so many other frocks have been long forgotten, it continues to be talked about and discussed and reflected on. Personally, I find that quite interesting and noteworthy. Mabalu (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of what Mabalu says is true. Here are some further comments. First, the dress was the catalyst for a major change in the Brownlow Medal ceremony. It went from being a footballers event to being a WAGs plus footballers event. Secondly, the dress greatly increased the prominence of its (also otherwise notable) designer - a good example of someone who worked very hard for many years to become an "overnight success". Thirdly, the dress really did make an overnight success of its wearer, and she's still a public figure, well known in more than one big city. Fourthly, it has had long term coverage, and not only about its original public outing - eg of its auction, of its later sale to someone else, of its being the centerpiece of its designer's retrospective, etc. Not all of these points are obvious as yet from the article, but the article is a work in progress. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the dressmaker, who does have a page. The best justification for a separate article would be if it were an artifact of substantial enough cultural or artistic value to be in a major museum. The effect as catalyst for a change in one aspect of a medal ceremony is not sufficient. One can interpret extensively any object, and if this is done over time by sufficiently important sources, it can cause notability: perhaps this will eventually be a major example of fashion history, not just something incidental. But given the sources in the article, that is not now the case. Every sufficiently sexy dress worn at a prominent occasion brings forth newspaper comment. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response. For a start, what about the wearer and the event, both of which also have a page? But let me engage with your key point. The article is not in a major museum because it is privately owned. On the question whether it would be accepted as a donation to a major museum, there are two obvious possibilities, the National Sports Museum and the National Museum of Australia. According to the latter museum's Collections Development Plan, pages 24-25, focus themes include "... Australian participation and interest in sport and other leisure pursuits from elite to local levels ... [including] popular interest and involvement in public commemorations, celebrations and other festivals", and collecting examples include "... material culture of sports and leisure pursuits, including objects related to people who have made significant national contributions in these fields ...", and "... material culture of people who have made significant national contributions in the field of ... cultural arts." I would have thought that the dress easily fits the first of these criteria because of its association with both football and its (notable) wearer (a model and long time tv presenter), the second criterion because of its association with both the wearer and its (notable) designer, and the third because of its association with the designer. It is, for example, easily the most notable dress the wearer will ever wear, and also the most notable dress the (now deceased) designer ever made in her 40 year career. And remember, we're looking here at the collection policy of a generalist national museum, not just a regional or specialist museum (such as the National Sports Museum). Isn't that enough? Bahnfrend (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response: "Every sufficiently sexy dress worn at a prominent occasion brings forth newspaper comment." - Yes, but not every dress continues to receive coverage or attention on this kind of level days, or weeks, or months, after the fact, let alone years - and it is more than passing mentions. This dress, out of thousands of others like it, lodged in awareness and consciousness in a wholly unprecedented way. It doesn't even have the excuse of being worn at the Oscars or for a major ceremony, or worn by a royal bride or even by a huge celebrity - it just happened to capture all this attention. Any other dress could have done it, but this one did. Why? Search me. But yes, I do believe this one is very notable - and the level of coverage and detail in the article means that wherever you merge it to, it will overwhelm the article it is merged to, giving undue weight. Mabalu (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mabalu's various comments. It clearly has passed GNG, and it wouldn't be correct to redirect this title to the article about the event, the wearer, or the designer. Of course those other articles should include mentions of this article and link to it. Witty lama 20:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is It Fair?[edit]

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

The title makes searching difficult but I cannot find the necessary coverage in reliable sources that covers this organisation directly and in detail to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur. The lack of sources is not a good sign, and if sources can't be found for the article, it should be deleted. GethN7 (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates wikipedia is not a soapbox GiraffeBoy (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand User:Alligators1974 / GiraffeBoy - you created the article. Are you now suggesting your work was an attempt to provide the organisation with a soapbox? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough I don't remember why I created an article seven years ago. Alligators1974 (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hard to find sources for this organization. Even then the article in its current state does not meet the guidelines. GamerPro64 17:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of genesis, the subject fails WP:ORGDEPTH. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tadas Jonkus[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer Peter Rehse (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no significant coverage to meet GNG. Subject doesn't meet the notability standards for boxers(NBOX), MMA fighters (NMMA), or kickboxers (KICK). He won 1 of 7 MMA fights (none were top tier) and 9 of 27 boxing matches. His kickboxing record appears better but not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't appear to meet WP:KICK and my search didn't find the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Like the article's sources, the coverage I found consisted of routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:KICK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aniket Gupta[edit]

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

Non-notable karateka. This is an autobiographical entry from a single purpose account. Quite a bit of attempt has been made to fix this up and see if there is something salvageable but it doesn't look like it. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete GNG is not fulfilled. Minor mentions in some news articles. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage and nothing shows he's a notable martial artist.Mdtemp (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notable guidelines. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Music as a Weapon EP[edit]

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

Limited release. Unreferenced. Does not meet WP:ALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being limited releases alone is not grounds of deletion (see Kira Kira Killer). But Merge to Music as a Weapon (the tour) or Delete? 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Biblio worm 01:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streltsy (Hungary)[edit]

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

I can't find any sources for this, including the mentioned references in both this and the hu-wiki article (which I wouldn't be able to read anyways). It would help if someone who knows Hungarian could look for something, but otherwise I don't think there's enough evidence that it meets WP:GNG. (Side note: I tagged it first, then decided to come to AfD.) ansh666 07:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Very small entry with one source. Looks more like a dictionary entry than a encyclopedic erntry. Kingjeff (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it's about the militia of a single village—probably not notable—although it's hard to tell. The term is a very generic one, equivalent to Schütze. —innotata 17:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.P - Live on earth[edit]

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

Run of the mill promotional tour. There are some sources, but they do not provide in-depth discussion of the tour as is required in WP:NTOUR--these sources are announcements, and one is a review of one concert; the articles in Time and Billboard really only discuss the group's marketing strategy, in which these concerts are hardly the main topic of discussion. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to B.A.P (band), omitting the Concerts section unless its content can be verified by reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 1992 Windsor Castle fire#Restoration programme. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Downes[edit]

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

Article purports to be about an architect, but actually is entirely about the restoration and redesign of Windsor Castle after its major fire in 1992. There's no evidence of biographical info about Downes and scant proof that any exists in published form. Downes was the project architect on behalf of the firm that won the job. I'd suggest that most of this is good material to merge into 1992 Windsor Castle fire#Restoration programme, but Giles Downes fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fine balance on this one. WP:CREATIVE gives the guidance that notability for a creative professional includes that "the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" or that "the person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." On that basis, I'd suggest that Downes certainly is notable - respected academics like Anthony Emery, Nigel Jones, John Robertson have written on his role in the rebuilding of Windsor Castle, which is certainly a significant monument, and a Google search on "giles downes" & "windsor castle" gives around 1,630 hits, so there's some basis of notability for that on the more popular side of life. He's also had a work published by the Royal Institute of British Architects, and been the Master of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters, one of the Livery Companies in the City of London.

On the other hand, as you note, his personal life isn't extensively covered that I can find. I'd probably vote in favour of keep, but it's a close call in my mind. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some coverage in The Independent and Philidelphia Inquirer. I also note he was a Master of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters (as well as a Senior Warden as already listed) per this and if the link is to believed, has won quite a few awards and has a CVO for his architectural work. JTdale ^Talk 23:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC) < Found a reference on his CVO here. JTdale ^Talk 23:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblio worm 01:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Windsor Castle. There's not a lot of info on what happened after the fire, and it appears that this is the only project he has done - a large one - which acquired significant coverage. The project is notable, and his work on it made it notable, but as he hasn't done anything else of significance according to searches, he fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 13:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sex and Love Tour. Dennis - 2¢ 17:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pitbull and Enrique Iglesias Tour[edit]

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

Basically a schedule for a concert. No need for a article. Wgolf (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect – To Enrique Iglesias should do the trick. 14:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Sex and Love Tour. A few things here. (1) The tour itself is notable: [5][6][7] (and many more Spanish-language sources that I can't read). (2) An orphaned article already exists at Sex and Love Tour. (3) No source calls the tour "Pitbull and Enrique Iglesias Tour" exactly, but while I don't think it's a worthwhile redirect (and do think delete is the best option), redirects are cheap. czar ♔ 01:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The trend of the post-relistings comments is definitely for deletion, and the consensus seems to be that even though sources do exist, those sources are insufficient for establishing enduring encyclopedic notability. Deor (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Alexander[edit]

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

Same reasoning as last deletion discussion (see 2nd Nomination, article was deleted) about self-claim as most vain person in the world, which has many other claimants. Most of the claims are from 2006 in a single show, he mostly vanished from media after. The 1st link from 2011 isn't a reliable source. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without seeing the previous (deleted) versions I am not sure to claim 'deleted article recreated', therefore ask for a speedy deletion; but I think the nominator is right. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the declining administrator for speedy deletion; my reasoning was that (a) it was not an attack page, as everything was sourced appropriately and (b) I deemed that there were sufficient improvements from the previous version - there were only about 5 or 6 sources quoted then, there are now lots more, and these are from reasonable third party sources. Having said that, the tone is completely wrong for Wikipedia, he is only notable for WP:ONEEVENT so unless there is a complete rewrite to bring it in line with BLP, then the article should be deleted. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced well now. and even though "you can't buy your way to fame" --um, you can. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No encyclopedic significance other than dubious spending claims and hyperbole. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep Alexander the not-so-great. He's known for buying a Bulgarian village and his outsized vanity (bigger than Simon Cowell's!) / self-indulgence. This is shown by the fact that a later article in the Manchester Evening News doesn't even mention the village he bought. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable for more than one reason. he was reported to have bought a town in bulgaria 1. http://metro.co.uk/2006/06/06/millionaire-names-own-town-155700/ (pic of the article): http://www.scottalexander.tv/admin/img/cke/1380518519_metro%20copy.jpg - separate to that incident, and over a year before buying a town, he was/is also known as the the 'vainest man in britain': http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-400222/Britains-vainest-man.html -- these are two separate events that have been written about in at least 10 different reliable sources. Both events were written about in a New Zealand source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10385277 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9th rock (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://metro.co.uk/2006/06/06/millionaire-names-own-town-155700/ -- "The 31-year-old lifestyle and property tycoon is turning a Bulgarian coastal town into a holiday hotspot for British tourists â and naming it after himself."

And years before buying the Bulgarian town: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/britains-vainest-man-wants-more-1047539 -- "There's no doubting he's had his fair share of lows since his appearance on the documentary - including being dubbed by national newspapers afterwards as "Britain's Vainest Man"."
Approximately 10 more reliable sources are in the article about at least two separate incidents that gave him national/international notability which is documented with sources .

