Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 July	3 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus routes 246, 300, 311 and 313

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

This is one of several obsessively long, generally unsourced articles about West Midlands bus routes, several of which have already been deleted at AfD. This one has been unsourced for years and I can't see any rationale either for combining these disparate routes into one article - maybe it's the Dudley connection? Either way, the "Present" section (and External links) is travel info so falls into WP:NOT. The unsourced History section looks like it may be WP:OR and/or personal knowledge. It's probably time this article reached its terminus, or is retired to some other more suitable wiki (or bus fan website). Sionk (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom nothing but buscruft that belongs on WikiTravel or Wikivoyage. -Davey2010 • (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unreferenced article with no significant topic coverage found in reliable third-party sources. As Davey2010 says, can be trans-wiki'ed if so desired. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY and issue of WP:IINFO. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above.Charles (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cimorelli. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Cimorelli

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

Amy is not particularly notable among the members of the band, except that she has a health issue, which is only covered by fan pages and self-published sources as trivia. She does not have a solo career. She does not have unique collaborations with other artists that are notable. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Cimorelli's page was previously merged for the same reason. history -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cimorelli, as WP:MUSIC recommends for individuals who have not achieved notability independent of the group. Gongshow talk 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cimorelli JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TD Mobile

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

Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent, non-PR references, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Redirect to Gupta Technologies where the product is already covered. This is a promotional article for a non-notable software platform. No significant coverage found in reliable third-party sources. Current article WSJ reference is a dead link, NYT reference is a reprinted press release. Note: Toronto-Dominion Bank also has an app called TD Mobile, which AFAICT is not connected with Gupta Technologies and does not offer the same functionality. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - another user has fixed the WSJournal link, and that is also clearly labeled as a press release.Dialectric (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I can find are press releases. No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Giant Snowman 07:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinawhite (nightclub)

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources as required by WP:GNG. A few passing mentions in tour guides etc. (because it is a 'cool' place) and a few passing mentions in tabloids etc. (because 'cool' famous people go there) is not sufficient. Giant Snowman 21:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This nom is a prime example of the "stubborn editor" point of my Encyclopedia problems. Seriously, this is one of the most notable nightclubs in London, a global city and has been cited as "London's most elite nightclub". Easily passes GNG. Plenty of coverage in London guides and newspapers. Over 500 hits in Highbeam research, plenty of coverage in non tabloid papers like Oakland Tribune, US Fed News Service (which cites it as a high-profile London club), Chicago Sun Times, NZ Herald on Sunday, Hindustan Times, Birmingham Evening Mail etc. This book even has a chapter on the VIP area of Chinawhite. Not to mention book sources like Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy, A Practical Approach to Trade Mark Law and A guidebook to intellectual property which document a legal dispute it was involved with.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Not everyone has full access to Highbeam, and some of those sources don't mention the club from the bits I have 'free' access to...perhaps if you AGFed a bit more (and actually explained re:notability at your talk page rather than simply blanking my posts) then this nomination would not have been required? Giant Snowman 07:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well-covered in several high-quality sources. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. Blofeld's sources, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foffa Bikes

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

I fail to see how this company is notable, and the two very minor press pieces are not sufficient to meet "extensive coverage" the panda ₯’ 19:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree; I don't see how this company is notable. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A shame, it sounds like the thing that ought to be notable, but it just isn't. A news and book search turned up nothing, a web search turned up little other than forum posts and press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the Legend

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

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

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

Sources are just PR. No coverage to show subject meets WP:FILMNOT. Mdtemp (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the trade papers referenced in this article are reliable sources that count toward this topic's notability. "Press releases" are written by the companies. If journalists reference press releases as part of their coverage, that is acceptable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, nominator, a little WP:BEFORE shows coverage of this completed film topic meeting the caveats of WP:NFF (paragraph 3), and yes, Eric's correct... reliable sources may refer to press releases within the body of their greater independent coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies film notability criteria. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There does not appear to be a clear consensus as to whether she meets the relevant notability guidelines. I note that there was movement from "Delete" to "Keep" over the course of this discussion. I suggest that the article be improved and the seemingly anomalous movement between divisions explained through reliable sources, or else I expect this article will end up here at AFD again before too long. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Yount

