Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 March	4 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus, after a thorough discussion and examination of sources, is clearly for deletion. We would note that WP:Manote is a project essay and does not take precedence of WP:GNG JodyB_talk 22:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Cofield[edit]

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

Non notable martial artist. Running a chain of 10 schools does not make you notable. References consist of passing mentions and lists of schools--nothing to show he meets WP:GNG. There's also nothing to show he meets any criteria at WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable person without any reliable references.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A three page article from Black Belt magazine is a reliable reference. Did you go through the references? [1]CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Stated to be an early pioneer of Karate in America. One of the first African American instructors of Karate in America. The subject of an independent 3 page article by Black Belt Magazine. Black belt magazine is considered to be a reliable source. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pass MANOTE [2] by either being (1) Subject of an independent article/documentary. The high ranking rationale that you stated for deletion for a number of them applies when ... "Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art (or founded a non-notable art); perhaps also avoid even mentioning them in the article of the art unless they are one of a few high-ranked artists in an art that has thousands of students." Karate has hundred of thousand practitioners.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No vote yet. It is hard to understand from the article on how he meets WP:MANOTE but I also have a soft spot for characters important in the development of martial arts in the West so I wait to see that claim more clearly demonstrated. I went through the Black belt articles listed in the article - which one is he the subject of a 3 page article. Perhaps I missed it.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I am unsure how you missed it. Perhaps the citations in the article are bad. They don't differentiate between the different black belt magazine issues. [3] CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. You need to edit the references so that the Black belt issues are given - I've done that for a number of the articles your created.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am using this tool https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/ It used to give the information, it doesn't anymore. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Black belt magazine you have to go to the reference for the information and then manually enter the issue. Annoying but it should be done.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article currently stands I don't see anything that allows him to meet WP:GNG--just passing mentions. There's also no evidence to show he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. If such evidence is presented, I will reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentBeing a black karate pioneer in the East Coast of America is certainly notable. He passes WP:MANOTE as a result. ^[1]

Only if you have significant independent coverage and a passing mention that he studied with an "obscure martial artist" is not it. Papaursa (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is Shotokan Karate an obscure martial art? Also how is a multiple page article a passing mention? Did you go through all of the sources? ^[2]CrazyAces489 (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said anything about shotokan being an obscure art. Please read what was actually written. --written by Revision as of 21:26, 2 March 2015 (edit) (undo) 204.126.132.231 (talk)

I would accept the article mentioned above by CrazyAces489. But the fact that it's listed several times in this discussion does not make it more than a single source and GNG requires multiple sources. CrazyAces, if you can produce another good source I will change my vote, otherwise GNG rules (especially since there's no evidence, to me, of meeting WP:MANOTE). Papaursa (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of sources but I believe they aren't great or are just passing mentions. Take a look at them and what you might think of them. ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6] ^[7] CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa, please take a look at this youtu.be/eyqKQhJMS_Y?t=17m At 17 minutes he was listed as a highly notable person of Shotokan Karate. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentI would, but you stated that there is only passing mention. So I wonder if you even looked at the references. A 3 page article on the subject is available here. ^[8]CrazyAces489 (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Passing mentions are not enough to meet WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment He is also one of the first blacks to introduce Karate to America. That shows notability. ^[9] George is featured in Black Hero's of the Martial Arts.^[10] He is the subject of an independent article in black belt magazine. [4] He definitely passes WP:MANOTE CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep by WP:Manote and WP:GNG A pioneer in martial arts and within the african american community.24.103.234.74 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete One good source is not enough to meet WP:GNG and no supporting evidence to show he's a notable martial artist. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't one amazing source a few good sources, and a number of passing mentions. If you look at WP:Manote there is qualifications that he does meet. Also take a look at these sources here ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4] ^[5] This might help in your decision. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are passing mentions or blogs or otherwise not what GNG would consider reliable sources. None of these can be considered significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is agreed though that the 3 page article is notable and independent correct? CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[5] CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:BAND1(6). JodyB_talk 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eso-Charis[edit]

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

Non-notable band, although it has a few notable musicians, it fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Doesn't WP:NBAND allow for groups that have multiple notable members? Also, there's this review from Exclaim!. From a search on Google Books, they seem to have an entry in Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, Volume 1. It's not much to go on, but I'm thinking maybe this is a keep. I'll give it some more thought. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The assumption of BAND is that these are ways band may meet GNG. They are not stand-alone criteria. In other words, it's a "supergroup" but no RSes write about it, it fails notability guidelines. The talk page for BAND discusses this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As for Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music Powel (2002), I have a copy of it and they do not have an entry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a link to what I saw on Google Books: [6]. Thanks for the note. I'll look at that talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I stand corrected. I was reading Eco not Eso. It describes one indie release and is only half of a column (on page 307). Most notable bands would be at least a full page in length. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's a notable band because, Cory Brandan Putman went on to join Norma Jean and Living Sacrifice. As did Arthur Green, and Matt Putman. Living Sacrifice is a notable band, that is associated with Eso-Charis because of those three joining. And Vocalist Bruce Fitzhugh (Living Sacrifice) produced their album, Eso-Charis. Metalworker14 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's great and an expectation for more to be written about them based on WP:MUSICBIO, but those facts have not resulted in more press. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is notable because for their lone album they have received four reviews by three different publications. AllMusic, Cross Rhythms, and two by The Phantom Tollbooth. So, I'd say notable.The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know about the Phantom Tollbooth source, but Cross Rhythms certainly looks reliable. Allmusic really isn't useful for establishing notability. They review everything. Any more sources? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pero Gil[edit]

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

The only reference of the article is a brief mention of a person named Pero Gil as been part of the expedition. This is not enough to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I tagged the article for notability last November but no new references have been added since. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are insufficient reliable sources that give significant coverage to the subject to pass WP:GNG. No known well known awards awarded to subject, fails WP:ANYBIO. As only a captain, fails WP:SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I'm not sure that WP:SOLDIER was intended to cover 16th Century conquistadors! But nonetheless I can't find the significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject that we look for, even in Google books. I would tentatively suggest a redirect to Pedro de Mendoza but he is not mentioned there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EWise[edit]

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

Expired prod, deleted and now restored few months earlier as it has been contested. I am not sure if WP:REFUND has been followed as I was not linked to the place it was originally contested (@JamesBWatson:), but in any case given the article unchanged state I stand by my original rationale - in short, spam, or in detail: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on policies of undeletion

In answer to Piotr's comment about WP:REFUND, no, it wasn't taken there. There was just a messages on my talk page contesting the deletion. It is true that Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting says "If the article has already been deleted, please go to Requests for undeletion", but since any PROD-deleted article where the deletion is contested is automatically restored, it is common practice to just restore such an article on request, without making the editor who objects go along and repeat their objection at WP:REFUND, and I see no reason not to follow that practice. In fact, I am considering whether to amend the wording of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting to recognise established practice. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: I agree that the policy should be changed in the way you described; however back on topic - are you even sure User_talk:JamesBWatson#Account_aggregation.23Internet_makes_less_sense_now_because_of_deletion_of_EWise - which the request you presumably refer to - was even requesting said undeletion? Perhaps I am tired, but I tried reading it twice, and it seems like gibberish to me (but perhaps I am missing some context). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am sure it wasn't requesting undeletion: it was just complaining about the deletion. However, when an editor who clearly doesn't know how PROD works complains about a deletion, it is reasonable to take that as contesting the deletion and treat it accordingly. The whole spirit of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is that it is only for uncontroversial deletions, and if anyone objects to a deletion then it is not uncontroversial, whether they express their objection as a request for undeletion or not. However, this is really off-topic for this page, which is supposed to be about whether the article should be deleted, and if you want further discussion of how and why it came to be undeleted you are welcome to post to my talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Well, in that case, since acting on behalf of said newbie - in good faith, and I support both newbie help in general, and your helpful attitude in this case - you nonetheless made me spend several minutes on my time on what I consider to be a spam article, and given as no other editor has expressed interest in this debate so far, would you mind offering your opinion on whether this article should or shouldn't be deleted? PS. On the subject of best practices, may I suggest that if you do a courtesy undeletion of a prod, you also follow it up with a courtesy AfD? Along the lines of balancing a favour to a spammer with a favour to the community. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of "offering [my] opinion on whether this article should or shouldn't be deleted", I was drafting a post on that subject when you posted the above message: you may read it below. On your other points, they are, as I have already indicated, off topic for this page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references in the article don't come within a million miles of suggesting notability. Two of the three references don't even mention EWise, and one of those two is an advertisement on the web site of a business which according to the article belongs to EWise; the third one merely gives such information about the company as the names of its executives and "How they describe themselves", together with what looks to me like a promotional video, though I am not at present able to listen to it. I have searched for better sources, and failed to find any. (Also, if the article is kept, it will need to be re-written, as its current version reads to me like promotion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep somewhat on the buble here, but there's a bunch of articles.

Techcrunch [7]
Bloomberg [8]
Banking Technology [9]
Denver Post [10]
Venture Beat [11]
Venture Beat syndicated to New York Times [12]
Sydney Morning Herald [13]

--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "on the buble" means, but I don't see any of those links as providing evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. One of them is a dead link, two are pages simply announcing that EWise has obtained some financing, and the the others are all pages that are not primarily about EWise, but just briefly mention EWise from once to a few times. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:corp. LaMona (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the various references offered, only one - the one in the [Sydney Morning Herald - is an Independent Reliable Source with any significant coverage about the company itself. The others are routine announcements of funding, partnership deals, etc. This is not enough to meet WP:CORP.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This does not prohibit editors from redirecting to an appropriate target, either WP:BOLDly or by talk page consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Jenner[edit]

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

I tried to salvage this article by removing all the gossip and ill sourced material which then didn't leave it with much and then realized that she isn't notable other than being known for her family which notability isn't WP:INHERITED. She fails WP:ENTERTAINER and hasn't done anything significant as far as a "career". Either delete or redirect to Keeping Up with the Kardashians LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with no prejudice against future recreation once her solo career becomes notable on its own terms. In the meantime, definitely plausible as a search term. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. She's not notable enough to have her own article yet. OnlyGCX (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I see enough here, specifically the hosting job for a significant national awards show. I'd like to see it cut down even further though, as it feels like there is a lot of Coatracking going on. Tons of third-party press here: Google news search for Kylie Jenner. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 20:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kylie has enough media attentions due to co-hosting events with her older sister Kendall Jenner to warrate keeping the article. Sections of the article should be removed that don't directly deal with her. -Frmorrison (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen the discussion below - Not sure what happened but basically the first nom never even existed so I've moved the 2nd nom to here to save all the confusion :) –Davey2010^Talk 04:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aoshima Station[edit]