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The principle is NOT TABLOID. There is nothing of encyclopedic value about his career. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblio worm 01:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sadly, per Cramyourspam. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Carrite and DGG have summed it up well. While we often say "two articles in a major pub are good enough", it is simplistic to think that those sources really are enough to pass the rest of the criteria around here. In this case, the tabloid nature of the material doesn't pass the sniff test for an encyclopedia. Saying "you can buy your way to fame" doesn't apply here, as we aren't "fame", we are an encyclopedia, with a set of policies on inclusion designed to punt this kind of useless material. Instead, we let Mtv create reality shows on it. Dennis - 2¢ 17:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims of being the vainest man in britain require much better sourcing than this. TABLOID reporting is not reliable sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Carrite and Dennis Brown above. This is essentially a case of WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:ONEEVENT, in that the tabloid-based reporting about one eccentric purchase made by the subject of this article is not sufficient to show notability or to justify a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Aside for the page creator, nobody, not even the keep !voters, seems enthusiastic about the keeping of this pagespace. Other than buying a small resort in Bulgaria (the sort of minor feat which I suspect many rich people have done much more wisely and quietly), I can't find anything this fellow's ever done which rises to the level of inclusion in an online encyclopedia. Given the recent recreation, and the likelihood that the self-proclaimed "most vain man in the world" might persuade someone to again recreate the page, I suggest we limit future creation of this pagespace to autoconfirmed users. BusterD (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Mercer Brooke, Jr.[edit]

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

DELETE per

WP:NOTE, WP:MEMORIAL, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:COI.

Detail:

WP:COI: obvious conflict of interest: original writer is a single-subject (this subject) account, digging deeper one finds that user Spareribs (the writer) self-identifies as the article subject's own grandson.

WP:RS: un-sourced family geneology, only possible bit of WP:NOTE is "was instrumental in gaining diplomatic relations with the Far East, especially with Japan" has no sources, the claim to being instrumental is not explained or supported. the U.S. has had diplomatic relations with japan since the 1840s, so just how this fellow was "instrumental in gaining diplomatic relations" is unclear. postwar relations-rebuilding perhaps? that was a big project actually involving many people; this fellow's notability in that regard is not defined or sourced.

WP:MEMORIAL: we're an encyclopedia, not an obituary page.

WP:GNG, WP:NOTE: being a professor at a college for a long time is not notable; doing academic writing while serving as college faculty for decades is not unusual --it is expected; writing one book (about your own ancestor) is not notable; being the a third-generation teaching or student legacy at a college is not encyclopedia-level noteworthyness; being a leader of the local historical society or of the regional boy scouts group is not newsworthy. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a bad article on a person who may have been notable. I would like to know what he published in all his years on the faculty: most academics do publish. Being given an emeritus title suggests that he was regarded by the academy as notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while there is passing mention of the subject in non-primary reliable sources, no source appears to provide the subject significant coverage to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, or WP:SOLDIER at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblio worm 01:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before closing, I would ask DGG for his opinion, as he knows the critieria for professors as good or better than anyone. My gut says this guy is notable, but barely. He held the title Professor Emeritus, which I don't think is a title that VMI throws around lightly. Dennis - 2¢ 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Emeritus means Retired Full Professor. It's not a distinguished professorship in the sense used at WP:PROF, The question of notability is more generally whether he is an authority in his field, or , alternatively, notable as NAUTHOR. As to that:

Weak keep What he wrote was three books about his grandfather, John Mercer Brooke , who is quite notable on several accounts. Each of the books is in over 200libraries. Though it would seem a narrow specialty, apparently its important enough for the books to be widely held. I have not yet looked for reviews, but considering that each of them was publuished by a significanbt university press, there will be, and he will prove to meet NAUTHOR, at least technically. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'm familiar with the title, but I also know they don't hand that title out like a party favor. What I suspected is what you found, that it is a borderline case. That is why I didn't just close it without a closer examination. Dennis - 2¢ 23:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Delete. Over the years, I have had a number of interactions with an editor who has used various account names (User:MAURY and User:Brother Officer are two), who has been primarily interested in creating and building pagespace directly related to the Maury and Brooke family genealogies. I can't help but agree with most of what the nominator says. Yes, to memorial. Yes, to COI. Yes, to GNG. This page doesn't seem to meet the standard for inclusion, and my interactions with that sometimes troublesome editor would also lead me toward a bias against inclusion. However, in this case, I'm inclined to assert keep. A professor emeritus who is also the grandson of another VMI professor emeritus? This source which doesn't in my opinion meet the standard for RS, nonetheless bespeaks an extraordinary, influential life. I'm taking the liberty to ask User:Rjensen for input here. As a career American historiographer, if there are sources, Dr. Jensen will know how to find them. I'd ask potential closers to hold up while this content expert offers an opinion. BusterD (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: changing my assertion to delete per analysis by Rjensen. I was on the fence, leaning keep. I often disagree with him on the merits but my experience is that in his field of historiography, Dr. Jensen can be trusted. If he can't find anything significant, that's good enough for me. BusterD (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing notable about his career, and the article is more about his relatives than his achievements. JSTOR has nothing by him. I see no books by him. (The Role of the United States Navy in the Suppression of the African Slave Trade is 14 pages long and is the only item in scholar.google). His dissertation "John Mercer Brooke, Naval Scientist" was not published, was purchased in microfilm by only two libraries, and is not cited by scholars. I found no reviews. He edited some family materials in Ironclads and Big Guns of the Confederacy: The Journal and Letters of John M. Brooke (Univ of South Carolina Press, 2002) but it has received minimal attention. All in all, a very obscure local professor at a small college, with no scholarly or professional reputation of note. Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

every university I know of automatically hands out the position to ever full professor on retirement. Princeton simply calls it "transitioning to emeritus status". Of course, all their full professors are notable. That is not necessarily the case here. But Rjensen, I do see books by him: John M. Brooke, naval scientist and educator (Univ. Press of Virginia) is in 256 libraries; Ironclads and big guns of the Confederacy : the journal and letters of John M. Brooke (U South Carolina Press) is in 174; John M. Brooke's Pacific cruise and Japanese adventure, 1858-1860 (U Hawaii Press) is in 239. WorldCat identities. To be sure, the first book is based on his thesis of the same title, which ,as usual is in essentially no libraries. But that's not true of the book. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG has a better eye for libraries than I do! but Brooke's interests were family-oriented and not oriented to major scholarly concerns. He had one monograph (the 2 others are edited letters & journals). The reviews of the monograph are mixed on the author's abilities. ("The result is a well- researched, thorough, handsomely produced, but essentially pedestrian treatment. This biography is curiously old-fashioned, as if the rhetoric of nineteenth-century manuscripts had insinuated itself into both the author's style and his perception" J. American History); ("On the whole this is an excellent biography" J Southern Hist); ("This is a modest, perhaps dutiful, study of a seemingly uninspired, uninspiring man, long on detail, short on meaning." Isis); ("Perhaps it is too much to ask of someone (even a historian) studying his own grandfather, but George Brooke has not been very critical of John M. Brooke....The volume cannot be considered a 'definitive" biography.'" Technology and Culture). All in all, in my view, all not a notable historian. Delete. Rjensen (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vibhas Sen[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability criteria for paralympic athletes. He has not even competed at the Paralympics, much less won a medal (as required at WP:NSPORTS). A desire to compete at the 2016 games is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paralympic athlete in question here - Vibhas Sen has been qualified and will be representing the nation at World Championship. Agreed that would be the first International competition that the athlete would be participating in and hence there is a lack of good references but that alone does not make is less notable. It is just unfortunate that the media in country in question here does not give much value to the sports and hence lack of references. Mdtemp - are you saying that a national level athlete in particular country is not notable? I think, am missing something here. Would you mind explaining a bit here? In my humble opinion, the paralympic athletes would be representing a country on an international stage and automatically makes him notable.

Mananshah15 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here I will have to agree with Mananshah15. The reason that Vibhas Sen has not got sufficient notability is because the sport is not widely covered by our national media. Having said that, we will surely receive a lot of good references in the future as he is participating in the world championship. His participation will generate a similar buzz as it did with Shiva Keshavan (Indian luge Athlete) when he participated in Sochi. Ekaagar (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In complete agreement with Mananshah15. As per the current references provided it is clearly understandable that Vibhas Sen would be representing our country on an international stage which in itself makes him notable enough to be here. Additional references will organically pop up with once the tournament inches closer. Again, the sad state of media in India should not be a reason for an international level athlete to be excluded from this platform. I vote for Keep Gaurav.jhala88 (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you admit he hasn't received much coverage shows he doesn't meet WP:GNG and he doesn't meet the notability criteria for paralympic athletes (see WP:NOLYMPICS). Saying he will have coverage someday is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Right now he doesn't appear to be notable by WP standards. When he is, then the article can be recreated. Please remember that routine sports coverage does not count towards meeting GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe athelete will be competing in World Championships this month. The First Pointer of WP:CRYSTALBALL says that person participating in near future important international competition event could make him notable. Vibhas Sen as per the press coverage says he will be participating in World Championship in third week of November '14. I believe he could be categorised as notable. Thoughts Mdtemp? Mananshah15 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply appearing at the Paralympics isn't enough to show notability according to WP:NSPORTS so appearing at a world championship is not enough. If he wins a medal, which is the requirement for the Paralympics, then I'll reconsider.Mdtemp (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Hi I would beg To differ here. directly Pasting from WP:NSPORTS which says "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games or have won a medal at the Paralympic Game" We are talking about para-athletes participating in World Championships. I did not find any Manual of Style guidelines for para-athletics International competitions other than Olympics. Mdtemp. Could you help me find something here?Mananshah15 (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your duplicate !vote above; only one is allowed. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The athlete has not competed in the Paralympic games and hence doesn't pass WP:NOLYMPICS. However, the failure to meet the criteria of WP:NOLYMPICS does not mean the article must be deleted. It simply means that notability will need to be established in other ways like WP:GNG. Unfortunately, I can't find any reliable and significant sources, except these -[8], [9]. Also, the athlete competing in the Wheelchair Fencing World Cup this year, does not establish notability. Although the article has potential, as for now, apparently it doesn't pass the guidelines. Harsh (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was scanning the list of new (last 2 weeks) martial arts articles when I found this. He doesn't seem to meet WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. I might reconsider if he medals at the world championships. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Been relisted twice with no new input. To me, this is a classic "no consensus" by count and comment. My gut says that there are probably plenty of hard copy references, but no one has bothered to look them up. Now would be a good time to do so, as the next AFD, the consensus may be much more clear without them. Dennis - 2¢ 17:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Goldberg Products[edit]

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

Wholly non-notable company as per WP:NCORP. This was deleted by PROD and should have stayed that way the panda ₯’ 19:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I restored the article as a contested prod. This is a long-established company, and arguably the biggest name in flying model kit aircraft. The name is instantly recognizable by anyone who got into the hobby as a kid. Most of the reviews of this company's products in magazines such as R/C Modeler were pre-internet so it's unlikely that sources will be found online. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. What I read online (as well as ~Amatulic's comment) makes me think it is possible that "significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic" (quoted from WP:GNG). But is it probable? Maybe, but this article has been around for eight years, with no proof of notability. To again quote WP:GNG, "...merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." Don't any of you long time modellers out there have access to old hard copy sources? --Larry (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have my old magazines. By the time I get around to checking a library this article will probably be deleted. No big deal, as it can always be restored. There isn't much in this article to begin with. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article could be refactored into an article about the owner, who has had significant coverage available online, for example: [10], [11], [12]. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblio worm 02:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Ultron (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:TWODABS not needed. No links to it, so the only plausible way someone could reach it is via a search, in which case they're at the wrong place. The articles already link to each other in natural/sensible ways. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The wp:TWODABS guideline is clearly about the fact that sometimes a dab with just two topics is not needed. There is no harm in having such a dab; it is not necessary to delete it. The guideline goes on about a circumstance when the two-item dab page could be deleted: "If a disambiguation page does not appear to be needed because there are only two topics for the ambiguous title and one of them is the primary topic, but there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future, an {{about}} hatnote can be used to link to a disambiguation page (either in addition to or instead of a link directly to the other article). At the same time, the {{Only-two-dabs}} template should be added to the top of the disambiguation page, which will inform users that the page has only two ambiguous terms, and may be deleted if, after a period of time no additional ambiguous topics are found to expand the disambiguation page...." Well, that has not been done. Post the {{Only-two-dabs}} template to the dab page, and let it rest for 6 months or a year (or, better, forever). There is no urgency to delete this; there could be other meanings; the suggested process has not been followed.