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

Not yet notable as a martial artist because all of her titles are as a junior. She fails WP:MANOTE and is not notable for anything else. Article is WP:TOOSOON. Mdtemp (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes WP:GNG and has recieved many awards, and has gone to many international competitions. It shouldn't matter that they were junior-level.Bensci54 (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she passes WP:GNG and has now updated on many senior accomplishments she has won as well. UnitedStatesofAmerica2014 (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This athlete's record at http://www.taekwondodata.com shows her competing in the “senior” division in 2012, but then competing in the “youth” division in 2013 and 2014. Has the organization revised (or added to) its competitive divisions? Unician ∇ 21:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment The organization changed its age divisions during her career making her too young to compete as a senior but now she has been granted a high performance waiver that allows her to compete in the older division again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesofAmerica2014 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesofAmerica2014, could you find the sources for the two points you mentioned, that the taekwondo organization changed their age-based categories and that Ms. Yount is now competing under an age waiver, and add those points with source citations to the article? Unician ∇ 09:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— UnitedStatesofAmerica2014 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Delete~~ Does not meet any of the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. According to the latest WTF rankings she has earned 0 points in her division. Consensus has always been that junior events do not show notability since even junior Olympic champions have been deleted. Merely competing as an adult is insufficient for notability. This article appears to have been created WP:TOOSOON. Taekwondodata also has no record of her placing at the U.S. Championships (US Open is not the same thing). Besides results, coverage appears to be local in nature. If sources can be provided to show she meets MANOTE, I will happily change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The “Taekwondo Data” site claims 38 points career total, but then breaks them down by age- and weight-class and lists individual scores which total 44.5 points. (Is that the contradiction that it seems to be? My ignorance of Taekwondo scoring makes that a real question.) Either way, it's not zero. Unician ∇ 09:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those points are created and kept by that website and combine junior and senior events, I was referring to the official world rankings. As far as taekwondodata.com goes, do you really consider a ranking of #3395 notable? I was mistaken about the zero official points (I was looking at the 62kg class). It turns out she has 3.6 points in the 67 kg class [1], which puts her in a 12 way tie for 200th in that division--hardly notable. Papaursa (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she meets MANOTE by winning one of America's largest martial arts organization's world championships twice, meeting the criteria of "Olympic participant or world champion of a significant international organization; - more than a few dozen competitors"

She is also a very repeated medalist as a high 3rd dan black belt meeting the MANOTE criteria of "Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)" Lastly she has many news videos and articles written about her meeting the MANOTE criteria of "Subject of an independent article/documentary" — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesofAmerica2014 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So her titles were in open competition against black belts of all ages and open to all taekwondo competitors? If so, please document that. Given that the WTF (the generally recognized TKD governing body) has 200+ competitors ranked ahead of her in her division, "world champion" claims need good supporting evidence. Papaursa (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her world championship titles are in the American Taekwondo Association as she is a competitor in both . UnitedStatesofAmerica2014 (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adult ATA world title claims were deeming insufficient at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abe Tran and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Clark (martial artist) (2nd nomination). Papaursa (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to meet at least one of the MANOTE criteria, if not more. Papaursa, if I might ask, where is this "continual consensus" which supports deletion of junior martial artists?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Missionedit (talk • contribs)

The closest examples I can find is someone who won a medal at the Youth Olympics and was still deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davit Ghazaryan). I could also include a world championship claim that was also deemed insufficient for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Guanzon. There are many junior martial artists that have been deleted (WP:NSPORTS also supports this since it's not considered as "competing at the highest level"). I could also refer you to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 17#Kyle Watson. These are some I could come up with off the top of my head, but I believe it makes my point. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the combination of all the accomplishments makes her a notable artist. We can't delete all of our young martial artists because then we wouldn't have any information about them. Please help save this article.UnitedStatesofAmerica2014 (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Papaursa has made the case about Junior competitors. The issue is also competing at the highest level and that has resulted in many more deletions not just juniors It is a pretty long standing consensus at WP:MANOTE and WP:NSPORTS.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa however she has also been competing as an adult black belt despite her age which is the highest level and she has been meddling and winning in that division as well. UnitedStatesofAmerica2014 (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USA Taekwondo's national championships run from 1-7 July. I checked the brackets and she is entered in the female 62 kg senior division. Please let us know how she does since her performance there should help clarify her status. Papaursa (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

she won bronze in senior. the accomplishments should be posted online soon . — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesofAmerica2014 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also look at her 2012 SENIOR national champion accomplishment in the highest level (18-32) senior light weight division

http://206.17.88.25/USA-Taekwondo/Features/2012/June/29/National-Championships-Brackets-and-Results — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesofAmerica2014 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my original post in this discussion I said I would happily change my vote if sources could be provided to show she meets WP:MANOTE. I believe that such evidence has now been presented, so I have struck my original vote. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk Papaursa Since you are obviously a very talented Wikipedian, and i am so so bad at using technology, is there any way you could help clean up and fix the issues with the page so that it is more benificial to wikipedia? UnitedStatesofAmerica2014 (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westbank Shopping Centre

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

NN defunct 74,000 square ft mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage) – which this 74K sq ft. mall is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable shopping centre. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, search failed to come up with any useful citations (i.e. other than ads, blogs, directories, etc). -- RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, and definitely improved by User:Philg88 . Mojo Hand (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of Wong Fei Hung