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

This page should be deleted, because it has been unsourced for 4 years Wuerzele (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2015 (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/2015 March 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Stations are presumptively notable. Furthermore, a reference was added a couple of hours before this AfD was initiated... -Arb. (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi,User:Arb thanks for communicating finally. what is speedy keep (presumably an insider word)? you are the administrator I take it, who reverted me, removed the initial deletion tag saying in the edit summary "presumably notable". you also dropped a template on the talk page which says "previously proposed for deletion". Thanks, I had no idea about that. But how does that help me in proceeding with deletion or the discussion? It doesnt! Would you pleaaazze be so kind to let us see the discussion? I tried meddling with the code on this page and cant get it to show; I dont understand why there is only a box with the AfD discussion of the second nomination (self-reflexed).
secondly, "presumably notable" adds no new info to the deletion discussion for me. it does not guarantee inclusion on WP. millions of notable things exist that dont have wikipages, and for the time being Aoshima Station should be one.
thirdly maybe realizing the above, you make a case for the mysterious speedy keep by dropping a raw link, to make it appear sourced. you call that a "reference", incorrectly. This stub was created years before the 2011 no-sources-flag and nobody bothered to source it. I dont think it should be kept, because of that history. Or, are you saying you will be the person that builds the article?
I conclude, that you are not an impartial admin, but you are involved, partial to the case. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem a little inexperienced on Wikipedia Wuerzele:

Admins have a mop icon at the top left of their user and talk pages.
There is a long standing convention that all stations are presumed to be notable; see for example the discussion here.
Your initial deletion tag was a Prod; Any editor may contest one of those. The template on the talk page is a record of the Prod.
As for objecting the adding of a reference to the article...

-Arb. (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making me experienced in suggesting an article for deletion, and revealing in a very roundabout way that you are an ordinary editor like myself. otherwise, your comment is more than redundant to the matter at hand, with the third (!) repetition of "all stations presumed notable" .

Instead of really responding, you dodged the question, what is speedy keep ?

Since belittling (other ordinary) editors by jumping to conclusions ("inexperienced") where direct communication would solve or reveal other benign possibilities to explain an observed fact doesn't look good/ is poor WP:netiquette, I sincerely hope you do no longer extend this behavior towards the many other inexperienced or even novice editors. --Wuerzele (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - can easily be expanded from the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article. Mjroots (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots: ...can be ? Is this a crystal ball ? of course it can be, no doubt ! that's not the point. It hasnt been sourced. It hasnt been sourced in 2010 when created, not in 2011 when flagged, not in 2012, 2013, 2014 and not this year. as soon as something has a page here on WP, it must be sourced, that's the rule. Because of excessive leniency / ignoring this basic rule there's a plethora of unsourced write-ups that really do tarnish WP. The reason for my proposal is, I looked up 'Aoshima' and there are numerous poor quality articles starting with Aoshima (please check}. And I found this one, a one sentence stub, that never took off, most appropriate to propose a deletion for.

If you have a garden and you stick seeds in the ground and they barely make it to the 2-leaf stage, lets say, they wither and stay 1 cm high, you cant tell me, oh, this could be expanded so easily, with a little this and a little that -not if there's no gardener. that's it. you want to keep a dead seedling dead since 5 years? Why if there s NOTHING wasted by deletion? Please lets make room and leave the field for new and proper articles. WP should not have any one-sentence unsourced stubs for years and years, however notable their topics may be.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuerzele: Please see WP:NORUSH and WP:NOTFINISHED. That said, nomination for deletion can lead to vast improvement in an article (q.v. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wherry Maud). To this end, I will ask at WP level for assistance. Mjroots (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mjroots (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, thanks for pinging me and thanks for adding to the stub.what do you mean by 'ask at WP level for assistance'?--Wuerzele (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuerzele: WP is shorthand for Wikiproject. In this case, Wikiproject Trains in Japan (WP:TIJ) is the most relevant. I posted a message at the talk page, WT:TIJ in the hope that Japanese-speaking editors might pitch in and improve the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuerzele: We don't need to "make room". Wikipedia is not paper and there is room for all articles. The simple fact is that WP editors over many years have decided that all railway stations are notable. Its existence (which can easily be determined by looking at a map) is enough to keep an article on it. And there's nothing wrong with stubs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, thanks for pinging me and thanks for your interest. I already mentioned I am aware of the notability so that part of your comment is redundant. However you didnt respond to my counterargument that notability doesnt guarantee inclusion. As far as " WP no paper", theres always room, this also appears redundant, as my argument transcended it. I gave you an example how a plethora of low quality articles/stubs clutters the place. Yet you posit, that a virtual space doesnt obey the bounds of space and time, when approached by a human, a reader? Your illusion of infinite electronic space is borne out by electric power, functioning hardware, cables and internet service + maintenance of all the aforementioned, all of which is limited. plus human readers dont have infinite time. So, there needs to be a compromise but I see you dont see it. - no need to respond- you are obviously not getting my point and in the majority who want to cling to this. --Wuerzele (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we get your point. We just don't agree with it. Some classes of things are inherently notable, and they include railway stations. This has been determined over many AfDs in which many of us have participated. The validity of stubs, as long as the subject is notable (which you apparently agree it is), has also been agreed by the WP community over many years. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't need to be space-limited has also been agreed by the community over many years. Coming along and saying, as you basically are, "ah, but you're all wrong and I'm right" does not help. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As has already been mentioned, simple lack of reference sources in an article is not in itself a valid reason for deletion if reference sources are clearly available. If the AFD was just a way of getting someone to improve and expand the article, then it worked, as following on from Mjroots' work, I have added more basic information and a reference source. --DAJF (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DAJF thanks. you are the one person that contributed more to the actual article than this discussion.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We always keep articles on railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Wuerzele (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yakesh Arora[edit]

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

Seems to be basically promotional, can't find evidence of notability, creator of this article doesn't seem to understand our policies as he's created a number of articles which were then deleted. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not conceivably notable. Director of a non-notable company. Almost a A7 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. the consensus is keep. I note there;s also an article in the French WP DGG ( talk ) 07:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Monfort[edit]

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

imdb supports that she has been involved, in various capacities, with several films. I do not believe this makes her any more notable than a Hollywood carpenter or key grip. Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At present, the article doesn't cite any reliable sources, and Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb is not considered sufficient in itself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually L'Express is a pretty serious source in France and the filmography speaks for itself I guess.Steven Rogers (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, L'Express is a good source. But the article you cite doesn't mention Montfort except in a reader comment, does it? ubiquity (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a full interview.Steven Rogers (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and WP:BIO. Costume designers rarely get noticed, unless they're Edith Head or Bob Mackie. She isn't, and a half-page "full interview" doesn't help much. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she's been a costumer for several hit films in recent years, although as a 'behind the scenes' personnel, she might not get the publicity or notoriety that the actors get. Some editor needs to fashion the eternal links, espcially the French-language sources, into text and citations. Right now, a banner headline on my screen is screaming for more women to get involved. If we are deleting women's bios willy-nilly, I don't think that's going to help. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm going to invoke WP:BEFORE. Some online searches only find English-language sources. With a few more parameters, I found lots more in French and Spanish. Her name also matches the founder of Unadilla, New York, which complicates online searching, but doesn't make it impossible. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Bearian. The article needs sourcing work, but more info is out there in French. Jppcap (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Chih Yang[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale by which I still stand: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." Passing mention in NYT and BBC doesn't change anything, notability requires non-trivial (i.e. dedicated, not passing) mentions. Deprodded by User:Espresso Addict] (courtesy ping) with the following counter-argument: "efs/ext links contain sufficient evidence of notability to merit wider discussion at Af". Ok, here we are - now, can anyone present better sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this source, [14] but nothing else. More reliable sources are definitely needed. LaMona (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. speedy deletion as advertisement is what I think also DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EkaBank[edit]

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

Fails our notability guidelines; I can find one source, but nothing more. Ironholds (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nom'd it for Speedy deletion due to it being an advertisement down to the core without any encyclopedic value. Jcmcc450 (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Rock[edit]

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

In addition to having no reliable sources in the article, Rock fails WP:MUSICBIO. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he seems to be quite well known in the heavy metal scene. Adding a couple of sources to article, an article that has been up for years and that reads well, placing him in a number of blue-linked bands - but no sources on page. Maybe people who are into heavy metal don't do footnotes? Willing to reconsider my vote if someone who actually knows something about heavy metal weighs in persuasively. But it is easy to find articles about him in places like KNAC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hami tin bhai[edit]

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

~~Something seems off about this page. Links go to unreliable places, no plot at all.... Wgolf (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)~~withdraw[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. English language sources for Nepali films are difficult to find, but we do have reliable source E Kantipur telling us the film is considered one of Shree Krishna Shrestha's "memorable flicks". We can reasonable presume Nepali language sources exist for a "memorable flick". The article has issues, but it is not a policy violation. We have a suitable stub that can be improved over time and through regular editing from editors able to access and read Nepali sources under WP:NONENG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added an additional reliable source describing the film as "successful" (director's obituary). As Schmidt, reasoned above, Nepali sources and editors are hard to find and the stub can be expanded over time. To aid in that expansion, I also added an alternative transliteration and the Nepali name. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like the ref's but they clearly prove notability, even if it's on a small scale... Jcmcc450 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-okay so it is a odd page but it seems there is some notability now. Wgolf (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Although I am dubious of some of the sources provided by User:MichaelQSchmidt, there are certainly a few independent reviews from reputable sources, which is enough for WP:NFILM, so following his advice I am withdrawing my nomination with apologies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to Le Mans[edit]

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

Probably fails GNG. The only sources appear to be one advertizement, one actual review from The Guardian, and one link to a trailer with almost no accompanying text. Creator is a paid editor. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Telegraph review is long enough and in a major publication. There is also the Bournmouth Echo, Sportscar Racing News and Luxurious Magazine, for example. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets GNG. There are three refs not one. Article could also be expanded on with info from some of the EL's. Accusations of paid editing (which BTW does not preclude an article from existing) require proof or they should be withdrawn. MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: If you look at the references you will see that the first and third are, respectively, an ad and a trailer as stated in my AfD nomination. The article creator admitted to being a paid editor on this and many other articles after being repeatedly threatened with a ban. See here: [15]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at the link you provided says anything about a ban and, once again, articles written by a paid editor is not a reason for deletion. MarnetteD|Talk 04:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: [16], [17]. And of course it's not a reason for deletion, but it's relevant to know. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic I know, but I don't recall the author being threatened with a ban. They openly disclosed their position when asked to do so but, as always on Wikipedia, this led to their articles (some good some bad) being attacked from all directions. Sionk (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Keep and close. WP:NF is met per more-then-trivial coverage in multiple sources.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Three of which were sourcing the article when erringly brought to AFD. Sorry Sammy1339, well meant as it may have been, WP:BEFORE shows this to be a very bad nomination. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redlands Baseball Club[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable Australian minor league baseball team. Media is insufficient to satisfy WP:ORG and WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Helmer (journalist)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable source Kyiv Post Jonpatterns (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be sources, like this [28], and this [29], the 2010 assassination attempt generated enough material to justify an article, though I suspect that there are also more substantive sources on his work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepE.M.Gregory (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paint the Night Parade[edit]

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

Lack of independent sourcing.