But, hmm, I am not clear if one of the terms is clearly the primary usage. If there is not one being clearly primary, then follow wp:TWODABS: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at wp:Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term. For example, ....". Offhand it seems to me that neither term is primary, so the two-item dab page should simply be kept. --do ncr am 22:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment the 'harm' is how I found it: I was searching for the comic series, typed 'age of ultron' into the search box and three things were listed. The one I wanted was first, the movie third, and the DAB page second. Both the possible pages I might have been looking for were listed, but I might have by accident, especially if I were not familiar with what a disambiguation page is, ended up at this page, and so required a wait and further click to get to the page I wanted. Clearly a few people do end up there as the page view stats are low but not zero. Apart from that it serves no purpose. Before this AfD got it listed in various places there were no links to it, so readers could not navigate to it. In particular Age of Ultron does not link to it, it just links to the one other article directly.

If there's no primary then Age of Ultron should redirect to the dab page but that would require the comic page be moved, requiring I think another discussion. It's possible though that especially once the film release approaches the film will become primary. In which case the comic page should be moved and Age of Ultron should be a redirect to the film, and there will be no need for a disambiguation page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note I've posted notes on the two related talk pages to get more feedback on which if any of the pages is the primary topic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't know why this could be a keep. From WP:TWODABS: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed." Here we have an obviously primary topic at Age of Ultron and then Age of Ultron (disambiguation) which links to only one other page. If Age of Ultron isn't actually the primary topic (though a title rather than a subtitle seems like it would be), it should be given a parenthetical and Age of Ultron turned into the disambig (but, again, a hatnote is what makes sense to me). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Rhododendrites. Unnecessary, and pretty clearly the sort of thing that WP:TWODABS is talking about. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TWODABS and WP:PRECISE, the second article is only a partial title match. Cavarrone 05:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the hatnote at Age of Ultron does all that is needed, this page is superfluous and adds nothing to the encyclopedia. PamD 16:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TWODABS nd MOS:D policy on partial matches. Boleyn (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe we should keep this, as it makes things more clear for me, ergo, what is going on and why I am thinking about it in the forst place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.23.180 (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Italiano[edit]

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

Ex-minor league baseball player. Nothing about his career stands out and the sourcing on him is sketchy at best. Spanneraol (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was good enough to be protected on a 40 man roster for a time. That's not a criteria in BASE/N, though. Sources are sparse and do not appear to establish GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG.--Yankees10 18:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable minor league player....William 17:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2012 (film). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 (film soundtrack)[edit]

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

I strongly suspect this album fails the notability guidelines at WP:NALBUMS. Article appears to have been created in response to track listing being removed from 2012 (film), which was done in accordance with MoS. No significant content here beyond reproduction of information there and non-notable track listing. DonIago (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: Actually, the list of film soundtracks are in a subpage exist and include a link to it on the main article. It can be seen here that why it was removed. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect - To 2012 (film)ShoesssS ^Talk 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012_(film)#Soundtrack. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Relevant information back in to the 2012 (film) page. Remove anything that is no longer needed. (Somewhat new to voting and such here. Let me know if there's anything else I may need to do). Crazy sam10 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2012 (film). I could not find any major sources (though the search was prone to false positives). --Jakob (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the film article. Worth a mention there, though the album didn't receive much coverage itself. Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 (film). --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Silitonga[edit]

(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 by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Studia Humana[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, and promotional tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the parent university article (after writing one :-). Otherwise delete. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Staszek. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no independent coverage of this magazine and no article to redirect or merge it to. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#United Kingdom. I'm not sure this will prove to be the ultimately best redirect, but it's a way to start out. What is clear is that it should not be a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Pooley (Ebola patient)[edit]

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

obvious WP:BLP1E Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#United Kingdom. It's possible BLP1E does not apply because Pooley has made public statements and thus may not be low-profile, but even then, WP:BIO1E applies. He is the second (not even first!) British person to develop Ebola, and is not particularly notable past that. His case is already discussed on the main article and in ZMapp#Use in humans during 2014 Ebola outbreak. Xqxf (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with the redirect.Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as well. Beyond the fact this guy got sick, there is nothing notable about him. He doesn't need his own article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Guardian article is certainly substantial coverage, and that fact that he is planning to go back to Africa to continue his work shows that he is more than just a guy that got sick. BayShrimp (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he does additional notable things past catching Ebola virus, and it is covered by references, then he might be more than that. But just having plans to go back to Africa doesn't show any notability. Xqxf (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a WP:BLP1E and the original prod nominee Secret ^account 02:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Obviously, this person is notable for only one thing, but even in the article's description of catching Ebola, coverage of his story in the article is weak. If he gets Ebola again, or does something otherwise notable, we can un-redirect. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an obvious BLP1E case. Gloss 21:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just so folks know, there are articles like List of Ebola patients and Wikipedia:Healthcare workers contracting ebola (I know, wrong space - i have asked its creator to move it). But i am more concerned with the desire to create articles on these individuals and list their names in WP. I am aware of 3 AfDs: this one and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Atkins (UK nurse) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Eric Duncan. Jytdog (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Having an article on every person who gets the disease just because the mainstream media is crazy is not good encyclopedia writing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. per above Cannolis (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect is an implausible search term. Abductive (reasoning) 15:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. This is a BLP1E and does not qualify for an entire article dedicated to this person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious BLP1E case. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Leavens[edit]

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

Candidate for public office; does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. I am actually proposing that the article be redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2014#District 45 per our usual practice. I am bringing it to AfD to ensure a thorough public discussion. MelanieN (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates in Congressional elections do not pass WP:NPOL, and are not automatically entitled to articles on Wikipedia, just for being candidates — if you cannot properly demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for inclusion under a different guideline before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for inclusion until he wins the election. Either delete or redirect, without prejudice against recreation in November if (and only if) he wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete campaign biography. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources relate to his campaign. If he's elected, he's automatically notable but right now is WP:TOOSOON for notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN; while the subject has received coverage regarding their campaign, this falls under an event and thus the subject falls under WP:BIO1E, and the article should be made into a redirect to the article about the election. If the subject wins the election the article can always be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis - 2¢ 20:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okinoerabu language[edit]

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

This is one of several language articles recently created by Nanshu that is a violation of WP:SYN and includes information that contradicts other articles on Wikipedia and bases much of its existence due to a separate listing in the Ethnologue and a single sentence entry in Oxford's linguistics dictionary that I cannot remember the exact title to. There was a large discussion at WT:LANG to effectively censure me for having the gall to contest Nanshu's proposed new articles.

The language spoken on Okinoerabu is considered elsewhere on Wikipedia (including on other language projects) as a dialect of the language spoken in northern Okinawa, the Kunigami language, even though the article was heavily edited by Nanshu to suit his new classification system. There is minimal coverage of this topic outside of mirrors of Wikipedia, even when using the alternate name of "Oki-no-erabu language" instead of searching for "Okinoerabu language". It is reliant on separate coverage in the Ethnologue and the Oxford linguistics encyclopedia (again I can't remember the exact title) as well as sources that are describing this as a dialect (方言) rather than a separate language (語). The article is simply an extensive description of Nanshu's new classification system for the languages of the northern half of the Ryukyu Islands archipelago and massive IPA tables. This is not a valid topic for separate discussion on Wikipedia when there's very little to validate that Okinoerabujima has its own language, particularly one separate from Yoronjima and the Kunigami/Yanbaru region of Okinawa Island. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's listed in some sources as a language, shouldn't it be merged with the Kunigami language article if you are correct? —innotata 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, only the Ethnologue and the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics list OKN as a separate language, and even then they dedicate like a sentence to it in each location. The result of this should be merging anything useful that isn't Nanshu's original synthesis and classification back into Kunigami language as discussion as a dialect rather than anything unto itself, but that's only if anything is worth salvaging at this point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the name exists in reliable sources, it should be redirected at least even if there's nothing worth salvaging. —innotata 02:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I was doing, but Nanshu demanded that I was wrong for turning it into a redirect and I was a threat to the encyclopedia so here we are at AFD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong is wrong and even dishonest on numerous points, but here I focus on one point. Even if we choose merger, which is a bad option IMHO, we need to choose which article the article of Okinoerabu is merged into. Okinoerabu–Northern Okinawan / Okinoerabu–Yoron–Northern Okinawan / Kunigami is an artifact of comparative studies. It was first proposed in 1972, independently of the speakers' own perception. It only represents one hypothesis regarding the number of primary branches of Amami–Okinawan. Another theory, which was recently re-evaluated by Pellard (2010), does not support the existence of this group. Okinoerabu is a child of Southern Amami, which is one of two children of Amami. This is what I outlined at Amami–Okinawan languages and was reconfirmed at the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong. Also, this is what Ryulong is desperately trying to hide. --Nanshu (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please ignore any and all arguments in Ryulong's nomination that don't have a source attached to them. Sources considering Okinoerabu a language include
- Tomoko Arakaki (28 June 2013). Evidentials in Ryukyuan: the Shuri Variety of Luchuan: A Typological and Theoretical Study of Grammatical Evidentiality. BRILL. p. 7. ISBN 978-90-04-25340-7.
- International Encyclopedia of Linguistics: AAVE - Esperanto. Oxford University Press. 2003. p. 335. ISBN 978-0-19-513977-8.
The latter points out that Okinoerabu has no mutual intelligibility with Kunigami, to which Ryulong would like to redirect it. Regardless of whether Okinoerabu should be considered a language or a dialect (it seems to me, linguists prefer the former, politicians the latter), it is an active academic field of study, and there are detailed secondary sources about it, some of them obviously not in English. The present article cites a number of them, but is hardly exhaustive. Note for example Uwano, Zendo: Materials for the accents of verbs in Okinoerabu islands dialects. Does this sound detailed enough? There was a conference last month at Okinawa International University where one paper was titled "Non-spatial setting in the Masana dialect of the Okinoerabu language". In other words, scholars are actually studying subdialects of Okinoerabu. That's secondary sources addressing the topic in detail, and it's all we need to know here. Andreas JN 466 18:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is one sentence in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics about Okinoerabu. It is not enough to satisfy this massive article that is based on research on the dialects.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is one more example of you making a statement about a source that upon examination is found to be incorrect. What the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics actually says about Okinoerabu is this: Oki-No-Erabu: spoken in Japan in north central Okinawa; Oki-no-erabu Island. Dialects are East Oki-No-Erabu, West Oki-No-Erabu. Inherent intelligibility is generally impossible or very difficult with other Ryukyuan languages and Japanese. Dialect differences are noticeable, but communication is not impossible. Beyond that, it's a really odd argument to make. No one has said an article should be written on the strength of that one paragraph in the IEOL. There is a wealth of more detailed sources available. Andreas JN 466 10:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all that book says and you and Nanshu have taken it to be "make it a separate article" when north central Okinawa is Kunigami. There are no other detailed sources. No one has considered Okinoerabu as a language other than whoever wrote that book and Nanshu.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Andreas pointed out, there are numerous linguistic sources for Okinoerabu. Only a total lack of knowledge about the language in question can lead to such a nonsensical deletion proposal. And whether Okinoerabu is a dialect (dialect of what, BTW?), language, language variety or whatever has nothing to do with the deletion discussion. It only affects the article's title (i.e., possible renaming). --Nanshu (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of those refer to it as a dialect and there's very little in English to support its existence as a language unto itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JN466. His sources and evidence are convincing throughout these listings. HOT WUK (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis - 2¢ 16:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bagla[edit]