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

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

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

Fails WP:FILMNOT with no independent reliable sources.Mdtemp (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability threshold. I have added two references to the article. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a general observation, the Hong Kong/China movie landscape is very different from that in the west. There aren't really any film critics or associated websites because all topics are tightly controlled by the authorities. That's why there aren't any "challenging" films made in China, because everyone involved would end up in prison. In short, what this means is that the breadth of movie coverage in Chinese language sources will by definition be significantly lower than that for Western films. Note that Andy Lau, the star of this film, is the equivalent of Brad Pitt and Clint Eastwood rolled into one. While that does not make his films inherently notable, they are at the top of the pile when it comes to Chinese language sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:CSB and meeting the intent of WP:NF through the cogent arguments made by User:Philg88. Major television serial in its part of the world. We do not have realistic expectations that an area with press restriction would have in-depth critical response. More, Andy Lau is a notable, this series is a major part of his career and, forty years later, it has become part of the historic permanent record though book sources.[2] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mcmillan Chiwawa

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

The subject of this biography doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. A google search produces very few results, which are all merely trivial mentions. Overall, this subject isn't sufficiently notable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 20-year-old rugby union player without reliable coverage (almost no hits at all) and who also fails relevant sports notability guideline. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing rugby in the UAE does not indicate notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Stained Tradewind

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

No independent reliable coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMNOT. Mdtemp (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We do not judge a topic notability by an article lacking use of sources, but instead decide if sources are available, even if non-English. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only source I can find is this book(113-114). Need another to meet the standard of WP:NFILM.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, the title appears to be discussed in muliple books, but I do not read Chinese. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the google book search gives nothing but a few passing mentions, the review by DVD Talk seems acceptable. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see my general observations on film notability in Hong Kong and China at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Return of Wong Fei Hung discussion (minus the Andy Lau part at the end, which doesn't apply here). Philg88 ^♦talk 09:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep meets WP:NF through multiple results (even some in English) showing this title as making it into the permanent record for Chinese films. As long as it could be improved, there is no rush that this article must be improved, specially as English Wikipedia understands the problems inherent with sourcing non-English topics from the time when the internet was in its infancy. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As actions speak louder (and can be more convincing) than words, this new article has being improved through regular editing. And apart from the books, I even found as quite decent 2007 review by DVD Talk... seventeen years after initial release. What say, nominator? Philg88? 180.155.72.174? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Michael. Meets film notability guidelines. Appears on all the main Chinese movie sites. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFILM. Jim Carter 09:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StylishBritain.co.uk

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

This company lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I looked online before commenting, by various searches, including this; see also the search links above. There are literally zero reliable sources about this company online. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. If one uses a google web search string of ("StylishBritain" -amazon -pinterest -ebay -twitter -facebook -wikipedia), the search results are rather telling. -- Whpq (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly CSD A7: A WP:SPA WP:COI article on a website for which no evidence of notability can be found (nor any Alexa rating). And when the article text puts such a strong emphasis on associated social media pages having been launched in 2014 (with 52 Twitter followers), it encourages a conclusion that there is a lack of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - no coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY and issues of WP:COI. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing showing up on the usually reliable DuckDuckGo.com. I've also looked at their website: no suitable press comment there. I'd also like to say that what they have on offer is neither stylish nor particularly cutting-edge, so we might get them on "truth in advertising" as well! :-) RomanSpa (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Umm Suqeim. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Dubai School

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Umm Suqeim as that article needs expanding quite abit, Since it needs expanding imho it seems better to Merge than to Redirect –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a redirect. And, after (or even before) the article is redirected, inclusion of appropriate text about the school at the target. But this article text has only one ref, and that is to what appears to be a non-RS (which I've challenged as such). I believe a merge of challenged material that is not cited to an RS is not appropriate. Though I have no problem with a redirect, and then with creation of appropriate material at the target. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, rather than redirect per Davy2010. It is much better to merge than redirect especially since this is a school and the general consensus on WP is to keep school articles by merge when possible per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. Outcomes says: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability get merged or redirected in AfD." And, as you can see here, redirect is overwhelmingly the choice between the two at primary school AfDs. Epeefleche (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merged OR redirected. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Which is contrary to your original incorrect assertion above ("It is ... better to merge than redirect ... since ... the general consensus on WP is to keep school articles by merge ... per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES."). And, as you can see here, redirect is overwhelmingly the choice between the two at primary school AfDs -- which is also contrary to your assertion. Epeefleche (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Umm Suqeim per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools are presumed non-notable. The school's website (only source listed) indicates that the school is "primary only." Carrite (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Umm Suqeim. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Wales (actor)