Disney have shows at their parks. Does anyone outside the park pay attention to them? If they don't, and this article so far has a vast amount of unsourced detail with nothing else to support it, then per WP:GNG we shouldn't have such an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Hong Kong Disneyland – Paint the Night Parade and Disneyland, respectively per sections in the article. Source searches are providing coverage in reliable sources, but it's not significant enough to qualify a standalone article. Note that the I have pruned the article of promotional content and content that was in copyright violation, and added sources to verify content. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. The cut-down version without the hyperbole and with the added sources looks a lot better. I think this material belongs in an article, but it's either an article on the park or an article on night shows at that park. What we don't need is separate articles on every variant of every show.

Also Unicode is finite and there was a real risk of Wikipedia running out! of exclamation marks! at the rate this article was using them! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like there's enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and enough should be common between the parades in Hong Kong and the US that is doesn't really make sense to merge it to two separate articles. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article looks much better (thanks North America) now, and there's enough reliable sources for me. Pretty much every other Disney Parade has it's own article, and the fact that this is replacing one of their main parade's this is certainly just as notable. I know Other stuff is not a recommended argument, but it's just to counter the comment that we don't need these types of articles, people care about Disney, and they care about these parades. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of Chinese sources.Antigng (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems that the sourcing issue has been resolved and since the nominater gave no other rationale for deletion, I have no qualms with this keep. Perhaps the nominator wishes to reconsider this proposal.JOJ ^Hutton 01:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hakar Findi[edit]

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

Not sure about notability-seems like a long resume here. Wgolf (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for reasons such as WP:NORESUMES, WP:SELFPUB and, at least to me, it seems to fail notability Snabbkaffe (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A resume that is autobiographical, relies on a single source and is purely promotional. Snowager-Talk 19:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-Snabbkaffe-I did a speedy on it already but it was denied. Wgolf (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article most certainly fails to comply with WP:BLP. That's why I voted for CSD. Snowager-Talk 20:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - A7 - Tagged as such seeing as it's some non notable bloke - I'm not understanding why Wgolf removed the prod shoved up by Randykitty.... and then proceeded to nominate it anyway ? .... If it were me I'd of simply not cared if it was prodded twice and left it as such.... –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010-well it was removed when I prodded it before as well as when I put the speedy earlier it was removed saying take it to AFD is why. Wgolf (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wgolf - My apologies I've just noticed that in the history, It shouldn't of been declined at all, Well unintentionally I've re-CSD'd it so will see how it goes I guess :) .... –Davey2010^Talk 22:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Findi may well be notable, but sources are in Kurdish. My understanding is that in order to be on Wikipedia in English, the subject has to have been written about in English-language WP:RS (i.e., that sources in other languages can be quoted for facts, but English-language sources are required to establish notability).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, that is incorrect. Sources may be in any language, as long as they are reliable and enough in-depth to pass WP:GNG (or any specialty guideline). --Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dayakant Jha[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girish Jha, obvious that the guy is making it for his dad-not sure how much is accurate either. Wgolf (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-the reason why I changed this from a speedy is due to how the fact it says he is a principal might be somewhat notable. Wgolf (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references are either unreliable sources or wikipedia. Should be a BLP PROD. This definitely must go if a week transpires without proper references or citation. Jcmcc450 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James B. Martino[edit]

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

Doesn't have any sourcing that is independently notable of the topic. He's a Mormon leader who's only sourcing comes from the Mormon church. Some claim that any high-ranking church leader is automatically notable, but that is not supported by any policy or guideline. p b p 17:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is part of PBP's campaign against articles on Mormon General Authorities. He does not understand either their importance or their role. The importance and role were both convincingly explained in the deletion debate on Randy Funk. That debate closed as keep, and should have brought an end to these continued campaigns against such articles. This article has multiple sources from multiple times, that are in publications whose accuracy has not been questioned. The nomination reflects PBP's deep seated anti-Mormon bigotry. If he had engaged in attacking Jewish sources with the same sort of hateful vehemence that he has engaged in attacking Mormon sources he would have been blocked for it. His bigoted campaign should be stopped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, those are some strong allegations User:Johnpacklambert. I think it would be best to assume good faith here and retract some of what you have said. Just because a user nominates certain classes of articles for deletion does not mean they are bigoted against a class of people or beliefs. I haven't seen any "hateful vehemence" from the nominator on this or related matters. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, just because you got lucky on Randy Funk doesn't mean that every General Authority article should be kept. Randy Funk was kept, but a dozen other LDS general authority articles were deleted. The claim that I am a bigot is a ridiculous personal attack, and you should be blocked for saying something that ridiculous. p b p 13:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note to closing admin: JPL's vote, IMO, should be disregarded as it doesn't really posit anything more than OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and a personal attack against me. No actual reasoning. p b p 13:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tried to assume good faith. However PBP has consitently engaged in Attempts to mass exclude Mormon sources, has consistently chosen the most insulting language and descriptions he can find, and has consistently shown utter rudeness towards anyone who disagrees with him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone who has not seen hateful vehemence from PBP has not paid attention to his attempts to mass exclude Mormon sources, and his description of such as unreliable. He has also engaged in multiple attempts to ban other users for expressing opinions that he disagrees with. If someone had engaged in the same sort of attempts to exclude all aritcles on major Jewish leaders from Wikipedia they would have been called out multiple times for their bigotry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that PBP rushes to try to block people who engage with his attacks shows he is unfriendly to actual discourse and wants to force his views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that this nominator has gone after Steven E. Snow, who is among other things LDS Church historian, shows that he has no clear understanding of what is going on here, other than a desire to exclude all people important within Miormonism from having articles in Wikipedia. This will lead to policies that will make Wikipedia only reflective of the interests and desires of the cultural dominant groups, which is the antithesis of inclusiveness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It sounds to me like you are over-personalizing things, User:Johnpacklambert. There's nothing that PBP has done in this nomination that would lead a reasonable editor to react as you have done. Obviously, this isn't the nominator's first nomination of an article about an LDS Church general authority. But I don't agree with your statement that "If someone had engaged in the same sort of attempts to exclude all articles on major Jewish leaders from Wikipedia they would have been called out multiple times for their bigotry." His rationale is not based on the religion or organization of the person; it is fairly soundly based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines on reliable sources. If those articles about major Jewish leaders were sourced solely with Jewish religious or quasi-religious sources, then proposing deletion could be entirely reasonable and not motivated by bigotry. Users can fairly disagree on how the policies and guidelines on reliable sources are applied in these cases, but I don't think there's any evidence of animus here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find no independent sources showing notability. John Pack Lambert, instead of constantly smearing PBP, why don't you find independent sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Your definition of non-indepdent sources has the tendency to remove a whole interrelated class of sources. These are consistently the best written sources on these individuals and because they are so well written they tend to be the only ones. This same issue exists with a large number of government officials. We have lots of members of state legislatures who are only sourced to sources created by the state legislature with these people having control over the source creation, while Martino had no direct role in creating the sources used on him here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You tried the same argument with Catholic bishops here and funnily enough, never took me up on my offer. Of course an organization is going to write reams and reams of stuff about people people high up in the organization. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - JPL, I don't get where you think I want to remove sources entirely. I'm not saying don't use LDS sources for anything; I'm saying that can't be used to show notability for articles on LDS officials. They can still be used in LDS articles to cite facts. Also, the claim that only government websites have information on state legislators isn't entirely accurate. Most state legislators receive coverage in local or regional newspapers. Also, we've determined via community-wide consensus to adopt a guideline that all state legislators are considered to be notable. We have not done that with LDS officials (and I would be opposed to doing that). p b p
Delete. I've though a lot about this issue in light of past discussions and have carefully considered both sides. I think there are valid points to be made on either side. However, I have to agree that as far as notability is concerned—for LDS Church general authorities who do not hold life tenure, this can only be established by independent sources. If the Deseret News is as close as we can get to non–LDS Church independent sourcing (and I think it's in a category of quasi-independence from the LDS Church), then I'm afraid it is simply not enough. There has no be at least some coverage in a source that is completely independent from the LDS Church. I can't find any in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These references are very close to the subject. Delibzr (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find User:Vojen's comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk persuasive. I would have thought that membership of the second quorum was comparable to receiving a "well-known and significant award or honor" and being a member of the legislature of a smaller sub-national body. If that fails, then merging these entries into an article, "members of the second quorum" is preferable to deleting them (cf. point 3, WP:POLOUTCOMES). Furius (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela J Tomlinson[edit]

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

Reason: Non-notable and poor unreliable sources. - Arr4 (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject is not notable, I have not been able to find any substantial WP:IRS to support the continued existence of this article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with above editors. I found one third party source in search, nothing in News. Don't think this one passes WP:AUTHOR either. Jppcap (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Millia Islamia University Ground[edit]

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

Delete: Article about a cricket ground in a university and is not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the ground has hosted at least one match at an international tournament (the 1997 Women's Cricket World Cup), and also hosts first-class cricket matches, the top level of professional domestic cricket. Harrias ^talk 19:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cricket ground with two internationals is notable. I've expanded the text to demonstrate this. Relentlessly (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per User:Harrias. Johnlp (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Already speedy deleted at the time of closure for having no content. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marathi films of 1990[edit]

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

Completely empty page-could just be redirected to the list for films of the decade. see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Marathi films of 2000 Wgolf (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These empty shells serve no purpose. No problem with someone creating a list of 2 or 3 entries, but when there's nothing apart from blank tables, this is pointless. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Jha[edit]

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

Looks like a auto bio (okay it is) also not sure if this guy is even notable. (The only source was to Facebook) Wgolf (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper sources to establish notability are added. This looks like a classic vanity article, and I am always very suspicious of people who describe themselves as entrepreneurs.TheLongTone (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone-check out also the only contributors are all the same names! (Just put up a SPI report now)Wgolf (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suprised I am not...TheLongTone (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be a BLP PROD. This article was clearly a self-promotion effort. Autobiographies do not belong on Wikipedia. Ill see about upgrading it. Jcmcc450 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and no notability asserted beyond vague claims. — Strongjam (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Fernandez-Lynch[edit]