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

Not-really-sourced stub which admits that the place probably doesn't exist and speculates as to why. The only source doesn't give a location, which other than the name would appear to be the only factual claim. I have to assume that this was dumped in from some sort of geographical database, but as we know from experience, these aren't good enough as sole sources; really there is no proof that this name is valid. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sourced, the place may no longer exist, but notability encompasses its entire history. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have a history, at least not in our article. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.~~Comment~~ It will take me some time to look into the details of this Afd, but I wanted to note that I agree about the speculation; the second sentence ("It is suspected...") constitutes original research. I've removed it. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I use GEOnet search[13] on Bagla, it comes back with this match: "Bagla (Unverified - D)". If this means what I think it means, then Bagla may or may not have ever existed. That isn't good enough for notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I PRODed this article earlier because I could not verify that Bagla ever existed, under any name. There were no sources to be found anywhere. Out of curiosity I put its alleged latitude and longitude into google satellite view, to see if they matched a populated place, and it turned out to be a place on the outskirts of Ərkivan village; Google maps does not have an individual name for it. It cannot even be reliably verified that this place ever existed. Reyk _YO! 03:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've given my rationale in a very similar case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gasaneri (2nd nomination). Deor (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis - 2¢ 20:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yoron language[edit]

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

This is one of several language articles recently created by Nanshu that is a violation of WP:SYN and includes information that contradicts other articles on Wikipedia and bases much of its existence due to a separate listing in the Ethnologue and a single sentence entry in Oxford's linguistics dictionary that I cannot remember the exact title to. There was a large discussion at WT:LANG to effectively censure me for having the gall to contest Nanshu's proposed new articles.

Yoron's dialect is one of the few in the set of new articles (amongst those heavily edited to favor Nanshu's new classification) that has some possible merit, but as with Tokunoshima language, there's little acknowledgement as this as a language separate from others (in this case Kunigami language) and much of the sources used define what is spoken on Yoronjima as a dialect (方言); cursory searches in Japanese for "Yoron language" (与論語) bring up various websites and other sources that simply classify it as somewhat identical to what's spoken in the northern region of Okinawa (the Kunigami language). In the end, Wikipedia does not need to host the WP:SYN violating research of Nanshu to focus exlusively on his new classification system and the IPA tables that are tenuously sourced. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether something contradicts other articles on Wikipedia is immaterial: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and secondly, in a field where even reliable sources contradict each other (see [14] for background) Wikipedia should reflect this diversity rather than endorse one view. Whether you consider Yoron and other Ryukyuan idioms dialects or languages (sources describing Yoron as a language include the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics published by Oxford University Press; hardly a fringe group), there are plenty of sources for an article on Yoron, and there is broad agreement that Yoron is not mutually intelligible with Kunigami or other Ryukyuan languages/dialects. In addition to the sources currently cited, there is detailed coverage in secondary sources like Uwano, Zendo: "The multi-pattern accent system of the Higashi-ku dialect of Yoron" (listed here); Yamada, Minoru: "Usage of nominals of the Yoron dialect" (1981)[15] along with sociolinguistic coverage like Noguchi's "Dialect Acquisition and Code-switching on Yoron Island" (1987). Andreas JN 466 19:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a single sentence about the Yoron "language" in the IEL. Not enough to satisfy separate coverage. This article is a content fork of a hell of a lot of other content on the project puffed up to look important on its own.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straw man, as no one says there should be an article because of that short paragraph in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. I only mentioned the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics for the fact that Yoron is described as a language there that is mutually unintelligible with the other Ryukyuan languages. It's the sum total of sources available that determines notability, and whether you think this is a dialect or a language, Yoron has detailed sources available that can be summarised in Wikipedia because it has been and is being studied in depth. Andreas JN 466 09:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But everyone is basing the fact that there should be a separate article on this and the other languages because they happen to be mentioned minimally by Ethnologue and the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Yoron is arguably the only out of this group that Nanshu created that has any chance of separate coverage but most of it appears to be extremely minimal.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ryūlóng, what is your take on the claim that Yoron is not mutually intelligible with Kunigami or other Ryukyuan varieties? --JorisvS (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not personally sure on this matter. Out of all of the languages Nanshu created articles for, Yoron is the only one that could possibly have its own suitable article, but searches in Japanese bring up more crossover, and more coverage of Yoron as a dialect than a language unto itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But of course Japanese-language sources tend to refer to Ryukyuan languages as dialects of Japanese, which just is not true and which makes us having to take that specific part at least with a grain of salt. --JorisvS (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up 与論語 and 国頭語 together and the first result is a video of people ostensibly speaking Yoron-ese but it's subtitled as being also Kunigami.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I've cited in the article, the langauge in question even has two full-scale dictionaries. Okinoerabu–Northern Okinawan / Okinoerabu–Yoron–Northern Okinawan / Kunigami is an artifact of comparative studies and its existence is questioned by Pellard (2010) among others. There are numerous linguistic sources for Yoron. The titles of these papers demonstrate that those who focused on the language have never identified it with Kunigami. And whether Yoron is a dialect (dialect of what, BTW?), language, language variery or whatever has nothing to do with the deletion discussion. It only affects the article's title (i.e., possible renaming). --Nanshu (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources say "dialect" and not "language (unto itself)". And there are minimal sources that discuss Yoron as a language unto itself, not to mention your claims of no intersectionality with Kunigami can be dismissed as the Japanese don't use "Kunigami go" or "Kunigami hougen" for the name of the language identified as "Kunigami".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above sources and rationale. The evidence presented shows this is a documented language worthy of an article. HOT WUK (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis - 2¢ 20:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tokunoshima language[edit]

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

This is one of several language articles recently created by Nanshu that is a violation of WP:SYN and includes information that contradicts other articles on Wikipedia and bases much of its existence due to a separate listing in the Ethnologue and a single sentence entry in Oxford's linguistics dictionary that I cannot remember the exact title to. There was a large discussion at WT:LANG to effectively censure me for having the gall to contest Nanshu's proposed new articles, which throughout discussion did realize that amongst the various languages in question, Tokunoshima was one of several that had the weakest level of notability and discussions in reliable sources. Most sources consider the language spoken on Tokunoshima as a dialect of the central Amami language (another article Nanshu heavily edited to justify his new classification of these languages). There's little coverage of this as separate from anything, and not certainly an article that cites Japanese academic papers on this dialect (方言) that deserves a page dedicated to espousing Nanshu's research on the northern Ryukyuan languages and extensive discussion on the phonetics. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Described as a language rather than dialect in International Encyclopedia of Linguistics by Oxford University Press, plenty of detailed coverage to be found in Google Scholar and Google Books in addition to those currently cited (see e.g. survey summarised in Takeshi Shibata (1999). Sociolinguistics in Japanese Contexts. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-014979-1.). Andreas JN 466 19:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how much coverage it has in there? One sentence. That's not notability. Tokunoshima is a dialect of Amami. Not a language unto itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a paragraph, not a sentence, and the reason I mentioned it is that this authoritative reference work describes it as a language, not a dialect, and points out that it is mutually unintelligible with other Ryukyuan languages. You seem to be hung up on the question whether these are dialects or languages. As far as I can see, Western scholars tend to view them as languages, on linguistic criteria, and Japanese authors tend to describe them as dialects, based on political considerations (fostering national unity). To me, that question is entirely immaterial. What is clear is that this speech form, whether dialect or language, is a part of humanity's cultural heritage that has been and is being studied in great detail by Japanese and Western scholars. That makes it notable, and that's all this discussion is required to determine. Andreas JN 466 09:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a paragraph. It's like 2 or 3 sentences that are identical to every other minor Ryukyuan language listed in the IEL. And no, Western scholars do not universally refer to these as languages. Tokunoshima has barely any coverage, English or Japanese, that separates it as a language from the language of Amami-Oshima and Kikaijima.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether Tokunoshima is a dialect (dialect of what, BTW?), language, language variery or whatever has nothing to do with the deletion discussion. It only affects the title of the article (i.e., possible renaming). As for notability, Ryulong refuses to face the reality. Fukushima Chitsuko alone has published numeous articles on Tokunoshima. --Nanshu (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tokunoshima is an Amami dialect per UNESCO's classification that Northern Amami, Southern Amami, Kikai, and Tokunoshima comprise a single Amami language and one person's research into this dialect/language does not make it a language unto itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it is only a defined dialect, there is no reason why we canot have an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JN466. HOT WUK (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Dennis - 2¢ 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Okinawan language[edit]

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

This is a content fork of the original version of the article Kunigami language, edited to suit the proposed new classification of the Ryukyuan languages by Nanshu. To this effect, Nanshu had repeatedly modified the other article (amongst others) to suit his desires on this page. There is no entity that refers to a "Northern Okinawan language" that is not the "Kunigami language". There is extremely minimal coverage of this proposed language name on the Internet except in mirrors of Wikipedia, considering most sources equate "Northern Okinawan language" with what is called "Kunigami". —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kunigami language (or merge Kunigami language into Northern Okinawan). Seems clear that these are at least sometimes used as two names for the same group of varieties. Questions of classification and naming should be maintained in a single location with weight assigned to viewpoints according to their weight in the literature. A short google scholar search suggests that "Northern Okinawan dialects" is used more frequently than "Kunigami language", so maybe Kunigami should be merged into this article instead. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kunigami is the name given in Ethnologue though. It's simply not the name that Japan has given to the language/dialect. According to the University of the Ryukyus' "Nakijin Dialect" dictionary, it's "Yanbaru Kutuuba".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is frequently the case that languages are grouped differently and named differently in different sources. Hence what we have to do is try to help the reader to understand what the different names refer to and what is the basis for the different classifications. That is best done by having the article located at what ever is the most commonname used in English language publications. What that most common name is should be decided by talk page consensus.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Kunigami language" appears more often in English media. "Northern Okinawan language" is simply a stretch considering that "Kunigami-go" (Kunigami language) and "Kunigami hōgen" (Kunigami dialect) are not used in Japan but "Okinawa Hokubu Hōgen" (Northern Okinawa dialect) is instead. "Yanbaru Kutuuba" is never called "Northern Okinawan language" in English.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a discussion for the talkpage, not for an AfD.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a discussion for here to show that "Northern Okinawan language" is not a term that exists to define any langugae found in the northern regions of Okinawa Island.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That claim is incorrect, as a google scholar search shows very clearly. The question about what should be the final name of the article is not relevant for the Afd. I suggest you make an RfC on the talkpage of the article and make an actual survey showing what sources use which terms instead of bickering here and all over wikipedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources that predicated all of this division uses the other name over the one used on this page. I don't see how that's not relevant here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is an AfD discussion not a move discussion. The title is irrelevant, it is the notability of the TOPIC that is being discussed here. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when you !voted to merge either this article to Kunigami language or vice versa, any discussion about which article (title) the information belongs under becomes relevant here. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal dispute, with no relevance for the AFD

Comment. This is only part of Ryulong's continued mass-removal of content with reliable sources. The article of Kunigami language superficially resembles to Northern Okinawan language only because Ryulong removed content with reliable sources. He has never explained to the community why content with reliable sources must be removed completely. He continued mass-removal even after it became obvious to everyone that no one supports Ryulong's mass-removal. So the first thing to do is restore the content Ryulong removed. And Ryulong's disruptive editing needs wider attention.