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

Deprodded bio article that appears to fail WP:NACTOR, at this time. WP:COI editors have tried to add reliable sources but at best I can see WP:ONESOURCE. Of particular interest is his claim -- and that of his management -- that he "starred" in Season two of the hit series Game of Thrones. That would appear to not to be the case. At any rate, no independent source mentions this and one sees in his filmography that the "Game of Thrones" role is as "himself" in a "video documentary," all of which makes me wonder what the heck is going on here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. Fails WP:NACTOR. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can edit any information without source and add more info with verifiable source.• kittymccaffery

To be honest, I actually think you should be blocked from editing this encyclopedia, per WP:NOTPROMOTION. But that is not my decision to make. As for this article, in what sense did your client appear (or "star," as stated in this PR piece) in season two of Games of Thrones? I can't find this on any independent source. I see you deleted that info from his lead, after I had challenged it, with a somewhat misleading edit summary, but I'd still like to know more about this claim. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Even if kept, with all due apologies to Kitty, this is horribly written (e.g., upcoming instead of up and coming, too many red links, poor formatting, etc.) I'm not against paid editing, per se, I just think it should be disclosed, of high quality, and be neutral and weighted properly. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In creating the page, she stated she did so with the "help" of her client, Gary Wales. The most egregious thing, imo, the apparent concoction of a major role in season two of Game of Thrones could very well be Wales' invention, not McCaffery's -- as could some of the other problems Bearian mentions. While McCaffery was notified, as the article creator, this was very much a joint effort between her and client, according to the edit history, and so in Kitty's defense she may not be the source of all the poor writing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. No significant coverage. Way too soon. A series of short films and an extra appearance on Game of Thrones does not equal notability. Clear COI as written by a PR firm. Cowlibob (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being TOO SOON. Let his career advance and he get some actual coverage for his work, and the article can be undeleted and properly sourced. Right now and in our lacking reliable sources for WP:V, we have a WP:BLP violation. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT. Maybe WP:NYA. Either way, delete for now. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; imdb list most roles as "extra" or "uncredited". Hairhorn (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Shawn in Montreal is right. I was not paid to help add up Gary's page, but I did copy and paste what was sent to me provided by him and his crew. Before I had a chance to properly edit, research, and request help the page was already flagged for deletion. Since then I have tried to correct all issues and go by rules the best to my knowledge. I have not been rude but very understanding. Some of the comments below are unreal and unfair. I took it that wikipedia was an encyclopedia for entertainment history. The kid has been in a few roles and is currently filming others. One where he is actually a main character. If it's voted that he's not ready for a wiki I understand but to comment that I vandalised, tried to lie for a "paying client", and I should be banned or blocked from writing is unbelieveable and upsetting. Come on guys! Give people a fair chance for corrections and full time to write before making assumptions or judging. Thank you to the ones who have been very helpful in teaching what to do and not to do in the future and for being pleasant to work with. • kittymccaffery — Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been addressed here. You are not going to be blocked if you simply follow that advice, so there's no point re-arguing the whole thing here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite comments above, article still says he has a starring role in game of thrones.i cant find any evidence he did and this undermines the credibility of the entire article or its likelihood of acquiring any noteable facts. Sandpiper (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Graph

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

Claims of significance made up. References cited have nothing to do with the said ‘newspaper’. No mention of ’The Indian Graph' anywhere else on the internet. Hosted on a free .tk TLD and seems to have only a couple of articles along with placeholder text. NQ talk 17:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:V. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above.-- Dewritech (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:NOTABILITY and is missing reliable references. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ypsilanti, Michigan#Sites of interest. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Tridge (Ypsilanti, Michigan)

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

Prod declined. User added information on a lot of other tridges across the world in order to make this one appear notable, but I could find nothing on this individual one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You aren't trying very hard. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found nothing on Google Books. Where are you finding sources about this exact Tridge? Spamming the article with stuff on totally unrelated tridges doesn't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ypsilanti, Michigan under "Sites of interest," as I found mention of it in TripAdvisor. Agree with TenPoundHammer, there's nothing out there about this Tri-bridge that warrants a stand-alone article. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SW# that a merge seems appropriate. Cool town name but not a notable bridge. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ypsilanti, Michigan. Ten Pound Hammer is right. "You aren't trying very hard" does not do anything to show notability, and adding unrelated locations does nothing to help, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Merge to Ypsilanti, Michigan. -- The Anome (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Pop

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

Besides their official website, this article about a musical group has been completely unsourced and orphaned for one year. slg (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any evidence of meeting GNG or WP:BAND either. Almost all the google hits appear to be about the genre. BethNaught (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willems Workflow Scripting Language

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

I can't find any substantial coverage of this scripting language. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software (language) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:V. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Lacks adequate references. Previous nominations for deletion removed. Possible WP:COI. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

800score

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

This page has been listed as of questionable notability since September 2012, and has not been substantially improved since then. Based on the references, it fails to meet WP:N. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Trivial mention only found. No in depth coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The best source available is the businessweek article already in the references. That includes 800score in a rund down of test prep companies. That is not significant coverage, and I can find no better. - Whpq (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freopedia