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

It does not meet notability criteria. AndaleCaballo (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might surpass WP:NFOOTBALL, having played for Alloa Athletic F.C. when it was at the Scottish Championship which looks like a "fully professional league". –H T D 00:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if he actually made an appearance for Alloa Athletic. If he did, then he would meet WP:NFOOTBALL. But I can't find any references to support that. I'm gonna say delete. – Michael (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Here and here are the Alloa squad stats for this season and last, no record of this fella..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the football-specific notability guideline because he hasn't played in a fully professional league or at senior international level. Alloa do play in a fully pro league, but the subject hasn't played for them, as the links supplied above by ChrisTheDude confirm. The only media coverage I can find is the short recent burst of agent-led speculation about his joining the Philippines club Stallion, which isn't even remotely enough to satisfy WP:BIO. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in society in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

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

Haphazard outline of a social/cultural history (or something along those lines) of Ireland. While I welcome more social and cultural history, this isn't an article by any standard; it's more like a set of notes for an article that was never written. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an outline for a WP:Essay. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No clear criteria for inclusion in the list. Having to do with values is too broad. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Nwlaw63, too vague a topic for a Wikipeida article. Snappy (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otar Kiteishvili[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 an unsupported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Players fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG with [30], [31], [32], [33] and [34]. Nfitz (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so what do they say? I see a couple of brief interviews and a few articles that are of indeterminate content. It's also unclear to me which player they concern or whether they are about both. Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:GNG.--333 -blue 08:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Distortion[edit]

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

Fails WP:band. It has been tagged A7 but tag gets removed and there is a claim of notability though not clearly credible. WP:COI obvious based on talkpage promotional WP:Crystal type comments. Gaff (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No sources, no credible claim to notability. TheLongTone (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No sources, no credible claim to notability. --Musamies (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per above. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Speedy - fails WP:BAND, promotional.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G11 Speedy. Pax 07:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Band and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. the consensus is clear. transient newsworthiness is not notability DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Yakimkina[edit]

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

The article doesn't indicate that she has taken part in an international competition in order to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS, i.e. the Biathlon World Cup (or even the IBU Cup). Only became a news topic because of her tragic death. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was created since she participated in the 2014-2015 Russian Biathlon Cup and won the 2014 Russian Junior Biathlon Championship. Brandmeister^talk 15:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you please tell me more about the Russian Biathlon Cup, a competition that's not even mentioned in any other article? Why would competing there be enough for notability? I'm also skeptical about the junior title, it's not mentioned by the Russian Biathlon Union nor anywhere else (not that it would change my mind anyways). And why didn't she take part in the IBU Junior World Championships if she had been one of Russia's best young biathletes (as indicated by winning a national title), then? Can't find her name in the IBU datacenter. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Russian Biathlon Cup is listed on the Russian Biathlon Union website among local biathlon competitions. From what I see, it's an all-Russian competition, involving federal subjects of Russia, where Yakimkina, for instance, represented Udmurtia. As for Russian Junior Biathlon Championship, even though it's not mentioned in her entry on the RBU website, this appears in Russian media, such as Argumenty i Fakty which says she was the prizewinner at the Russian Junior Biathlon Championship in Krasnoyarsk in March 2014 ("В марте 2014 года Якимкина становилась призером в юниорской эстафете первенства страны в Красноярске"). Brandmeister^talk 18:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, thanks. What about public attention? Is it covered by any non-local media? Are there live broadcasts? How many spectators attend the races? And is there even a level of regular competition below? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd say her death alone would pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As Brandmeister J 1982 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, a strong opinion makes up for a weak rationale, hm? So do you know anything about biathlon? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Does not pass WP:Notability (sports), What is she notablity (death?). Yours repectfully--Poti Berik (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete As above, she does not pass WP:Notability (sports). Cls14 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, she has not represented Russia and has not participated in international competitions. Candidate for master? Even I am candidate for master! (Although not in biathlon.) Taivorist (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Lugnuts that she passes GNG because of how she died, regardless of if she was otherwise notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see how you can separate her career from the way she died. You suggest that her death is notable because it happened at a public (sporting) event, don't you? So that event's notability is of relevance here. Also, her death is currently covered in the article by just one short sentence. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I disagree with the nominator's rationale that non-participation in a major competition precludes inclusion via WP:GNG (and by inference WP:NSPORTS). However, given the lack of sources, it's possible that her athletic career wasn't notable prior to her tragic death. There are media reports of that event but, if that's all there is in coverage and there's no further followup, I don't think it's enough to sustain an article. Fuebaey (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:BLP1E. Not enough reliable sources to establish any other notability either. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an athlete and dying while competing falls under WP:BLP1E. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, even for her newsworthy death. Relentlessly (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Abé[edit]

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

Fails Notability outside band Syxxpackid420 (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find any reliable sources through a standard Google or Lexis Nexis search. And it looks like she doesn't meet any of the notability requirements under WP:BAND. Oddexit (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narangba Demons Baseball Club[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:CLUB or WP:GNG. Local amateur team with the coverage you would expect of such a team. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The scope of this club is hardly even local, as there is next to no coverage of them whatsoever. I would agree that it fails to meet both guidelines listed in the nomination statement. T C N7JM 07:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable Australian amateur league baseball team. Media is insufficient to satisfy WP:ORG and WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Angrezi Top 20 number-one songs/singles of 2015[edit]

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

Non-notable chart without any known methodology, fails WP:BADCHARTS. Should be deleted and pinging Kww who has a better knowledge. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:IndianBio, I don't know how does it fails WP:BADCHARTS.

It is done by The Times of India, which is a reputed newspaper.
It also is archived unlike Saavn charts
No other chart in India is archived
This is the only chart which also gets printed in newspapers like Pune and Mumbai Mirror.

I don't get the reason how does it fails. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 07:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used" → It says it clearly that in WP:BADCHARTS. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non sequitur, as this list does not pertain to "one specific retailer". "Retailer" means "seller". postdlf (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

postdlf, please see my question below. What information do we have on what qualifies a song for this chart? WP:SINGLEVENDOR actually says "Charts which rank material from a single vendor or network are generally unsuitable for inclusion in articles", by the way.—Kww(talk) 05:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any comment on your question, just responding to IndianBio's quote of the inapplicable annotations from Wikipedia:Record_charts#Deprecated_charts for seller-specific charts. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, postdlf, when you say "this list does not pertain to 'one specific retailer'", you don't actually know how many retailers' sales are incorporated in this chart, or how many networks' airplay is incorporated in this chart.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying a newspaper is not a retailer, which is all IndianBio's contextless quote above seemed to imply, and nothing in this list nor the parent at Angrezi Top 20 identify a retailer at all. You can instead argue your issue with someone who is interested in commenting on it. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't arguing, just asking. We don't track iTunes charts, even though they are published in some newspapers as well. Right now, it seems that we are in the position where we have no idea whether this chart is suitable or not.—Kww(talk) 00:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Where's the source that shows what sales qualify for the chart?—Kww(talk) 14:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From examination of the chart listing, this would appear to be a radio airplay chart documenting airplay only on Radio Mirchi. This view is supported by the description at Radio Mirchi. Per WP:SINGLENETWORK, we do not document such charts in Wikipedia, as they violate WP:NOT#PROMOTION. It's the same reason that we do not track iTunes and VEVO.—Kww(talk) 00:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime by release date[edit]

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

This is an impossible list as there are hundreds of anime out there, in addition we already have Category:Anime debuts by decade making this redundant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - How many times do you have to be told that WP:NOTDUP applies to these types of articles. I retitled it to be pre-1939 (for obvious reasons). The films you list do not have articles and most were lost in the earthquake and the war, many deliberately. While I used Litten's text for the basis of the list - I do not understand why you are trying to delete the list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Based on Chris's reasoning. The list had not been touched in over a year and assumed it was a dead idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to E-A-Ski. Per WP:ATD, please handle mergers through normal editing and discussion in the future. postdlf (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E-A-Ski discography[edit]

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

Pointless discography page that could easily be part of the singers main page given the number of albums. (An amazing 4!) Wgolf (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to E-A-Ski per nom. Discography doesn't look to merit a stand-alone list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Myers[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate for state legislature who has not received significant coverage outside of that one event. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has 'reliable' sources including the Economist.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:BLP1E. A person has to be known for more than one event to be notable. Also, I'd hardly considered that "significant coverage". --Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Myers fails WP:POLITICIAN.-- Dewritech (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsuccessful candidates for state legislature fall well below the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely running for state office is not enough to show notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yadullah Khosroshahi[edit]

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

Really unsure of the notability here. Elected representative for oil workers. What this is exactly trying to say is not clear either. Either delete or userfy. Wgolf (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7, no credible claim of significance. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC) *Delete - Apparently, the article once did make a claim of significance [35]. However, I do not see anything that would suggest that the subject of the article is notable. Article has never been referenced and the only sources I can find are Youtube videos and blogs. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I would of given it a A7, but given how long the article has been around....Wgolf (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable, no decent sources. Relentlessly (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Kitty[edit]

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

Non-notable aspect; sources are all passing or unreliable. Delete or merge. Deprodded for no valid reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the song has been discussed in relation to pop-culture studies (examples: [36][37]) and frequently in the press about the show (examples: [38][39]). The article could certainly be improved, but I can't agree it warrants deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination allows that merger would be reasonable and so, per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, we shouldn't even be here. The fact that the original nursery rhyme was called "Warm Kitty" rather than "Soft Kitty" and that the original author was Edith Newlin seem to be quite important facts which the world wants to know. The page gets about 10,000 hits per month which is the high level of traffic of the topics being chosen for the Core Contest. The National Library of Australia source which verifies this is a good one as it would be otherwise quite hard to find. And it is easy to find more secondary coverage in works such as The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture. Andrew D. (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability of the song extends far beyond the Big Bang Theory. p b p 14:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChangeTheFuture[edit]