We have already started discussing how to improve articles after we recover from Ryulong's mass removal. Since this involes multiple articles, I recommend to discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Reorganization? unless you specifically argue for deletion. --Nanshu (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanshu, I am explicitly seeking out the wider community's view on this rather than constantly having to revert you as you wanted in the first place. There is no such thing as the "Northern Okinawan language". This is just a content fork of the topic described at Kunigami language. This was sent to PROD for that exact reason. Now it's at AFD. Stop making this about "me vs. you". This is about me not agreeing that this is a valid topic that you happened to make. Every single discussion you are linking to was started in a way so you could get the better end out of it for yourself. You intentionally worded the questions in the straw polls section you created such that there was only one answer: "Ryulong is bad and we should ban him". Your restructuring doesn't have consensus. Your constant changes to existant articles don't have consensus. You only vaguely have consensus over people thinking these pages might be suitable. I do not. I brought it to AFD so it could be discussed by more than 6 people at the linguistics project. Each article stands on its own and you are the person who violated WP:MULTI first by complaining about me on ANI and WT:LANG simultaneously.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to nominate this article for deletion but Ryulong beat me to it. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kunigami language or Delete. This article is a blatant content fork of Kunigami language. Nanshu has renamed a language to fit his agenda, which is to reclassify the Northern Ryūkyūan languages. This article is a copy-and-paste of Kunigami language, only changing the lead and infobox and adding a section to better fit his newly created language family. In his added section, he cut-and-pasted the first paragraph from Amami–Okinawan languages#Subgroups (which he did on multiple other articles as well[16][17][18]). He has taken sources which label Kunigami language as a "dialect" of Japanese and synthesized them to create this new language. This reclassification and renaming is all based off of fringe theories and his own personal research. This article violates WP:POVFORK, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE, and needs to be merged or deleted. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ryulong's assertion above that "Northern Okinawan language" is not a term that exists to define any langugae found in the northern regions of Okinawa Island is quite simply badly mistaken [19][20][21][22]. Andreas JN 466 18:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first source I wasn't able to see (Google Books is very scatterbrained about free previews), but I looked at the other three. The second source said "Northern Okinawan dialects". I don't interpret this as any one language in particular being talked about. The last source was most compelling in that it gave the family tree as well. However, this "Northern Okinawan language" is still completely identical to Kunigami language; they are the same thing with a different name. This article was originally a copy-and-paste clone that Nanshu just modified. Just look at Northern Okinawan language#Morphology and Northern Okinawan language#Phonology and compare it to the originals on Kunigami language#Morphology and Kunigami language#Phonology. Ethnologue, which Nanshu has gone on and on about because it lists Yoron language and Okinoerabu language as seperate languages, lists "Northern Okinawan" as Kunigami. The fact of the matter is that even if Kunigami is sometimes refered to as "Northern Okinawan", it is still not the majority. I would consider adding an "also known as" to the lede of Kunigami language, but this blatant fork needs to go away. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a search for "Kunigami language" resulted in 5,490 web hits and 6 book hits, while searching for "Northern Okinawan language" resulted in 887 web hits and 3 book hits. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kunigami language article is completely unsourced. It states for example that The Kunigami language includes the Okinoerabujima dialect (島ムニ Shimamuni) and the Yoronjima dialect (ユンヌフトゥバ Yunnu futuba), as a bald fact. The preponderance of scholarly sources I've seen disagree, and consider Kunigami, Yoron and Okinoerabu separate, mutually unintelligible languages. That includes the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics [23] and Evidentials in Ryukyuan [24]. It seems to me the Kunigami article has more sourcing and reliability problems than this one, and should redirect to it. Andreas JN 466 10:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's unsourced doesn't mean that this article is better because this article contains all of the same information because they are the same language. UNESCO considers Okinoerabu and Yoronjima as part of Kunigami. Most other sources consider that as well. Those two minor books do not mean anything in the long run and most certainly do not state that this language is known as Northern Okinawan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good question: why did Nanshu create this article instead of just adding his information to Kunigami language? Although it's kind of pointless to ask him since he's never answered a straight question from me with a straight answer. What do you think Jayen466? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with possible renaming.
First, keep in mind is that there are two distinct entities regarding Kunigami. For the sake of convenience, I call them GKunigami and LKunigami here.
1. GKunigami: Northern Okinawan + Yoron + Okinoerabu
2. LKunigami: Northern Okinawan
Yoron and Okinoerabu cannot be added or removed arbitrarily. If they are added, then it becomes a distinct entity. This is a sensitive issue because GKunigami crosses the political boundary between Kagoshima and Okinawa Prefectures.
Second, how to name these entities has nothing to do with the deletion discussion. Ryulong is desperately trying to hide the fact that names for these entities are far from standardized. Names found in the literature include:
1. GKunigami: Okinoerabu–Northern Okinawan group (Uemura, 1972), Okinoerabu–Yoron–Northern Okinawan dialect (Karimata, 2000) and Kunigami language (UNESCO, 2009)
2. LKunigami: Northern Okinawan ((Uemura, 1963), (Nakamoto, 1990), inter alia) and Kunigami ((Uemura, 1963), inter alia).
I chose the title of Northern Okinawan language only for technical reasons: MediaWiki forces us to choose a unique title per article.
A key finding through the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong is that I still gave too mich weight to UNESCO (2009). Kunigami has been used as an alias for Northern Okinawan (aks LKunigami). Calling GKunigami as Kunigami is like using American English as an umbrella term covering Canadian English and American English. Also note that GKunigami is an artifact of comparative studies. It was first proposed in 1972, independently of the speakers' own perception. And GKunigami's existence is questioned by Pellard (2010) among others. So now I support the following renamings:
1. (LKunigami) Northern Okinawan language -> Kunigami language
2. (GKunigami) Kunigami language -> Okinoerabu–Yoron–Northern Okinawan dialect (per Karimata (2000)) or something else.
--Nanshu (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There should only be one article on any language spoken in Northern Okinawa Island in Kunigami district and Nago City, as well as similar spoken dialects on Okinoerabu and Yoron Islands. This is the "Kunigami language" and not the "Northern Okinawan language".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep This seemsto be an argument over content or naming, not overthe existence of an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The article already existed as Kunigami language until this article was made as a POV fork. This second article should have never been made, and its information could have easily been added to the original article instead. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is enough disagreement on how the criteria should be applied, and it has been relisted twice with no new input, thus I simply can't see any consensus here. Dennis - 2¢ 16:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Namiq Yusifov[edit]

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

Article recreated after PROD. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2014 (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) 11:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. Is it not the case that players appearing in the tournament proper (as opposed to the qualifying rounds) of major European competitions are deemed notable, whether their club plays in an FPL or not? it certainly used to be when there was a string of AfDs for Irish footballers. Mr Yusifov played for Qarabag against Internazionale in the Europa League group stage last week, as Soccerway will confirm even though the article, which is pretty poor, doesn't. Unfortunately, I'm unable to read his local language, so can't contribute references to media coverage indicating likely GNG pass, but the subject has enjoyed a lengthy career in the top teams in his country. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can you show where this consensus was shown? I was certain that it was the other way round, that the player had to have been playing in a match featuring two clubs from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A particular AfD I remember and have managed to find again is this over-bundled group. I looked at the candidates one at a time: the first one I !voted to keep (O'Halloran) had played in rounds proper of UEFA Cup but also looked to be a stonewall WP:BIO pass. The next comment was made by GiantSnowman, who !voted "Delete everyone but O'Halloran, who has played at a sufficent level in European competitions - the rest all fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG". I !voted to keep another two, one on grounds of European participation and likely WP:BIO pass, and the second just on Europe, and then GiantSnowman suggested the AfD be closed and any subjects that hadn't played European football be re-nominated. Which rather implies that he thought at the time, as did I, that playing in the rounds proper was enough for football notability. He may well have changed his mind since, and perceived consensus may have changed since, though without going through hundreds of AfDs I couldn't express an informed opinion. (That AfD was closed as a procedural keep all without prejudice against individual renom.) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, I wasn't aware of his European appearances, that certainly gives more notability, but I'm not sure it's enough given the complete lack of other sourcing. Giant Snowman 19:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 28 Europa League and Champions League appearances in the last 6 seasons. Combined with 170+ appearances on the top team in the top league in his country, putting him at the 3rd most appearances ever in the league. And we wouldn't expect him to easily meet WP:GNG if one started searching through the foreign media? Nfitz (talk)
Keep Passes WP:GNG he was part of the Qarabağ FK which won the Azerbaijan Premier League and played in European matches .This shows he was part of 4-1 win by Qarabağ in Europe then a Azerbaijani record [25][26]. He is playing in the 2014–15 UEFA Europa League group stage and played against Inter Milan with the Captain's armband,this and BBC this is without going into the Azerbaijani language media .Do feel this would passes WP:GNG at least marginally. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblio worm 02:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Farhad Sedeqi[edit]

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

Another volleyball player with a long dead link who is unotable Wgolf (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assuming for the moment that the dead link supports the facts as stated in the article -- it still doesn't matter. It doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. The usual searches didn't turn up anything helpful (just mirrored info copied from Wikipedia). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another Asian volleyball player with no significant coverage or accomplishments to meet WP:ATHLETE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG/WP:NSPORTS Philg88 ^♦talk 05:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Li Lei (beach volleyball)[edit]

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

Another unotable volleyball player with a long dead link Wgolf (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Delete. This person may be different than most of the other AFD's for unnotable soccer players. I'm finding a number of references (even pictures). A reference at http://www.scoreboard.com/team/li-lei/tEGhdskm/ shows he's played in many tournaments. I don't know enough about volleyball to say if these are major enough to impart notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at the talk page for the volleyball project. There's a 2013 thread that talks about possible standards for notability at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volleyball#Notability_guide_for_volleyball. Nothing was settled, but there are some interesting charts. If adopted, it would require participation in the Olympics, Paralympics, and maybe the World Championship. Otherwise, it would require medalling in a major tournament (see the charts for different versions of the list). As far as I can tell, Li Lei didn't meet either requirement, so I'm changing my vote to delete. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. No significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Tod[edit]