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

The article has numerous issues. Firstly there are the conflicts of interest issues, in that many of the contributors to the article are organisers of this programme. Secondly, and most importantly, the sourcing does not show any degree of notability. The sources which mention Monmouthpedia do not mention Freopedia in any detail past a passing mention. The City of Fremantle is involved in this project, so information sourced to them can not be used to establish notability. This includes sources http://www.fremantlestory.com.au/ and http://www.visitfremantle.com.au/ which are operated by the City of Fremantle. The Fremantle Port Authority is also involved in this project, so the source to them can't be used to established notability. The source of Craig Franklin giving a 5 minute interview to 6PR also can not be used to establish notability, given his involvement with Wikimedia Australia and this being an WMAU pet project. That leaves us with 2 sources. http://96fm.com.au/index.php/events/showEvent/312 appears to be more of a directory listing of events on in Perth so anyone with a press release could get it listed. That leaaves us with the Cockburn Gazette, a community newspaper which services only a few suburbs. There is zero notability for this project. My apologies if this is done wrong, I had to register an account to bring this up for deletion discussion. CanterburyKiwi (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was Australia's first wikitown project. There will be more sources. (But I guess as I'm involved with it, I've a conflict of interest and shouldn't get involved here?) Sam Wilson 00:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep*, here are some more sources: LG Focus, The West Australian, Toodyay Herald (p. 9) (inspiration for Toodyaypedia), Toodyay Economic Development Plan (p. 42): ("Investigate the development of a Freopedia style Wiki Town project for Toodyay"), finalist for state heritage award: State Government media statement & Heritage Council's website - 2014 finalists. (* With regards to COI, I have participated in editing Freopedia-related articles, templates, and categories) - Evad37 [talk] 03:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC). (Also noting that I created this article, replacing a cross-namespace redirect, in case anyone thinks that's relevant - Evad37 [talk] 03:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Well, let's see. The West Australian is one sentence. The Toodyay is a monthly. The rest are all local government organs, same as the original contested ones. Whenever I am faced with such a fork in the road, I ask myself, "What would Cirt do?" Life is funny, sometimes, isn't it? Anarchangel (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchangel: The rest are all local government organs, same as the original contested ones – No, they're not the same. The sources from the City of Fremantle can't be used for the purposes of notability because they are not independent from the subject. But that is not the case with Local Government Focus, the State Government, the Heritage Council, or Shire of Toodyay - none of them are affiliated with Freopedia. - Evad37 [talk] 05:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be very clear, I am the Craig Franklin referred to in the article, and I did do an interview (a long one too, not a 20 second spot) with Steve Gordon on 6PR about this. They approached us about it, and saying that it can't be considered independent because I was being interviewed is like saying that a newspaper report where Barack Obama is quoted is not independent of the US government. I'll grant that the City of Fremantle article is not independent enough for notability, but the other sources presented by User:Evad37 certainly are. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - eeing at least 2 sysops are responding here - since when does such a proposal lie as is - a proposal from a 2 edit user? Whose kidding who? Since when does a 2 edit user have such a weird proposal accepted at face value.? satusuro 09:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered that too, but then I thought that maybe this user generally edits anonymously. Don't know if that's the case, of course, but I guess it's one reason not to dismiss this. Dunno. Sam Wilson 10:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, we should assume good faith until there's a reason not to. - Evad37 [talk] 10:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No - the high probability of a WP:SOCK or someone wishing to perform a WP:PA on somebody involved with Freopedia is strong enough indicated in the nomination to ask for a checkuser of the 2 edit editor. satusuro 10:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it doesn't matter until someone else wants to come and agree with CanterburyKiwi about deleting Freopedia. It rather looks like everyone thinks it should stay put. :-) How long does this stay open till it's decided one way or t'other? Sam Wilson 11:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of AGF is (as its name suggests) the assumption of good faith when there is no evidence to suggest bad faith. In the case of CanterburyKiwi and this AfD proposal I see absolutely no evidence of bad faith or bias. (That we disagree with the proposal is irrelevant.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt call it "no evidence" the account was created two minutes before this nomination which was its first edit. We should assume good faith in that action as its potentially a person who may be known personally to many of the Freopedia participants, WMAU members and Australian editors in general and wishes to be anonymous. I can understand SatuSuro concerns because there have been other events to cause raised eyebrows about this. Gnan garra 14:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, adding Evad37's extra sources. Disclosure: I'm also a Perth, Western Australian editor who's done some work on the Freopedia articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. By our own admission many of us (myself included) could be seen to have a biased view on this AfD. I'd like to see some input from non-involved editors. WP:CLOSEAFD already requires an uninvolved (in the discussion) admin to close the AfD either way - presumably "uninvolved" in this case would include "uninvolved in the Freopedia project". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite correct, there's no reason that someone involved with the project shouldn't comment here, but the close should be done by a neutral party with no prior involvement with Freopedia or WMAU. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment if editors work on articles is considered a COI then we have a problem thats is greater than this one article being discussed at AfD. A reasonable person could say that had I specified an expressed opinion it could be COI. The reasons being I started Freopedia, I'm VP of WMAU and I was finalist in the State Heritage awards because of my work on Freopedia and other projects that continue to have a positive impact on Wikipedia content. Editting articles about a broad topic/subject area isnt COI, reality is COI is about deriving some benefit that could potentially influence the content created and the way its presented even I dont stand to benefit or lose what ever the content. The articles existence has no bearing on the project its future nor its success, it was originally a redirect to the project page but that other discussion decided that an article was preferred option. The nominator is correct in saying the Cockburn Gazette covers small area part of the Perth Metro area they say on their FB page that the circulation is around 36,000 but importantly its circulation areas doesnt include Fremantle. Other references show that it has reach is outside of Australia adding to notability, whether a publication is monthly, weekly, daily or just a once off is irrelevant the measure is is it a WP:RS and WP:V. Gnan garra 16:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any conflict of interest, but there could certainly be bias, or the perception thereof. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to quote the nomination rationale The article has numerous issues. Firstly there are the conflicts of interest issues, .....(my emphasis) thats is what I'm addressing there. The second point the contributors to the article are organisers of this programme.... I am the organisor I havent contributed to the article my only edit was when it was a redirect none of the article editors have a direct role in organising this though Sam is/was highly involved in most offline activities and in content creation. The rest is about notability which others have addressed. Gnan garra 14:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still fail to see any reason for WP:AGF - too many afds like this from ,low edit possibly WP:SPA are given credit by well meaning misinterpreters of the AGF principle. I say even just one clue to the nominators nomination text of the slightest negative bias should see the nomination thrown out, regardless of the veracity of the actual intent of the nomination. I still stand by the checkuser suggestion, and a closer watch on eds who think 2 edits with knowledge of the issues as shown in the nomination be not assumed good faith. Where has the knowledge about notability come from? The responses above are basically feeding a Troll - and I thought in the old days we didnt do that. satusuro 01:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the assumption of good faith is that you don't need a reason - it's the default state. You need a reason not to assume good faith. Perhaps there are specific reasons - they have been alluded to above - as to why this particular case is suspicious (and I'm curious as to what they are, specifically), but one ought not tar all IPs or new editors with the same brush. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - regardless whether 'new' or not (how could the editor be 'new' if the nomination with its knowledge of notability, and the details about the project and the publications be possibly new?) - at AFD's specially (and RFA's) 2 edit users should be either (a) open and honest about how they know about wp policies to be able to even present such a nomination (which is why I suggest a checkuser request should be put in) (b) ignored and have the AFD closed on the basis that editors who have no indication of any experience on wikipedia or are not prepared to show their other account experience - otherwise they wouldnt even know anything about notability. satusuro 13:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just discuss the proposal and the article, on their merits, rather than debating the faith of the proposer ... Mitch Ames (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the language, style and expressions of the nomination - that is not a neutral nomination. I am of the firm opinion that such nominations (2 edits and obvious experience and understanding notability and inherent assumptions about participants and the project) should never be allowed further than the nomination. satusuro 14:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When an editor knows enough about the system to propose a deletion and then immediately inform the person who started the article, it is quite clear that they have edited wikipedia before. I think we are entitled to know under what username or IP address he/she has done so. Since we do not know (or at least, I do not know), I am suspicious. I think SatuSuro is also entitled to be suspicious. Would the nominator please come forward and introduce himself/herself to us as a wikipedian? --Bduke (Discussion) 21:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello, I am "CanterburyKiwi" and am currently travelling for work, so my apologies for not responding sooner. I will log-back in when I have access to my device with LastPass on it. I just want to clear one thing up. I am not a new editor, but have been editing on Canterbury region articles over the last twelve months as an IP, and I stated I created an account because I couldn't nominate this for deletion otherwise. I came across the Freopedia article after doing research on such projects with the view at looking at something similar for Canterbury. With that said, whilst Freopedia is a great project, but is it a notable project which has multiple, independent sources which discuss the subject in great detail? Even with the additional sources, which are press-releasy in nature, or which are mentioned only in passing, it is still my firm belief that Freopedia is not notable. It is also my understanding that the Heritage awards in Western Australia were open to anyone who wished to nominate projects and people for them. If Freopedia actually won the award, then I would not have nominated it, because that would confer some notability for it. But it didn't win, so I'm not sure how the nomination would confer notability on the project. What is needed is a wider range of views from editors who aren't involved in this project. 