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

I half considered deleting this article as A7/G11 and decided to bring it here instead only because another admin previously declined the speedy. I'm not seeing anything that would convince me that this is a notable organization. B (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article created by the group's director. No evidence the organization has received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Milliken[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. This person has received little coverage, and there is little evidence this person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain WP:BIO This person is referenced in 3 different books(one contemporary and 2 historical) and founded a community that is named after him, as are several public schools , public parks, a GO train station, Milliken Mills etc. He is a notable figure in colonial canada not a major historical figure but in my view he clearly meets the notability criteria. He has to be understood and assessed in the context of a small society colonial Canada Unionville (User Talk) 8:49 , 3 March 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of the citations are malformed but fixable and clearly demonstrate the subject's notability. See also AfD for Benjamin Milliken Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fiachra10003. Notability is established. Finding sources for someone who lived hundreds of years ago is never perfect, but this article does a good job.--TM 23:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - So he "established Milliken Corners", and then a community formed around it. A city named "Foo" doesn't automatically make "Fred Foo" notable. I still fail to see this person's "contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". Magnolia677 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With the greatest respect, I think you're overthinking the phrase "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". "Widely recognized" is very subjective, even for present day subjects. When you are considering a historical biography in the context of a smaller population and a far smaller range of published sources, "widely recognized" becomes of little meaning. "Enduring historical record": the sources, by definition, establish an "enduring historical record". Note also that if the WP:BIO criteria are not met, WP:BIO refers you to WP:GNG. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability does not diminish with time, and this person was obviously notable during the period in which still-existing towns, schools, etc., were being named after him. Pax 07:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Again, there is nothing in the article to suggest that any of the many places named "Milliken" are named in his honour. All the article states is that Milliken built "a hotel/tavern and livery stables there". Big deal. And because this was a growing community, it took the name "Milliken". The article doesn't say he went on to become mayor, or took any leadership in the development of the new community. It appears that his only contribution to this community was his hotel. The schools and train stations don't appear to be named in his honour; they appear to be named after the community. If they were named after him personally, please add a reliable source stating that they were. Without that, this is a non-notable person, and the article should be deleted. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The communities of Milliken Mills and Milliken are new suburban residential neighbourhoods developed in the 70's and 80's

the rural hamlet didnt grow incrementally new neighbourhoods were created 3 in a very short period of time for these new neighbourhoods and they could have picked any name - they picked Milliken and most importantly to address your argument Milliken MIlls Mills refers to something Look at the name of the High School in the See Also section - Milliken Mills High School ie named after his lumber mill which hasnt operated in 150 years The fact it is named after him is evidenced by the name Milliken Mills given to one of the three neighbourhoods he was a mill owner so yes it is named in his honour just like the original hamlet named Milliken Corners Under your approach to notability there are no notable people in smaller societies Wikipedia is filled with articles about musicians with no staying power and porn stars and they are notable because this guy is making it into books 150 years after his death There are sufficient independent references to support this entry under the notability criteria and I don't understand your objection Unionville (talk)

Again, please provide a reliable source to support your claim that all this stuff is named for him personally. If "Fred Foo" started a mill there, and the community of "Fooville" grew around it, it would be WRONG to claim that "Foo Public School" and "Foo Train Station" are named in honour of Fred Foo, but that is exactly what you are claiming...that Norman Milliken is notable and has all this stuff named after HIM PERSONALLY. I've asked you to provide a reliable source to support your claim and you instead you provide porn star analogies. Without reliable sources, Norman Milliken is as notable as Fred Foo. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author's citations (1 -4) support the assertion of places named after Norman Milliken. Further, Toronto's prominence leaves places like Markham in a shadow and diminish the contemporary view of their historic importance. People who played roles in commerce and the military (among many other important contributions) at this time in Southern Ontario's history should be included here.FlettIan (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The references say nothing which even remotely contributes to this person's notability. I looked through each one of them. He was a Loyalist, a lumberman, and owned a bar. THAT'S IT. I went looking for other sources to contribute to his notability and accomplishments and came up empty. NOTHING in the area is named after him. Nothing. He is already mentioned on the Milliken, Ontario article, and there's barely a line about him there...and one of the sources is an elementary school's web page! FlettIan, I disagree with you, as I believe that people who played SIGNIFICANT roles in commerce and the military should have Wiki articles. I also disagree that 905 is "in the shadow". Many of us have worked hard to create articles about Toronto's outlying communities, like Elmbank, Ontario. To water down Wiki with articles about every farmer and milkman is to diminish the project. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Every farmer and milkman is not who Norman Milliken is. He was not a lumberjack he was a millman who operated a major lumber mill at German Mills and owned a lumber mill. Lumber Mills were a key part of the settlement of Upper Canada and its conversion into farmland. They were substantial and important commercial enterprises of rural economies in the 19th century pioneer Upper Canada

He was a successful businessman and lumber mill operator(the word appears in the references) in a small society with a small population and a prominent figure. He is mentioned briefly but numerously in many independent secondary sources. Finally I would appreciate if you could explain your notation to the last reference in the article. Isn't a website operated by a public district school board in a major metropolitan area, presumably written by educators, an adequate source of information in Wikipedia?--Unionville (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Unionville (talk)[reply]

Hey friend, I know you've invested a lot of time into this article, but please don't play dumb just to protect it. To suppose an elementary school conducted independent research is ridiculous. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain WP:BIO Someone who lives in Milliken Mills, or goes to one of the schools may legitimately want to be able to look up after whom the town was named. Deleting this information removes public knowledge of local history. Johnrpenner (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi Magnolia. The article and the subject's notability, or lack of it, doesn't turn on this reference. You have dismissed the question I posed, which was sincere. I have only been contributing to Wikipedia for 3 months and am still learning, slowly, how to draft, reference, edit, appropriately reference etc. My experience of elementary teachers seems more positive than yours. Your erstwhile friend, Unionville. Unionville(talk)--Unionville (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But the totality of the references all seem to indicate that this person's notability can be summarized in one sentence: he was a Loyalist, a lumberman, owned a bar, and nothing in Milliken Mills is directly named after him. This doesn't seem to cross the threshold of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If towns were named after him, he's notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - The article does need alot and I do mean ALOT of work doing to it but notability is there, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Milliken[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. This person has received little coverage. In the sources cited, there is barely a line here and a line there. There is little evidence this person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain WP:BIO I strongly disagree. This man is notable in every sense of the term. He is referenced in numerous books and is given 3 pages in the book at the last reference His most recent reference a hyperlink is in the references at the bottom a newspaper article from a Maine Newspaper from March 2, 2015! 240 years later they are talking about him in Maine - he and Benjamin Joy are referenced as founders of Ellsworth Maine and references are made to their mills If this guy doesn't pass the test I don't see he would I agree with your assessment of Karl Heisey article it isn't strong this is polar opposite Unionville (User talk) 08:40 , 3 March , 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Milliken was an important enough figure to get significant coverage in multiple published sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO and WP:GNG as an important figure from his time period.--TM 03:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the citations are malformed but fixable and clearly demonstrate the subject's notability. Suggest speedy keep here. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Molony[edit]

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

Another Dan Glaser related article. Molony has won an Indie Fest award, but that seems to be his only real claim to fame so far and I can't see where this is a major enough award to where it'd merit an article on that basis alone. Other than his role in Pinching Penny, I can't see where he's done anything notable enough to warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need to note that after trying to clean up Pinching Penny, I realized that it didn't have enough notability to pass WP:NFILM and have nominated it for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to add more relevant information about Steven Molony, and will do so for a few of the other pages in question (Dan Glaser and Pinching Penny, specifically). Looks like they hadn't been updated in some time. Good clean up Tokyogirl79! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.136.133 (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's this interview, I guess. The site looks legit. Also, there's this article at The Daily Dot. This article from The Daily Dot isn't much more than a trivial mention, but it's something. I don't know if all that adds up to notability. Maybe? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's another kind of trivial mention. I can't find much in the way of information on the site, but it looks like this is the newsletter of an art collective? I don't know. Anyone got any thoughts? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Donovan[edit]