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

PROD removed and no reason given. There's no biographical information for this builder/surveyor, no independent sources to prove he had any lasting impact. He published a book, that's it. I've searched the British Newspaper Archive online and can't find anything to support the article. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wouldn't expect to find anything in newspapers. Where we do find coverage is in works like A History of Greenhouses; Glass Houses: a history of greenhouses, orangeries and conservatories; The Pineapple: King of Fruits; &c. There doesn't seem to be a lot to say about him but so what? He seems to have been influential in this field and that's good enough for me. Andrew (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any ref that would say that he was influential. His book might be notable as an early publication (1807, not 1823 as in the article) of drawings of greenhouses, although they were only "simply an advertisement of his work". --ELEKHH^T 03:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this guy had a lasting impact on the development of Greenhouses, then it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.181.58 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No such assertion is made in the article. --ELEKHH^T 03:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable and influential in his field designing and building Hothouses and green houses for the likes of Marquis of Blandford, Earl of Upper Ossory and Queen. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Says who?? Sionk (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources avaiable and shown here [27]. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see one book about the Marquis of Blandford that mentions one of Tod's plans. But the remainder of the search results are different George Tod's, as you must surely know! Sionk (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment – You are right, I never meant to imply that all the citations were in reference to “our” Mr. Tod. You had asked for additional references I was just pointing you to where I discovered them. Regarding my Keep support I looked at several factors. The first was the list of clients that Mr. Tod had for the design and fabrication of green/hothouses. As shown in the first reference supplied, you must be impressed with the cliental Mr. Tod dealt with. As shown, he was advising and working with the cream of the English and Irish gentry. That in itself is notable. Second, I looked at the time period, early 19th century. That means that Mr. Tod was sought after over 190 years ago when it was a time period that you could not be famous based on instant social media but needed to build your reputation through your work efforts and word of mouth. And finally, I noted that Mr. Tod was referenced in 1992 for his design, which can be found on the second page of the Google Scholar page I supplied earlier. That is also impressive. Hence, I found Mr. Tod notable and influential. Hope this explains my rational. Regards, ShoesssS ^Talk 17:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are hard to find, and will be mostly in specialist publications, but there seems to me to be enough out there that indicates he is notable for the early development and popularity of greenhouses, glasshouses, and conservatories [28]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I agree that your search list shows much more convincing evidence of secondary sources many years after Tod's demise. It looks like this AfD is heading for 'Keep' anyway. Sionk (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis - 2¢ 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Hernandez[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, do not believe the page meets GNG. Also I do not believe his credits meet any of the criteria for NACTOR. J04n(talk page) 19:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His only two claims to fame were to appear briefly on two different shows. These roles aren't nearly enough to warrant him having an entry and since there are two potential redirect targets (List_of_Rob_Dyrdek's_Fantasy_Factory_episodes#Season_1_.282009.29 and Ridiculousness_(TV_series)#Season_1_.282011.29), I'd say that deletion is the only real option here. From what I can see, he's never received any true in-depth coverage from any source and for the most part he's flown solidly under the radar. At best this is just WP:TOOSOON for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't help that the original editor's name insinuates that he's the actor himself, as it pulls on the specific Fantasy Factory episode that Hernandez starred in, "I Call Him Butter Feet". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently he will be the star in a 2015 film. We can make him an article then, depending on how his role will be covered in reliable sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abominations of Desolation[edit]

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

Hi, this page should be deleted as it fails Wikipedia's Notability rule and the first time it was nominated the result wasn't kept (the result was to merge it which it hasn't been.) Per Wikipedia:NMG#Albums: "All Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep This page is not just about demo. It is about an album, which was recorded as a demo in 1986, but then it was officially released as an album on Earache records in 1991. I think the page should therefore not be deleted. --Wurzel91 (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on like 10 other wikipedias and notable enough.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: This AfD was created without the afd2 template and never listed on a daily log page. I've added the template and will relist on the current day's log.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Band are notable and given that this was a released album then it should be okay. According to their discography, it even charted in one country.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem with this article is that it has no proof of notability. None of the three references demonstrate notability. Per WP:NALBUMS, an album doesn't inherit notability from the band; it must have its own notability. The note, above, that the album is on other wikipedias doesn't matter -- each Wikipedia has its own standards, and each article in the English Wikipedia must be evaluated here. Also, despite its eventual release, it was just a demo album. Having said that, this album is mentioned in several books (e.g., [29], [30], [31]). However, the mention is brief and sometimes disparaging ("Azagthoth felt the songs didn't reach their potential...and sacked everybody in the band but guitarist Richard Brunelle"). I couldn't find any full length review of the album. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band's website or the listing on Amazon don't go towards establishing notability, but the review on AllMusic does. Being briefly mentioned in several books helps too. This album was originally a demo, but then it was officially released, so it's not just a demo any more. Also, if a reviewer, or the artist, doesn't like the album, that doesn't make it any less notable. — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can remember this album coming out - and that it had a ltd edition box set with the CD. That was in the days before the web was widely available so I could only have read about it in the mainstream UK metal magazines (kerrang or metal hammer). Sadly such magazines of mine were recycled many years ago so I can't add a reference but maybe someone can Willzuk (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives Federal Credit Union[edit]

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

The article is almost without content and the notability is disputed MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article is so uninformative that it could have been speedily deleted under WP:A7. However, a quick look at the standard GBooks search produces quite a few sources that seem to regard it as a prime example of a community development credit union. If someone can use these sources to write an actual article, I think that there is some likelihood of notability being established - otherwise, unfortunately, deleting this article won't really be a loss to Wikipedia. PWilkinson (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't blame the nom, it could have almost passed for A7 as it was, but added a bit of content, including sources from two different books (with urls) and one award, and would note that the mission and success of the organization would warrant inclusion. It wasn't obvious before, but after some searching, I'm convinced it is now. It still needs more content, I just added enough to get it to pass WP:CORP. Dennis 2¢ 15:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a HighBeam search and came up with 78 hits and I also added a source from HighBeam. I am One of Many (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree there was not much there but after the recent edits its enough to stand on its own. Resaltador (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my earlier comment, with thanks to User:Dennis Brown as the "someone" I asked for. PWilkinson (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is why we need more participation at AFD. The nom wasn't unreasonable, it just took a few eyes to look deeper and a little bit of time. My favorite outcome at AFD is when we save one that otherwise would have sat in a condition like this one was a week ago. At least the reader has some quality sources now. Dennis 2¢ 13:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis - 2¢ 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Harrison (Californian politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable local mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fremont has a population of 220,000, so it's mayor is notable. The cutoff seems to be somewhere between 50,000 & 1000,000. I usually prefer 1000,000, but many lower than that have been presumed notable. There should of course be no difficulty in getting sufficient references for the GNG as well. DGG (talk:DGG|talk ) 05:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Fremont has a population of aproximately 200,000. Its mayor is notable. I incline to nod as Keep. Wikicology (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs references, but I believe that this page passes notability guidelines since it's quite a big town. st170e^talk 20:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Where does it suggest a population threshold? Per WP:POLOUTCOMES this article would not pass as the article just states he is the mayor, with no other notability. If consensus has been to keep by community size shouldn't it be in the policy?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Bearcat/Whatever--114.81.255.41 (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unfinished draft which I have yet to submit for the necessary consensus review to have it adopted even as an essay, let alone an actual binding policy. So don't even try citing it as a priori proof of anything. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i added a navbox for this topic, where the cutoff is 100k. its not policy, but its consensus, and the city is in the top 20 in the state.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Note The Mayor of Fremont is not independently elected http://www.fremont.gov/493/About-City-Government. The form of government is a Council–manager government, meaning that the Council elects a Mayor and hires a City Manager to handle the day to day operation of the City. This means that the Mayor was not elected "Mayor" but elected as a City Councilmember and selected by his colleagues to serve as Mayor. Thus, the appropriate standard should be "Councilmember" not "Mayor" to evaluate the notability of the subject. Enos733 (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be true. References in the article clearly show that the mayor is elected independently by the voters at large, and that he was so elected in November 2012.[32] --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. It was unclear on the City's webpage and the fact that Fremont is a Council-Manager form of government. This still means that the City Manager handles the day-to-day operations of the City. Whether that makes a difference in how we evaluate mayors, that is another question (I still think it should). Enos733 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POLOUTCOMES states that "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville"" (emphasis mine). The article doesn't say any more than "he's the mayor" and there's nothing to indicate that he's particularly notable. Tiller54 (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independently elected mayor of a regionally prominent city; in addition he has some coverage from the Mercury-News, a Reliable Source of regional (not just local) reach. For the record, I do NOT agree that there is or should be a population standard for mayors to be notable. The standard is "cities of at least regional prominence". "Regional prominence" is relative and depends on the region, not the absolute population. Fremont is the fourth largest city in the San Francisco Bay area, and that amounts to regional prominence in my book. But a city of 200,000 might not amount to regional prominence in Orange County, California - much less in China or India. Meanwhile, a city of 50,000 in a rural area may be the most important city for a hundred miles in all directions. I also think a mayor needs to be independently elected to be notable - as opposed to a system where the title "mayor" is rotated around among the city council members. Just laying down my own markers in the "mayor" debate! --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Fremont, California#List of mayors. Although the city has an estimated population of 220k, the subject themselves doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG, as few if any non-primary reliable sources give the subject significant coverage for the subject to be considered independently notable outside of their position in office. Presently the argument for keep appears to center around WP:POLOUTCOMES, that as the subject is the chief executive of a size-able city, that the subject should be considered automatically notable. At the same time, the subject does not hold an elected office of a statewide or national level, and I believe POLOUTCOMES for mayors and city councilmembers makes a presumption that if a city is significant enough, that its chief executive and city councilmembers should be sufficiently notable enough to warrant significant coverage from non-primary sources and thus pass GNG. That being said, I do not see that yet being created for this subject. Therefore, if there was an embedded list of mayors of Fremont, California, I can easily see this article become a redirect to that list, however at this time I do not see sufficient reliable sources to indicate independent notability for a standalone article at this time. This may change, and when those sources are found this article can be recreated, but not until that time that those sources can be found.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion or exclusion of a mayor, for the record, is not solely a matter of the city's population — MelanieN isn't just expressing her own personal opinions, believe it or not, but is actually precisely correct on several points of mayoral notability or lack thereof. A city with a population well in excess of 100K will have its mayors fail to qualify if their mayoralty is rotated annually among city councillors, or is a ceremonial appointment that the council can confer on anyone of its own choosing, rather than a directly elected executive position — and a city with a population well below 50K can have its mayors pass NPOL if you can write and source a really good article, or if it's the capital of a country or a first-order division. (Just as an example, Whitehorse, Yukon has a population of only around 25K — but it's the capital of Yukon, and its 25K residents comprise two-thirds of the Yukon's entire population. So its level of "regional prominence" is extremely disproportionate to its small size, and thus consensus has accepted that its mayors are notable enough for Wikipedia articles.) Rather, what's actually much more definitive than the population of the city itself is how much substance and sourcing can or cannot actually be added. But I'm not seeing that here — the article as written is barely more than a blurb, and two of its five sources are invalid ones (#1 fails WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and #5 fails WP:USERG.) If a good article citing good sources could be written, I'd say to keep — but that's not what we've got here. Redirect to Fremont, California#List of mayors, without prejudice against recreation in the future if the sourcing and substance can be beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to Bearcat's comments, an easier test could be whether the City has a Council–manager government or a Mayor–council government. The primary difference is that in a council-manager form of government, the mayor does not have much/if any independent power to set policies or other administrative powers. It is not necessary for the Mayor to be selected by the Council to possess only a ceremonial role in the government. For the purposes of this AfD, I believe the standard should be WP:GNG rather than make the assumption that the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant significant coverage from non-primary sources based solely on their elected position. --Enos733 (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your comments display a profound ignorance on how fremonts mayor is chosen and your conclusions based on your lack of understanding should be disregarded. Fremonts mayor is directly elected. The election was covered extensively even as far away as India because one ignite candidates was vying to become the first indian American mayor of a large city. You should know before you comment. Burtonburtonburton (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burtonburtonburton , my comments on 18 October 2014 had nothing to do with whether the subject was directly elected by the public as Mayor. The subject was. My comment alluded to the powers that the Mayor of Fremont possess. One of the comments of Bearcat which I was responding to was his comment about a mayor being selected by the city council as a reason that a mayor (of a larger size) could "fail" to meet WP:POLITICIAN. I agree with Bearcat's assessment that there are reasons why a mayor of a larger city could fail. In this instance, the problem I have with this subject passing WP:POLITICIAN is different than the concerns Bearcat alludes to - and that is the form of government affects how large a role the mayor plays in the City and affects whether the subject should be automatically recognized as notable (for just being mayor).

WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests that mayors should be evaluated on their own merits, rather than any one particular criteria. The other recognized factor in WP:POLOUTCOMES is the term "regional prominence," tempered by "usually," and that the article should be more than a stub.

This AFD should be seen as a close call. On one hand, being a mayor of a city of regional prominence carries lots of weight. On the other hand, from what I understand, the City of Fremont does not provide the Mayor with lots of power or ability to influence the direction of the City. In addition the sources provided in the article (at the time of this post) are either primary sources or are not about the subject. However, if there was international coverage of the mayoral race, or if the article is expanded to include other significant coverage of the subject, then it would easily pass WP:GNG. As for a preferred outcome, at this point it is to Redirect to Fremont, California#List of mayors.. --Enos733 (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enos733, I disagree with your premise. Just because a city has a city manager form of government does not mean that the mayor is powerless. A city manager does not make independent decisions and certainly does not "influence the direction of the city"; he or she carries out the policies decided by the city council and mayor (who commonly chairs the city council). Under a council-city manager form of government the mayor does not wield as much independent power as under a strong-mayor format, but the mayor is still the most powerful single person in the city. As chair of the city council he/she sets the agenda and leads policy making decisions by that body, and he/she is usually the only person elected to represent the entire city instead of a portion of it. A citywide-elected mayor is comparable in importance under either form of government. I agree that a ceremonial mayor who is chosen from the city council is much less notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN - I think it depends on the city, but in most cases I am aware of, the city manager in a council-manager form of government plays a more prominent role in setting the agenda than the mayor (often because the city manager does the day to day operation of the organization). While the mayor can add items to the agenda, and has control over how a meeting is run, these powers are tempered by the powers of the councilmembers (as the chair of an organization only has those powers granted by the council). In this case, the Mayor of Fremont is a part time position - and from what I can tell, is more symbolic than real. When I look at powers of mayors, I look to veto power, ability to appoint/fire department heads and other staff, and the ability to create independent task forces or other actions that do not require the ascent of the council. --Enos733 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources appear to give him significant independent coverage. At least one doesn't even mention him. Unless being mayor of Fremont grants automatic notability, I don't see any reason why this article should be kept. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable mayor of a big city sufficiently notable for an article. Burtonburtonburton (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think we have ever in the last 5 or 6 years deleted anarticle on a mayor of a city of this zsize where the material could be verified, unless the article was hopelessly promotional; the present content is about as straightforward as it comes, not a political advertisement such as is sometimes seen. I am unable to figure out hte basis for objecting to this particular one. There's always potential for expansion. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across this new article, finding it fails any of the above mentioned political policies. Being a new editor with one-year active time I am not familiar with deeply buried talk archives. If community consensus has been reached it should be reflected in some WP policy/essay. Lacking any other form of guidance my decision to nominate AfDs are based on what I can see.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but barely. A quick search returns the blatantly political, the peripheral, the outright unrelated, and the occasional news story that quotes him in reference to what Fremont has done without anything specific and neutral as regards what he has accomplished. Still, if this article can be improved to demonstrate an impact by the man as mayor, I tend to lean toward giving it the opportunity. (Disclosure: I happened upon this in the midst of an unrelated process, so take my opinion with whatever grains are appropriate xD) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblio worm 02:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Ortiz[edit]

(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 by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both - Neither have played in a Fully professional league and they don't have any senior international caps either therefore they both fail WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both Not fully pro, and, therefore, fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2014 (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) 11:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yul Arzú has been selected and has been a substitute on the bench for Honduras National Team for 4 matches in September 2014 and has been selected to be part of Copa Centroamericana team camp and passes WP:GNG and per this [33],[34][35],[36].Víctor Ortiz has has played in the CONCACAF Champions League the regional equivalent of the UEFA Champions League in 2013–14 CONCACAF Champions League Group Stage for Victoria has played as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG [37],[38], [39], [40], [41] Nfitz (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Elvir[edit]

(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 based on his inclusion in a national team squad. However, this was a preliminary squad with Elvir not making the final squad (see 2013 CONCACAF Gold Cup squads), let alone playing, which is what would be required for notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2014 (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) 11:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in the CONCACAF Champions League the regional equivalent of the UEFA Champions League in 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League Group Stage for Motagua as per this and this and this and he is 25 years old.Football is the most popular sport in Honduras. Passes WP:GNG [42] [43] this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG and not surprisingly given 70+ appearances for such an internationally well-known team. Examples are [44], [45], [46], [47], and [48]. Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Omar Elvir has played in the CONCACAF Champions League and he has played over 70 games for a well-known football team in Honduras therefore he meats WP:GNG - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 09:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis - 2¢ 16:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Sells[edit]

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

No credible assertion of notability for this obscure military figure Orange Mike | Talk 03:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —innotata 07:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —innotata 07:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —innotata 07:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable officer. existing mention on Dixie_Mission#Dixie_Mission_Commanding_Officers is sufficient unless RS appear showing something really newsworthy. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I thank him for his service but just not enough to meet notability guidelines. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Bahadur Shah[edit]

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

Another one of these volleyball players who are unotable on here! Wgolf (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Another article, for a minor player, that doesn't assert notability. The usual searches didn't turn up anything helpful (just mirrored info copied from Wikipedia). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently someone created a one line article on every beach volleyball player at a 2012 Asian event. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Awlaqi[edit]

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

Another one of those volleyball players who are unotable that has had a long dead link. Wgolf (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Another article, for a minor player, that doesn't assert notability. The usual searches didn't turn up anything helpful (just mirrored info copied from Wikipedia). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently someone created a one line article on every beach volleyball player at a 2012 Asian event. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis - 2¢ 16:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prince hayer[edit]

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

Untoable actor Wgolf (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Looking into this-seems like Prince Hayer and Prince hayer have a interesting history. Reason why I went with a AFD instead of a speedy is because he does have the point where if he was in something he isn't quite a speedy. Wgolf (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 08:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 08:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Fails WP:ENT a WP:TOOSOON case. Please delete. Athachil (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against a redirect, although not sure the utility is so great. Dennis - 2¢ 16:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Landman[edit]

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

A former child actor who has just been in 1 film-I think a link to the movie be the best IMO. Wgolf (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTO, WP:NOTE. when a 2-sentence new article Jeffrey Landman appears with complete and specific detail like the completely-unknown actor's birthdate and hometown (an actor who worked once and only once --25 years ago!) AND the article's original writer is named Jeffman52001, we have a Prima facie case for AUTOBIOGRAPHY. having one role, ever, as: "a child actor... his first and only roll in the 1989 horror film Halloween... as Billy Hill, the friend of Jamie Lloyd, who is at the clinic with them" is not notable or newsworthy. including the name in the Cast section of the particular movie (where it already appears) is sufficient. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – To Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers should be sufficient. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only gets an IMDb listing, not enough to meet notability Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phan Thị Cẩm Hồng[edit]

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

Another one of those volleyball players that are unotable on here with a long dead link! Wgolf (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. No medals in a major tournament, no Olympics, no other sign of notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently someone created a one line article on every beach volleyball player at a 2012 Asian event. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murodali Khudoyberdiev[edit]

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

One of these volleyball players who is unotable that has a long dead link yet again Wgolf (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual searches turned up even less than normal. No medals in a major tournament. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently someone created a one line article on every beach volleyball player at a 2012 Asian event. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Dennis - 2¢ 16:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STAR Utsav[edit]

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

Fails the general notability criteria. Tamravidhir (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect – To Star TV. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hindi channel in STAR India network. Frequent mentions on news sites [49]. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The said channel is a popular GEC on Indian television. It airs some famous daily soaps and other shows. Quite notable as well. --Dhwanikaxoxo (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis - 2¢ 16:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Tech Racing Boats[edit]

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

Appears company made only a few boats. Not much in terms of establishing notability, but maybe too much for simply speedy? —Gaff ^ταλκ 12:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Could find no information on the company. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Thành Vinh[edit]

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

unotable volleyball player with a dead link-on a interesting note somehow it changed people from a IP that was logged out a year ago to a soccer player. Wgolf (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Another article, for a minor player, that doesn't assert notability. I found a lot of matches to the name in Vietnamese -- but based on Google translate, they seem to mostly be about a lawyer or an author, not a volleyball player. Other than that: little stuff (like the Asian Beach Games); nothing useful. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP about a volleyball player who doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrica Records[edit]

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

Non notable record label. Sources only amount to passing mentions, and an interview on a free Wordpress blog. Plus, the creator is the owner of the company. Diego Grez (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kicker (audio)[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not notable. B137 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: subject of the article fails WP:ORG. No evidence of notability. Also the extent of WP:ADVERTISEMENT is too obvious to ignore.Wikicology (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Finance UAE[edit]

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

I am suggesting that this article be removed from Wikipedia because of notability. This topic does not warrant its own article and I'd suggest that this article be incorporated into Dubai rather than be separate. None of these banks/financial institutions have sources nor contain links to their respective pages on Wikipedia (if they exist). If even, this should be a category as opposed to a list on a separate article. st170e^talk 19:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTDIR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Should have been speedy kept rather than relisting, as nominator does not propose deletion (nor even an argument for doing anything). Redirection can and should always be attempted first through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mone Rekho[edit]

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

an album that from the look of it can be redirected to the singer. Wgolf (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardes Safi[edit]