103.5.74.42 (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freopedia was actualy chosen as a finalist, not just nominated, in the 2014 heritage awards, per [3] - Evad37 [talk] 01:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the old days, someone would have blocked you for nuisance editing, but thats another issue. (1) Use your new user name consistently and stop editing from the IP - (2) There are independent reliable sources available (3) to nominate something like this for deletion if in fact you are hoping to do something with Canterbury your first stop is to go to the NZ project and other parts of wikipedia and get help, it is not something you do alone (4) taking another projects article to AFD hardly shows any good will regardless of your personal intepretation of COI, notability etc (5) try from a positive building attitude - rther than to put down another part of the wikipedia project (6) I still find it hard to believe your personal explanation - but your care in pulling the article apart falls down on the Heritage award. (And you wouldnt have nominated it if it had won? shame on you - to get on the short list is sufficient validity in the processes to have been checked out very carefully) To even get considered as a short listed finalist for the project means that people totally unconnected to the project examine it quite carefully, - the award process does not allow itself to be found short of close examination by independent examination of nominations. (7) please edit a lot more before even trying this sort of process again - for your own good, and also other members of wikipedia - 2 edit accounts have zilch credibility specially at RFA and AFD - show yourself in your editing consistently, then your credibility puts you in better stead satusuro 01:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the nominators message from an IP number is to be believed, the nominators interpretation on the processes of why and how a nomination is accepted by the Heritage Council of Western Australia was the difference between nominating this article for deletion and not, as there is little or no understanding of the process, I believe that despite interpretations of notability, COI and other issues, that the article is kept, and where relevant, improved refrencing and contextualisation of the isues in the article is done so that this AFD can move on and the new zealander editor proceed to edit a lot more under one acount so as to verify good faith editing. satusuro 01:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator claims that contributors to the article are organisers of the project. That belies a serious misunderstanding of the project - there are contributors to the project, one person who claims regularly in public venues to have started the project, and another who actually started it and who organises the project - all the rest are participants, there is one organiser - as a collaborative project such as this there is no such thing as a collective of organisers, it is a collective venture with collaborating editors. Fundamental understanding of wikipedian editing is it is a collaboration between people editing. satusuro 01:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on process This is an AfD for the article, not a venue for you to speculate about the identity, motivations, other accounts, or anything else about the nominator. Why the OP nominated the topic is completely irrelevant, other than in terms of the actual rationale proposed for deletion. Calling another editor a troll, or a sock, or saying they should be checkusered, or nitpicking their understanding of 'organizers' vs. 'contributors'.... this is all way off topic here, and, honestly, reads like an attempt to derail this through denigrating the nominator rather than actually debating the article at hand. That being said, I personally find attempts to 'judge' the contributions of editors, even if that contribution is to nominate an article for AfD, based on their number of edits, or how much 'social capital' they have built up among this or that group of editors to be completely contrary to the principles what we are supposed to all be following. @SatuSuro:, you seem to have gone far past 'not assuming good faith' to 'actively assuming bad faith'. Being 'neutral' is supposed to apply to editors as well...don't judge arguments based on 'who' made them, judge them based on if they are valid. Quit going on about the 'good old days', as if to emphasize your 'seniority'. Nobody assessing the issue at hand should give a damn. Revent^talk 05:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - ok so you have a point you wish to make, that doesnt disguise the fact that 2 edit contributors are always suspect at AFD and other Xfd parts of wikipedia - prove to me it isnt an issue - show me an afd or RFA where 2 edit contribs are taken seriously. satusuro 06:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a substantial and notable subject, with numerous independent verifiable references, and by the way the Cockburn Gazette services a population of about 100,000..Dan arndt (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established, article verified by independent sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic appears to pass notability, and article seems likely to continue to improve anyway. Please would editors with process issues keep them on the appropriate pages, and out of AfD discussions. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Konrad