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

I came across this while looking through Category:Self-published books and from what I can see, Donovan just doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy. She is a USA Today bestseller, but on the lower end of the spectrum (peaked at the 100s) and other than an interview with USA Today itself, I can't really find where she's been the focus of any coverage in reliable sources. The only remotly halfway usable source was a review by Good E-Reader, but that doesn't look like it'd be considered a usable source per WP:RS. The books seem to be popular, but this looks like it's a case of a popular self-published author that just never managed to gain that coverage to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Seriously? An interview with the author in USA Today isn't enough for notability? I did a brief search on Publisher's Weekly and pulled up enough info to prove this author meets the notability guidelines. The article needs a lot of work but notability isn't in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernNights (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 February 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One interview is not enough to show notability. We need multiple in-depth sources to show that she passes notability guidelines. Also, search hits aren't enough to show notability because out of the hits on Publishers Weekly, none of the ones that would give notability are actually about Donovan. Some of those hits only mention her in passing while others don't mention her at all, as they bring up other people with the same first name or last name. This source is actually about Rebecca Paisley, while these two only mention her very briefly in passing, as does this source which has her briefly mentioned in a quote as selling well. Sales numbers do not equal out to notability. It can make her more likely to receive coverage, but it's never a guarantee. If you did a search on the same site with her name in quotation marks (so that we only get hits for articles with "Rebecca Donovan" in them somewhere), then the 83 hits goes down to 6 hits and like I said above, they're all trivial since they're only passing mentions and notifications that something is going to be released- not anything that would show notability. We need more than one USA Today interview to give notability and prove a depth of coverage. I couldn't find anything in-depth other than a ton of blog reviews that we can't use on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the only times when one source will suffice is when the source is about an accomplishment that is so overwhelmingly notable that it'd merit a keep on that basis alone, which is usually something along the lines of a major award like an Oscar or the Newbery Medal. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One interview and passing mentions in trade publications are not enough to meet the WP:GNG. Works have not made an impact great enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has 'reliable sources', here is another one about her signing. booktrade. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are not reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are they not? I suggest that they are In the (limited)case of simple facts like "Penguin acquire the rights" when the release if issued by Penguin. Not arguing that a press release makes anything notable. just that a corporate press release can be used to establish the fact tat the corporation said or signed something - like a publishing contract.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ideally we would like to see reviews in newspapers or other quality reliable sources. Here is a 2013 interview, in a Rhode Island local-interest magazine called The Bay [40]: useful for its content, but not a very strong indicator of notability. Also, it should be noted that she's no longer self-published, since Amazon Children's Publishing took over her Breath series to inaugurate a new YA imprint [41][42]. Also, for what it's worth, Amazon listed her book at #6 on its 2013 year-end list of top-selling Kids & Teens books. [43] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources located by User:Arxiloxos and User:Jonpatterns suffice. Story about her in the Boston Globe, her publishing contract covered in Publisher's Weekly, plus the pub deal with Penguin for British rights, the story in a Rhode Island magazine, the interview in USA Today, these are enough to pass. But this should be a cause for some Wiki self-examination. This aiuthor's books are all over "chick" sites like pinterest, and a remarkable number of young women seem to maintain or participate in book review web sites where they rave about her books. They also buy them. Over 16,000 followers on Twitter. Author appearances. This writer has fans. We need to ask ourselves why Wikipedia has so few editors of the kind (young, female, like to read) who might have created up a better page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. My theories would include, 1. wikipedia links an editors ability to use wiki code with the editors ability to make useful edits - ie. visual editor not default - this makes it less appealing to beginners. 2. many wikipedia editors are more keen on removing information than improving articles - this doesn't make a welcoming environment. 3. wikipedia can be seen as 'dry' and academic, although it contains an abundance of popular culture article - having said that some people would say popular culture has undue weight. 4. the value of cultural commons isn't widely understood. 5. opinions shouldn't be part of wikipedia - therefore its not a suitable platform for expressing opinion - which may be the main motive of bloggers.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, top ten lists on sites like sugarscape.com are the contemporary version of reviews for popular novels. [44], as are shout-outs from such sites (just see how many there have been) [45]. I like User:Jonpatterns theories, and note how closely his point #2 applies to this case. This book was nominated and, as happens far too often, the nom makes a series of assertions about Donovan's failure to show up in searches that turn out not to be true. Some editors do appear over-eager to delete, which can indeed make wikipedia feel more like a combat video game, than like the kind of constructive, collegial, civic project young women might enjoy participating in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claims of 'not showing up in search result' - I wonder if the nominators actually try searching and are bad at it, or they don't bother to search and make an unsubstantiated claim. I wonder if there is a way to check the number of successful and unsuccessful AfDs editors make.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but there absolutely should be. Too many editors assert that searches come up blank when it's patently untrue. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Ip This may be mere incompetence, but at times it appears to be politically motivated [[46], which is somehow more troubling than mere stupidity. Other nominations are are just plain dumb, like this one where an article about an economist is nominated for deletion on the grounds that it was written to promote a physician, (two people, same name) [[47]] It is easy to see when an editor has created pages that were deleted. It ought to be equally simple to see if editors are regularly nominating articles for deletion that are ultimately kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a tool, it is somewhat broken and not intuitive. However it gives rough idea afdstats. Some editors work on hundreds of deletes a year. Some of it is no doubt valid, some less so. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, click on "contributions" and you can click a box marker "Only show edits that are page creations". It would be useful to have such a box for deletions. There are too many frivolous AFDs. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of becoming a bore on this theme, just saw this AFD [48], which could not have been posted had the nom done a proper search. It may have been an honest assertion on the part of the nom, but who would anyone who lacks the ability to search a couple of art reference books venture to delete an article on an early 20th century artist?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a search and almost all of the sources posted on the article were ones that I discarded for various reasons, which I've elaborated on below. I need to stress that the Sugar Scape source is not usable since the website is written and maintained by the people who are publishing one of Donovan's books- that's the big reason why I didn't include that one. There's a reason why I didn't count most of the sources and it's not for a lack of searching. Basically, don't assume that I didn't do a proper WP:BEFORE process before nominating the page- there may have been reasons why those sources aren't usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to say that I'd like to ask that people assume good faith when trying to save an article. Insinuating that the reason I'm nominating the article is because I'm a deletionist, that I didn't do a proper search, that my AfD history should be checked, and so on does not really come across very well. To be honest, a lot of times it can come across as a personal attack even if you didn't mean it to come across as such because you're attacking the integrity of an editor's entire editing history. You may not have even meant it to be about me, but when you say this stuff on an AfD then that's how it comes across. Not only does did this whole conversation come across badly to me, but it also has the unintended side effect of making incoming editors more defensive when it comes to participating- including the closing admin. Many people who have worked with me in prior AfDs would likely vouch that I'm more than willing to compromise on AfDs and I've had multiple instances where I've willingly closed AfDs I've launched. In other words, please do not assume that a nomination was in bad faith, either as a deliberate attempt to get rid of information or because I did not perform a proper search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, assuming good faith is a good rule of thumb because people are human and calling someone "dumb" is just plain rude. I know that remark wasn't aimed at me, but still... if I see you calling another editor "dumb" then that puts me on the defensive because you aren't assuming good faith about other editors and I have to wonder if you've done something on other AfDs that other editors may see as aggression or an attack. I've taken part in a lot of AfDs where I've saved an article about a topic that was notable. (Also, if you looked at my edit history you'd also see that I've been here since 2006, that I've rescued various articles rather than take them to AfD, and that I've created over 400 articles.) I rarely say negative things about the nominator because people make mistakes- they're human. The best thing is to source the articles, vote keep, and then put in polite suggestions for future searches rather than browbeat the nominator and use the AfD as a way to insult previous nominations by other editors. If you see that someone has an ongoing problem with bad AfD nominations then the proper place to report that is at WP:ANI or if it's multiple ones by multiple editors, bring it up at the main AfD talk page to see if there's a way to solve the issue. Insulting editors and using an AfD as a place to complain about other AfDs is not the way to accomplish these things. I was going to ignore this, but I'm a little concerned about this becoming a pattern in other AfDs and I want to nip this in the bud before you do this with other editors and someone escalates this to ANI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi User:Tokyogirl79. I have been reading your comments carefully and with an open mind. You, after all, are a far more experienced editor than I. I wish I cold feel that you are reading my comments carefuly. For example, I did not call anyone "dumb". I called an AFD nomination "just plain dumb". It was a nomination for deletion of an article about an economist with a fairly common name, with the nom arguing for deletion on the grounds that all the sources he could find were advertisements for a private practice medical doctor. This was in the course of an (admitted) tangent or rant I was on on the subject not of this article but of the number of needless AFDs that are put up. I NOWHERE accused you of that. What I did write was my hope that this AFD might become the cause of "Wiki self-examination... We need to ask ourselves why Wikipedia has so few editors of the kind (young, female, like to read) who might have created up a better page." about Donovan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your answers have made my point very effectively. I am trying to imagine how I would react to your comments here if I actually was a young woman, a Donovan fan who had come to Donovan's page, seen the AFD, and made a good-faith attempt to keep the page of an author I like on Wikipedia. I think that I would be flattened. And that I would look back on my life as a Wikipedia editor as having been nasty, brutish and short.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I ask again, why are we chasing young women off Wikipedia by being combative and by taking down an article on a popular author?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a female editor I can understand this to a degree, but at the same time I don't think that we should cut more slack on articles for female persons just in the hopes that it retains some editors or brings new ones in. The issue with that is that it's not exactly fair to people whose articles on male persons are nominated for and deleted via one of several deletion processes. If new female editors do come on here to argue for the article and their argument is not placed within proper guidelines then we should not keep an article because of that fact because again, while we would like to increase the number of female editors we should also not show them favoritism in the hopes that they'll remain. Not only will that not teach them proper proceedure, but it also runs a very real risk of alienating male editors who perform similar actions but are chastized for it. The drive for female editors on Wikipedia is about equality, not special treatment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - sigh. Again, you make my point for me. By twisting my words (I argued here for civility, not "special treatment) you continue the dismissive, and - your word - "chastizing" style that makes editing Wiipedia so aversive for people who prefer cooperation to combat.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see where asking for additional sources and making sure that all of the usable sources are usable is uncivil- that's kind of the crux of Wikipedia, to be honest, and what you're essentially asking for is that we keep an article based on three sources, one of which is so far unverified as to depth of coverage and one that may not pass as a RS. If new editors do come in just to weigh in on this AfD, I want to make sure that they learn proper procedure from the get go. Trying to save an article based on lackluster sources is not going to benefit them in the long run. Part of the reason that I'm so harsh on AfDs is that we can't guarantee that anyone will continue to gain coverage, especially if we're in a situation where an author has not really received much in-depth coverage and she has never received a review on any of her works. It's entirely possible for an author to continue to release works and still sail under the radar. Sometimes you have an author that will receive one book and gain enough coverage to merit an article for the book, yet they'll never gain any additional coverage for further works. It happens all the time. If by some chance she does gain additional coverage the article can always be re-created, but I don't think we should keep an article based on lackluster sourcing because it may run editors off. I do also have to point out that my remarks to you came in response to you and another editor using this AfD as a forum to complain about AfDs and by extension, the people who opened them. Don't you think that this would be intimidating to incoming editors if you were to see someone complaining about how people don't do work, how things are "dumb", and so on- all without actually assuming good faith on behalf of the nominator. I also have to comment that when you remark that an AfD is "dumb" you are also extending that to the nominator themselves. You don't think that this would not only intimidate new users but also put off other editors? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to re-visit the AfD. However I do not feel that the additional sources show notability for the author. Here's my rundown as to why I still feel that she fails notability guidelines:

Source

Boston Globe. Maybe usable. My Highbeam has expired so I can't check the link to see how in-depth this is. If it is in-depth then it could be usable, if someone with Highbeam access can verify this. It's also local and while I don't entirely agree with the idea, local sources tend to be depreciated on Wikipedia because it's expected that local newspapers and magazines will cover locals.
USA Today. This one is usable.
Publishers Weekly. Not usable. This one is not usable as Donovan is only mentioned extremely briefly in relation to something else. At most this is a WP:TRIVIAL source since it's expected that a publisher will mention some of their authors.
SugarScape. Not usable. This would initially seem usable, but you need to look at who is publishing the website. SS is published by Hachette, who also publishes the same book that they're recommending. This is a WP:PRIMARY source at best since publishers are expected to promote the books they're publishing. Here's a link that shows that Hachette is publishing the website. This Linkedin page for the company shows that Hachette Books is a sister company, so yes- it is a primary source.
USA Today listing. Not usable. This is a routine listing of a book. It did make it onto their bestseller list, but being a bestseller does not count towards notability. It makes it more likely that a book or author will gain coverage, but it is not a guarantee. Heck, we've had instances where books have hit the number one spot in the NYT listings and still failed notability guidelines.
Press release. Not usable. This is a press release, meaning that this was released by the publisher themselves. No matter where it is published or what it states, press releases will never be a source that can grant notability. If the topic is notable then others will write about the accomplishments.
The Bay Magazine. Probably usable. The issue here is that while I do see that they have an editorial board and it is written by a staff member, I can't entirely verify the process. It looks usable offhand, despite being a local free publication, but I'd prefer to run this through WP:RS/N first.
Publishers Weekly. Not usable. This is another trivial mention in relation to something else.