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

I've been finding tons of these old volleyball players from games that are apparently unotable as well as now dead links, so putting up a AFD for this. Wgolf (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Another article, for a minor player, that doesn't assert notability. The usual searches didn't turn up anything helpful (just mirrored info copied from Wikipedia) -- no medals in significant tournaments. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another volleyball player who fails GNG and ATHLETE.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Correia (beach volleyball)[edit]

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

Another volleyball player that is not notable (as well as a page that needs a update) Wgolf (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Another article, for a minor player, that doesn't assert notability. The usual searches didn't turn up anything helpful (just mirrored info copied from Wikipedia) -- no medals in significant tournaments. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Fails GNG and ATHLETE.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narciso Santos[edit]

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

Unotable volleyball player with a long dead link on the page Wgolf (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Another article, for a minor player, that doesn't assert notability. I found a lot of matches to the name, but most were for other people or places. Other than that: nothing useful. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and ATHLETE.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MTX Audio[edit]

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

Lack of sources. Blatant advertising. Not notable. B137 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice to a merge discussion as suggested below. postdlf (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ElcomSoft[edit]

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

Notability is not proven. XXN (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What this article sorely needs is more and better references, but the company itself is most certainly notable. The DMCA case alone takes care of notability concerns in spades.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 1, 2014; 14:05 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my opinion that notability is easily demonstrated for this company given the varying material published by reliable third party publications Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep'. The DMCA case itself seems like enough notability to keep the article. Pishcal (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Refs specifically related to the case apply just as well to United States v. ElcomSoft and Sklyarov, making that a reasonable merge target as long as the only significant coverage we have is related to the case.Dialectric (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The DMCA case is not the only call to notability. The recent leak of nude celebrity photos was made possible with the help of software developed by this company as well, and there were other events of interest between the DMCA case and the leak. A person interested in expanding this article should have no problem finding additional information corroborating the company's notability.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 16, 2014; 13:40 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Badar Al-Subhi[edit]

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

unotable volleyball player with a long dead link. Wgolf (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Another article, for a minor player, that doesn't assert notability. The usual searches didn't turn up much (just mirrored info copied from Wikipedia, and some sites mentioning his play at the Asian Games). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and ATHLETE.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Shaw[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player, no sources that easily pass GNG. Wizardman 12:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players. He seems like a decent enough prospect so he should be merged. Definitely doesn't need his own article.Spanneraol (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Spanneraol. Some sources exist ([50], [51], [52]), ~~not enough for its own article though.~~ There is a decent likelihood of a major league promotion as soon as 2015. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the sources Yankees10 found, I change my vote to keep. I didn't do a thorough enough search. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep along with Muboshgu's sources above I found [53][54][55][56]. That seems like plenty of coverage to me. Add in the fact that he is a solid prospect, is in AAA, and is almost certainly going to be added to the 40-man during the offseason, I'd say it's a clear keep.--Yankees10 17:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Muboshgu and Yankees10. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players. Alex (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? How exactly does he not pass GNG?--Yankees10 02:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Margot[edit]

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

No establishment of notability; low-level minor leaguer without significant GNG sources. Wizardman 11:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players. He seems like a decent enough prospect so he should be merged. Definitely doesn't need his own article.Spanneraol (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Spanneraol. About to become a big time prospect in baseball circles, as decent a chance of making the majors as any prospect as young as he is can have.[57] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge found [58][59] but that was it. Like Muboshgu said he is a fast rising prospect, so I think the re-direct is fine.--Yankees10 18:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players.Alex (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Granadillo[edit]

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

No establishment of notability; fails GNG and ATHLETE, former minor leaguer. Wizardman 11:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not a fan of keeping this, but meets WP:BASE/N #2, because he "participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team." Specifically, the Baseball World Cup and Pan Am games. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per established precedence that these competitions are worthy of inclusion... though the article currently doesnt mention that he played in them.Spanneraol (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Granadillo played with his national team in an international baseball tournament, passing WP:BASE/N--TM 16:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in major international tournament...though one might suggest actually mentioning that in his article. Alex (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Anthony Ryder[edit]

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

I came across this article originally as a speedy candidate, as itd qualified for WP:G7 as the editor (User:Jamesaryder) blanked the page. The page has been subsequently re-created by a new account (User:Simonwallaceclark) and is identical to the original article, which makes me slightly concerned that this may be a case of WP:MEAT. In any case, there is a slight assertion of notability as the person has competed in a national competition, but I can't find any true coverage for this person to show that he'd ultimately pass our notability guidelines. It also doesn't help that the awards seem to be given out to multiple students- about 900 per year. While I do commend Ryder for the awards and it is impressive, I don't know that these would really qualify him for notability as far as Wikipedia goes. I think that it's just WP:TOOSOON for an entry at this point in time. I'm tempted to just speedy this, but I wasn't entirely sure about whether or not the national awards would count towards notability or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's nothing significant about those awards and the inclusion of a one-off role as a mascot at a sporting event as "television" coverage shows this isn't a serious attempt at an article. Methinks someone is trolling. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know- I know that some countries do have national tests or quizzes like this and they are considered to be something that would give notability, but I didn't know if these were of that type or not. (I think Africa has tests of this nature, which is why I hesitated and brought it to AfD.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Good call under the circumstances. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. There is nothing significant about achieving "high distinction" in these national quizzes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. This is an attempt at humor by a single purpose account, Simonwallaceclark (talk · contribs). Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... if anyone wants to tag it as vandalism or a hoax, I'm all for it at this point because the edits are starting to get ridiculous. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Close in favor of discussion at RFD. That discussion may be found here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Persib Bandung Former Foreign Players[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Persib Bandung Former Foreign Players

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

Only a redirect to another page with same informations, template and correct English writing MbahGondrong (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just to confirm, you want to delete List of Persib Bandung former foreign players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of Persib Bandung Former Foreign Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Both are tagged for AFD but only one is listed here... GiantSnowman 09:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, just the one with the redirect, which is List of Persib Bandung Former Foreign Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MbahGondrong (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well then why is List of Persib Bandung former foreign players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) tagged for AFD, and why isn't List of Persib Bandung Former Foreign Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at WP:RFD? GiantSnowman 12:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems like User:Tommy1933 have edited List of Persib Bandung former foreign players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with the AFD tag manually as seen here. I will put List of Persib Bandung Former Foreign Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on WP:RFD now. Should I remove the AFD tag for List of Persib Bandung Former Foreign Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? MbahGondrong (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a redirect. Only Persib Bandung links there and that can be changed. This should have been a candidate for speedy deletion. No one is talking about deleting the other article. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Almost Do[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Has no independent third party notability except minor passable mentions in "Album"reviews. Its chart performance of one week is already present in Taylor Swift discography. This article should be deleted or worse, kept as a plausible redirect to Red. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album) or Delete fails notability criteria in every possible way. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album). No indication of notability independent of that article and Taylor Swift discography. hinnk (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Band, no sources, no asserted significance and/or notability Wily D 09:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppressed Affliction[edit]

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

It's too soon for this group to have an article. If they make it big some day, they'll get one. Proposed Deletion tag was removed. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. no evidence of notability from reliable sources, not even an album released. A garage band that may someday make it big, but currently fails WP:NMUSIC. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I've tagged it as WP:A7. If by some chance it squeaks by a speedy, the band still fails overall notability guidelines for bands. I can't see where they've received any coverage to speak of. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis - 2¢ 16:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitical Information Service[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No secondary sources, just a "Pipeline Magazine" article with a staff byline quoting a member of the Geopolitical Information Service talking about a pipeline, but saying nothing about the Service itself. McGeddon (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Tristanbacon1: I've added some more secondary sources the page - are they appropriate secondary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanojbacon (talk • contribs) 14:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are all just articles that briefly mention or quote the Geopolitical Information Service, or which have been written by GIS staff who are credited as "[...] writes for geopolitical-info.com" in the byline. The sources don't tell us anything about the Geopolitical Information Service, and WP:NCORP requires an organisation to have been "the subject of significant coverage". We need multiple, independent sources that actually describe the GIS in some detail. --McGeddon (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was only able to found their own publications and press releases, but nothing that would support notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis - 2¢ 16:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trey canard[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable motorcross racer/religious speaker.

He has results on Google, but they are either self-pub or passing references. But I'm still not totally sure on this one because of how reliable some of the sources are, and the awards the article has claimed that he owns.

Note:I like how the subject is unashamed of the Gospel, but the article is agreeing with the subject, which shouldn't happen per WP:NPOV. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source is a link to his web page. He also doesn't appear to have any notable successes as a rider, but the lack of independent coverage is enough to determine my vote. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. hoax, made up Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothermism[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Article documents a "religion". No relevant results on Google. May be a sick joke. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is definitely a hoax. There is no info of this so called "religion on Google. In addition, it sounds completely ridiculous. There are also no sources listed. Swimnteach (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Non-controversial deletion. This was first sent to afd, then prodded, which expired, so I deleted it. Sorry for the confusion. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sherif Amer[edit]

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

Possibly unremarkable person. This article is obviously biased. I did find sources, but I am not totally sure if they are reliable, independent, or adequate in number. Thoughts? Mr. Guye (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time. Could find no references for this particular individual. Did find a fellow with the same name associated with the “Air Ministry”. Until sources provided, sorry to say, delete. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was deleted on 14:45, 21 October 2014 by User:Bearian. Natg 19 (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edvard Hannula[edit]

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

Edvard Hannula the only reference provided in the article links to a page in Finnish in which the name Edvard Hannula does not appear. There is one link to the article in the English Wikipedia List of members of the Parliament of Finland, 1919–22 where his name is listed. Next to his name in the Finnish Parliament article there is a reference: http://www.eduskunta.fi/triphome/bin/hx5000.sh?{hnro}=910420&{kieli}=su&{haku}=kaikki Unfortunately, Google could not translate the page for me but it did have his name as the title of the page. There is a longer article on this man in the Finnish Wikipedia with much more content. It doesn't appear that the same user created both articles. I got no other hits on Google for this man. I have read the notability guidelines for politicians and I'm still not sure this Finnish politician has a place on the English Wikipedia. This article is barely a stub. I have removed the reference since it does not even mention the man by name. It is now therefore an article with no references.

I did do a check in books and Google scholar. It did return some books but they were all in Finnish.

Bfpage |leave a message 00:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We are not limited to English sources, and the Finnish sources, beginning with the Finnish parliament information page mentioned above [60] verify he was a member of parliament and thus a clear pass under WP:POLITICIAN. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~ per indented note. I took the liberty of adding what I believe is a valid reference. I don't speak Finnish, but Google translate seems to confirm it's the correct page. I need to check things out a little more before voting. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - Member of Parliament meets WP:POLITICIAN. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Members of national legislatures are notable by definition. See WP:POLITICIAN Lekoren (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets a number of inclusion criteria including WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of a legislature. Obviously the nominator hasn't read the "notability guidelines for politicians" closely enough and is unaware that sources don't have to be online or in English to be valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parliament-politician. J 1982 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of consensus, I withdraw my nomination for deletion. Someone will have to teach me one day on finding obscure Finnish references. I think the addition of even one reference makes a it 'keeper'. Thanks for the feedback, I learn a lot in these discussions.

Bfpage |leave a message 14:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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