So in the end what we have here is one source that is definitely usable and then two local sources that may or may not be usable. I just don't see the depth of coverage here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for the detailed reply. I think you are mistaken to take comments as a personal attack. Especially as several AfDs were discussed. It is correct to question processes and reflect on their positive and negative effects. If wikipedia is to progress then these discussions should be welcomed. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting

-The Bay is one of those glossy, regional lifestyle magazines. Big spreads about glamorous houses. Profiles. It is distributed in Rhode Island and nearby parts of Conn. and Mass.

-The Boston Globe is not a "local" source. It is a major big city and regional newspaper. The brief article, which I read on ProQuest, is about the party the author threw for herself, with a photo of the party goers, who included a publishing exec from Amazon.com.

-The other sources are all reliable for the facts they are cited to support.

-My argument on behalf of this article rests on 2 things, neither of these things is really about the 3 articles about Donovan in reliable sources that User:Tokyogirl79 and I agree on, although their existence obviously matters. What I am arguing is:

-1. - that Donovan and her Breathing books became something of a thing within the publishing industry in 2012/13, when she was seen by Book Trade, Publisher's Weekly, The Boston Globe and others as representative of 2 new phenomena: the new potential online publishing offered to self-published authors, and the growing market for "new adult" books. I believe that this coverage does carry some weight under WP:AUTHOR.

-2. - That notability can be measured not only in terms of profiles in USA Today, but in things like still being at #17 on Amazon's kindle bestseller list [49] almost two years after publication; having a couple of thousand fans rave about your book on GoodReads.com [50]; having 16,000 fans who gush about your books on Twitter [51]; and, yes, being extensively written up on blogs kept by readers and by other authors of new adult fiction. Does this make an author Wikipedia notable? Not under WP:AUTHOR, but perhaps it should since, by ignoring this types of notability we risk not having articles about genuinely popular writes like Donovan on Wikipedia. Even when, as with Donovan, a brief article on a new writer can be sourced to WP reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your frustration with this, but it really all boils down to coverage in reliable sources. An author's popularity in social media sites or their success doesn't really give notability in and of itself. It can make something more likely to gain coverage, but it's not really a guarantee of notability. The thing about social media sources is that way back in the day this did used to hold some weight but very soon after the websites were launched, unscrupulous companies began offering services to raise Twitter numbers, various authors began writing reviews for their own books to raise the rating, companies and authors buying up copies of their own books to get onto the bestseller rankings on Amazon and other outlets, and so on. I don't think that Donovan did this, but it's happened enough to where these things can't be used for notability on Wikipedia. It'd be wonderful if that would change, but it's unlikely to change any time soon. If you can find a review of her work in a reliable source or find more coverage in general, I'm willing to work with you- it's just that I'm not really comfortable with the sources currently in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no harm in keeping a well-sources article on an early-career auther; indeed I see real utility to having this information available on Wikipedia. You take a different perspective. Since so few editors have weighed in during lo the many weeks this has been up for AFD, it probably makes sense to close this as no consensus; it can be revisited after her next book comes out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue is that AfDs are not really closed on a consensus but on the strength of an argument. I've seen AfDs closed as a "keep" with one good keep argument and vice-versa. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However to be fair, I am going to ask some other editors to come in and weigh in on the sources and on the tone of the discussion so far. I'm not going to ask them to make an argument for keep or deletion, just to look at the sources and tone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I'm not against keeping the article. I just want it to be kept on far stronger sources than what we have now and I'd like to have the two potentially usable sources confirmed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable the books are published by a new but important young people's publisher, (Skyscrape, a division of Amazon) . The most widely held book, Barely breathing , is in 506 libraries according to WorldCat [52], and has been translated into German. Out of Breath is in almost as many libraries, and has also been translated into German. The series is apparently translated into Italian also. All this indicates notability for an author. Non-notable authors in this field have books that are in less than about 200 libraries, and books in this field are not translated into other languages unless they are fairly certain to be popular and important. Two books is enough, albeit they are in a single series. The appropriate reviews to meet NAUTHOR will surely be available, and its just a matter of looking for them. (I was asked to comment, but I quite literally have avoided reading whatever it is I was specifically told there, or the previous discussion here, and, as I always do, am commenting on the article itself. ) Now, looking at previous comments: the nooks are not self published. Skyscrape a/c its website is an imprint acquired by amazon, and this is not the same as an Amazon listing for a self published book, where Amazon does nothing more than transmit whatever orders there may be, which it will do for essentially anything. Tokyogirl is a very reliable editor here, especially in this field, and I tend to trust her nominations, but I think she is wrong on this one. USA today is an acceptable source for notability, tho not known for much literary perception. But we do not judge notability on the intrinsic quality of the work. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect that- however can you also weigh in on my comments as well? I've been accused of being uncivil and at the very least I'd like to have confirmation that I was not uncivil here. Also my argument was also based on the three sources- can you verify the Boston Globe source? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind- another editor is doing that. Mostly what I also want here is validation that I was not out of line with my comments here. I can accept that the nomination may have been wrong, but I do not like that there were a lot of comments thrown around earlier in this AfD that assumed bad faith by myself and other editors for nominating articles for deletion. I also don't like that when I tried to say something about these comments themselves being in bad faith, I get comments that pretty much accuse me of being responsible for driving female editors away since I'm being too tough on female articles (which also came across like they were asking or leniency for female related articles). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you give the impression that this is about winning, not about editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tokyogirl79 and E.M.Gregory:- to reiterate the discussion above is not a personal attack on, or to claim Tokyogirl79 made the AfD in bad faith. The assumption of good faith should be made for all editors. The AfD discussion was off topic, but was about improving wikipedia. I've made a user space page for anyone interested in continuing the discussion on process. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I noticed there's some question about one of the subscription-only sources. I looked at the Boston Globe article on Highbeam, and it's three sentences long. It says Donovan had a party to celebrate a book deal through Amazon Children's Publishing. The Bay looks legit. The author seems to be an executive editor at the parent media organization. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said somewhere above, the Globe article, while short, is longer viewed on Proquest than on highbeam. It is about a party. It ran with a large photo of the party this author threw for herself. It gushes about her book deal, with details like who attended, and the fancy venue where it was held.

This Globe article ran in the summer of 2013, when there was a flurry of interest in Donovan in (Publisher's Weekly, Book Trade) because she had moved from self-pub to book contracts (Penguin in Britian; Amazon in U.S.). She was also written up as part of a new, growing market for "new adult" fiction.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:INTERVIEWS, interviews should count toward notability. I also think trade publications like Publisher's Weekly and booktrade.info should be counted, because they give background and context that can be very useful when actually writing the article. Which after all the purpose of notability guidelines -- to get reliable sources for writing the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about the discussion thus far.... It never helps anyone's case to question the motivations of the nom. Let's just talk about the article. Particularly in this case, the nom is one of the most conscientious contributors I have seen at AfD. She always does the research and is always fair and scrupulous about following the guidelines. There may be differences of interpretation, but that happens. Let's try to discuss it objectively. Also, about the guidelines, I have my own reservations. But it doesn't do any good to vent here. If something in the guidelines isn't satisfactory, the thing to do is go to the talk page and suggest improvements, make your case, and try to get them adopted. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's motivates never were questioned. There was a discussion about the process, and the possibility that some editors may not be using AfD appropriately. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sourcing has been found. Let up on the nominator already. Here is what the article looked like when Tokyogirl go to it, a reasonable nomination. --GRuban (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the comment directly above? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record It was, as GRuban states, a paltry page when nominated. But what the Nom wrote was : "other than an interview with USA Today itself, I can't really find where she's been the focus of any coverage in reliable sources." I had come to the page while working through the list of author-related deletion debates. I did a quick search, and immediately found solid sources. Thing is, I have seen too many deletions that start with sweeping statements like "can't... find... any..." that prove untrue with even a very shallow search. I do understand that someone like TokyoGirl who edits a lot sees hordes of self-promotional articles and that articles in the category (self-published) that brought her to this page are extremely likely to be flagrant self-promotion by writers with no notability. I am unlikely to ever devote the time she does to Wikipedia, and, therefore, unlikely to develop either her impatience with self-promotion, or her degree of investment in Wikipedia. I do note that experienced editors who act dismissively towards less experienced editors, especially those who act as though they own a particular article or AFD, add to the feeling that Wikipedia is an insiders club that really may not be worth the trouble of joining.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion Request: A request for a Third Opinion was made in regard to a dispute here. That request has been removed (i.e. rejected), mainly because 3O, like all other content dispute resolution forums, will not accept requests made in regard to disputes pending at other dispute resolution forums and that includes forums such as this which have a built-in resolution method. (In this case via the AfD closer who will determine the result of all disputes pending here.) Moreover, there are clearly more than two editors participating here and 3O only handles disputes involving exactly two editors. Next, there was some suggestion of a dispute over conduct and 3O does not handle disputes over conduct: see ANI for conduct matters, or speak to an individual administrator. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer) (Not watching)[reply]

Comment Tokyogirl is among the most judicious editors I know here. When I commented, I did not even look at the interpersonal portion of it. Looking at it now, there have indeed been a few people over the years who unreasonably do try to remove all articles of a particular type, or even all articles for which there is any possible reason to remove, to the extent that it could be seen as harming the encyclopedia; and there have also been a very few who have tried so hard to save everything possible that they stretch the boundaries of good faith. There are many fewer of both types now, because our standards have gradually become more consistent. I myself have normally tried to rescue everything reasonably rescuable, but have nonetheless found myself deleting many times mote articles than I have rescued; people who disagree with particular decisions have sometimes accused me of trying too hard--in either direction. I normally try to search carefully, but I nonetheless tend to judge how carefully to search by my feeling about the probability of finding anything, and I have been known to miss things. The nom. here is in man respects pretty much like me in her approach to articles -- as I mentioned, we almost always agree. We both make mistakes. I've dealt over the last 8 years with the potential deletion of perhaps 40,000 articles at least, and I think my error rate is 1%--but that's 400 wrongly decided articles. (My view is that the highest acceptable error rate is about 5% )

There is an inevitable tendency to personalize disputes here, particularly deletion disputes, and it is not unreasonable that there should be, especially in areas where there may be fans of a particular author or artist. Very rarely does it represent malice or recklessness. In some areas it can represent prejudice, but fiction has usually not been one of them.

The applicability of the GNG to books & authors is a problem--quite frankly, I wish we did not routinely use it. The only way we get it to yield reasonable results is by interpreting the key words multiple references providing substantial coverage from independent and reliable sources in such a way as to get a consistent and encyclopedic solution. I can usually interpret these in either direction in any borderline case , depending on what result I think we should have. (This is especially true in some of the newer creative fields) There is a presumption that self-publshed books are not notable, nor the authors of them--there are exceptions, including cases like this where the author has been adopted by a regular publisher, and it is necessary to balance the need for being careful against the great unlikelihood of notability, and the expected strong feelings of the fans. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight. I respect and appreciate the work editors like you and Tokyogirl put into Wikipedia. Where is the proper place for discussing issues with processes such as AfD? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schumacher Center for New Economics[edit]

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

Has not received significant coverage, in reliable, independent sources. The only references that provide anything close to significant coverage are from the Center's own website. A search for sources resulted in some coverage in self-published sources (blogs), but not much else. While notable people might have spoken at talks hosted by the Center or been involved with the organization, notability is not inherited. Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this at AFD? It sounds like the nominator is proposing a merge with E.F. Schumacher --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, as Schumacher did not have any involvement with this organization. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The organization looks after his personal library. If this article is deleted that information could be merged to the E F Schumacher page.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In the early 2010s the E F Schumacher Society split into Schumacher Center for New Economics and the New Economy Coalition (NEC). The former's work has been in the public eye more and is worth keeping for the BerkShare scheme alone. The NEC could be merged to this page. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kateeloop: - I've expanded the history and added some 'reliable' sources. Maybe New Economy Coalition and Schumacher Center for a New Economics should be merged? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to E.F. Schumacher. It is not yet notable enough to have a standalone article. The new sources don't mention the library or think tank by name. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hroðulf:These four do mention the society by name (remember it used to be called the E F Schumacher Society) -

ref ref ref ref Jonpatterns (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These mention the think tank in passing, they are about one aspect of its work, and speak to the notablility of BerkShares and possibly of the notability of its CEO. I am personally disappointed that Wikipedia cannot have a separate article on the center, due to the lack of substantial independent sources, but I think all the content is relevant to Wikipedia, and can be usefully included in E.F. Schumacher or BerkShares articles. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have undergone quite a few changes since nomination, and to be notable enough according the references. Greenman (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only mainstream, reliable source cited is NYT, which mentions it in passing. I don't see how this passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: There was already Yale and Berkshire Trade and Commerce. I've now added Time and Forbes. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After doing more research I believe the New Economy Coalition (NEC) project was set up by the Schumacher Society for a New Economics (SSNE) (and the New Economics Foundation) rather than the other way around. This means much of the history should be moved to the SSNE page - ref Job add including NEC history.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added some more 'reliable' sources including PBS and Huffington.Jonpatterns (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From lack of discussion or comments on improvements it seems the AfD nominator @Hirolovesswords: has abandoned the request. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests are not "abandoned" - it seems to me that the nominator just felt like he said what he had to say. Also, please refrain from double - !voting, as a careless observer could think there are three keep mentions from distincts editors.

I do not see how your piling up on links has established notability. Tigraan (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the second 'vote' of keep to comment.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have NOT. I still do not believe notability has been demonstrated. "Improvements" do not show any significant coverage of the organization. Please do not speak for me, especially when I have made my opinion on this article clear. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The organisation has been influential in developing economic methods, it as set up a local currency and runs a library containing E F Schumacher's personal library among other projects. It has received coverage by PBS, Huffington Post, Time and Forbes. Additionally, Yale has published its works. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough information for an article. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 20:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday's Child (Steven Curtis Chapman)[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable compilation album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Article should be redirected to Steven Curtis Chapman discography#Compilations. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a compilation album that does indeed provides historical reference when looking at the entire work. 10:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbenkenobi (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 01:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with all due respect, notability per WP:NALBUM has not been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NALBUM and all that. Disambiguating Tuesday's Child, so that a link points to Steven Curtis Chapman discography#Compilations might be desirable, but redirecting Tuesday's Child (Steven Curtis Chapman) looks ridiculous. Tigraan (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete owing a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bongal Kheda[edit]

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

Reason: Misinterpretation of references and full of original research and false information. This source used in this article clearly says the movement was against the all Bengali people, not only the Hindus. But the user defined the movement as a campaign against Bengali Hindus. This user has created so many articles by misinterpreting sources and adding original research and false info. - Rahat (Message) 20:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Claim of misinterpretation of reference and allegation of original research is not a valid reason for deletion. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: BengaliHindu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. CSD A11. Part of one users (BengaliHindu)'s propaganda/campaign to incite ethno-religious contention. – nafSadh did say 00:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 09:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Speedy delete tag; " subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator" does not seem to apply. If the subject does not exist at all, the article needs deletion, but I see even the nominator admits the name does exist and refers to something. If the content is wrong it needs editing. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is/was a notable event; allegations an article has the wrong slant are not sufficient grounds for deletion. Pax 11:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tone down. The 1980s incident seems to be unreferenced and needs to be tagged accordingly. However, I take Economic Weekly to be a reliable source for the 1960s incidents. Calling the events "ethnic cleansing" is too strong to my mind. It seems to have involved riots by natives against in-comers. It would also be helpful if a transation of Kheda could be provided. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep What does Bongol Kheda even mean? Assam has a history of violence against Bengalis, both Muslim and Hindu. It'd be better to have a page on Anti-Bengali violence or Bengaliphobia in Assam in general. This topic could be merged into that.--203.112.78.254 (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarang Sathaye[edit]

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

Actor with only a few unotable roles Wgolf (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a few minor parts, does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and is not notable at this point also a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to reach WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster. I don't know that there's that much to merge, but anyone wanting to incorporate it is free to do so. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Filatova[edit]

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

WP:SINGLEEVENT. Became notorious 11 years ago for a while after she lied about her making photos while biking Chernobyl. After than she created zero, zilch notable. We don't need monuments to liars in wikipedia, unless they made long-lasting impact on civilization. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Has not received in-depth coverage and there is no indication of notability beyond a WP:SINGLEEVENT. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect' WP:SINGLEEVENT, as far as I can tell, only discusses whether to merge individuals with notable ebents. In this case, the event itself (her hoax trip) is not notable. Which takes us back to generic WP:BIO. Which is borderline - few RS, focusing primary on her trip, not her person. Which leads me to conclude that she is not notable. Her hoax trip may deserve a mention on some list of hoaxes, and/or in the Chernobyl#In popular culture, where I recommend a one-two sentence summary with best refs is merged and redirected to. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:SINGLEEVENT addresses "whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both". In our case Chernobyl is not the event in question. And the hoax is just as forgotten ad Elena is. I.e., I don't see valid redirect target per WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No real notability. If the WP:SINGLEEVENT she was involved in had any real impact or importance, she'd atleast have an article on ru.wiki or uk.wiki. We're giving WP:UNDUE weight to this flash in the pan hoax and its perpetrator. Rosario Berganza 05:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per User:Piotrus. There is nothing notable about this person , but when a hoax makes news worldwide, it is useful to have a one-sentence summary, in this case, at Chernobyl#In popular culture.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (revised; see below) per WP:BLP1E. I don't think WP:SINGLEEVENT is the right guideline here - neither the person nor the event are notable. There seems to be only one source that is actually about her hoax motorcycle trip. Ivanvector (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect There are a few reliable sources that mention her after the one event. However, it's all about the hoax, and after weighing it, it probably doesn't constitute significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to where? There is no "popular culture" section at Chernobyl nor at Chernobyl disaster nor Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, nor should there be per WP:TRIVIA or WP:POPCULTURE, however there is Cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster with a list of pop culture references, and Chernobyl Exclusion Zone has a "people in the zone" section. Perhaps merge and redirect to Chernobyl Exclusion Zone#Access and tourism where a very brief mention of the hoax could be appropriate. Ivanvector (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to:Cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster. Condense to single sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Internet notoriety ten years ago does not make someone notable today. Relentlessly (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Tynan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a local councillor, has been significantly reduced since last afd, not increased. One non-council related source in article does not meet the multiple sources needed for to pass WP:GNG. Murry1975 (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm very surprised this was deleted in 2005 yet kept in 2010, I'm even more surprised no one had kept per some silly reason!, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 01:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, who may wish to also consider the few remaining blue-link names at Cork_City_Council#Councillors_by_electoral_area for other non-notables. Pax 08:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails WP:politician. Snappy (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that he passes WP:NPOL as a local politician with no WP:RS showing anything else notable. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=LNQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=tong+dojo+cofield&source=bl&ots=yk1EnLcKTQ&sig=GX9YNzegPQjZqU6vQfgjREvtZUI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=feXzVMPkBoWfggSEjICQDg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=tong%20dojo%20cofield&f=false

[2] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=L84DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=george+cofield+self+defense&source=bl&ots=mg-BC87ygV&sig=lo4oRItX-Ty2kPrApld2mg84vqM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yczkVMmkHIOrgwSk_oGwCw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwCjgK#v=onepage&q=george%20cofield%20self%20defense&f=false

[3] ttp://www.kapmma.com/3/my_tweets.htm

[4] ttp://www.thelastdragontribute.com/the-forgotten-fury-12-black-martial-arts-masters/

[5] ttp://www.wtko.org/www/htmls/Sternbergmonth.htm

[6] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=P-Nv_LUi6KgC&pg=PA627&dq=cofield+karate&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z_v-VIW8PIbWggSay4HgCg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBjg8#v=onepage&q=cofield%20karate&f=false

[7] ttps://books.google.com/books?ei=2fz-VISpPIGqNpWIgEg&id=-dsmAQAAMAAJ&dq=cofield+karate&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=cofield++

[8] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=L84DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=george+cofield+self+defense&source=bl&ots=mg-BC87ygV&sig=lo4oRItX-Ty2kPrApld2mg84vqM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yczkVMmkHIOrgwSk_oGwCw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwCjgK#v=onepage&q=george%20cofield%20self%20defense&f=false

[9] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=LNQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=tong+dojo+cofield&source=bl&ots=yk1EnLcKTQ&sig=GX9YNzegPQjZqU6vQfgjREvtZUI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=feXzVMPkBoWfggSEjICQDg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=tong%20dojo%20cofield&f=false

[10] "Black Belt". google.com.

[11] ttp://www.kapmma.com/3/my_tweets.htm

[12] ttp://www.thelastdragontribute.com/the-forgotten-fury-12-black-martial-arts-masters/

[13] ttp://www.wtko.org/www/htmls/Sternbergmonth.htm

[14] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=P-Nv_LUi6KgC&pg=PA627&dq=cofield+karate&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z_v-VIW8PIbWggSay4HgCg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBjg8#v=onepage&q=cofield%20karate&f=false

[15] ttps://books.google.com/books?ei=2fz-VISpPIGqNpWIgEg&id=-dsmAQAAMAAJ&dq=cofield+karate&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=cofield++

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]