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

I've never proposed a page for deletion before, so I hope I'm doing this right, and apologise for any oversights.

I don't think the subject of this page, John Konrad is very notable.

Konrad is described as an author, but his only book does not appear to have been commercially (or critically) successful. It's listed on Amazon as bargain-bin / remaindered. It's also one of the citations for this article.

He's also a blogger who stuffs his sites full of Amazon referrer links, and I think this page was created to improve his SEO rank.

This page mentions his gCaptain blog, which is now on Wikipedia's spam domain blacklist.

http:// gcaptain dot com/author/john/ - the "Visit Authors Website" link goes to this wikipedia page

http:// theteakrail dot com/lab/ - is another of Konrad's Amazon affiliate sites. He's bungled it, but that page too also tries to link to this wikipedia page, the link where it says "the website's cofounder John Konrad"

This page cites Konrad's own Facebook page. Another cite, Failure Magazine, doesn't look very authoritative to me, either. Stroller (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete It's pretty clear that what notability he has comes from his authorship of a single book, of marginal notability. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable writer. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NAUTHOR. This is the only thing I found that could be used for WP:V. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability guideline for authors. I want to thank the nominator for bringing this article here for discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus route 94

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

Yet more West Midlands bus cruft cited only to the bus company website. I don't know why it was rescued from AfC. These articles have been routinely deleted at AfD, lacking any evidence of notability. Clearly fails WP:GNG in my view. Sionk (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article and all that crap in the template ought to go too, Why on earth this was rescued I'll never know!, Anyway per nom nothing but buscruft and belongs on WikiTravel or Wikivoyage. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and absolutely no indication whatsoever of being notable. I am really struggling to think of any bus route that is notable at all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesdrakew (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Savn (album)

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

New band, new album, not notable. Noming both individually. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I was you I'd withdraw this AfD. If Savn gets deleted this article will follow through under WP:A9, thus there isn't much need for this AfD as well. But it's your decision.--Laun chba ller 21:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this way it is listed and ready to delete. Or maybe it will shake a source or two loose and save both of them. I'm fine either way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anivarya Kumar

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

Non-notable self-published author; fails WP:AUTHOR —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A locally recognized person with local coverage, not a notable author. Her next book may actually get reviews, and she then may be notable, but she is not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She has published her book at Amazon Kindle and iBookstore which are both internationally recognized. Even Fox10 News is a national TV channel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherri789 (talk • contribs) — Sherri789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please read this guideline about the criteria for an author to be considered notable. Also, her coverage on Fox10 is not in-depth enough to be considered a notability-conveying source for her.—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references shown are significant and she is a published author who also has an upcoming novel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterKevin (talk • contribs) — WriterKevin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: I remember seeing her on an international channel in London. She is the first one ever to publish a book at international level at the age of 12.~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterChristian (talk • contribs)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.138.11 (talk) — 12.9.138.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: I remember seeing her on international channel in London. She is the first one ever to publish a book at international level at the age of 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianSeb (talk • contribs) 06:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC) — ChristianSeb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: Looks like it is in talks with Disney and Pixar for a Disney Channel movie. I am so looking forward to such a movie from Disney - a Kids movie actually written by a young kid. It would definitely be the first, ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyMooreCanada (talk • contribs) 07:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC) — DannyMooreCanada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I can't find any evidence to support the claim that this is being considered for a movie. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a self-published book without significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:NOTABILITY. Self-published with little coverage. If there really will be a Disney movie this is still WP:TOOSOON. The "Keeps" above seem to be from SPAs. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good luck to her on her career as a writer, however, she does not meet the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia at this time. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Canyon Synod

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. AfD suggested in this edit. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a diocese of a major church. We usually keep such sub-divisions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep article is basically a stub but there's no reason to single it out among the other ELCA synods for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. No valid deletion criterion presented, and complete failure of WP:BEFORE by the nom. -- 101.117.59.130 (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)— 101.117.59.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps you forgot to sign in? Epeefleche (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This apears to be an article about a diocese, which certainly should be notable. I certainly cannot vote for deletion from what is in this stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Forward Intelligence Team

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

This article is based on unsubstantiated allegations and sources that are riddled with inaccuracies. It doesn't even have the unit's name right, which should be a bad sign. It's also bordering on POV-pushing, in that it gives prominence to Public Interest Lawyers, a heavily biased organization.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not in a position to say if the sources are inaccurate. However, they are all reputable. The first reference does mention uncertainty over the unit's name, which is reflected in the first line of the article. PIL may or may not have an agenda, but I don't see how reporting their relaying allegations of the alleged victims is POV pushing. Dalliance (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article basically consists of nothing but PIL's allegations.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article implies that JFIT's full name is one of the options it lists. It's not; both are wrong.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of the second paragraph in ref. 1 refers to the Joint Forward Interrogation Team. Dalliance (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it does, but there's no such unit. The same source also admits that they don't actually know what the acronym means.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the article is a complete mess. The title is based on a guess at what JFIT might stand for and the sources are a list of allegations made 4 years ago with no indication of whether they were dismissed, substantiated or ongoing. The Times articles are inaccessible to most people.--Flexdream (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When I read Shiner's claims about "something called Operation Wideawake, conducted using white light" I had to laugh. Op Wideawake is conducted daily in every British military unit everywhere in the world. It has nothing to do with TQ and nothing to do with Iraq. The reason white light is used is so soldiers can see things in the dark. Comedy journalism at its finest. We should not be basing articles on speculative rubbish like this. At most this nonsense merits a paragraph in Shiner's article, if we ever create one.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion had not been included in any AfD log. It has been added the the listing for 2 July 2014. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm not seeing any genuinely secondary sources concerning the allegations, and pretty much every statement in the article seems to trace back to PIL's press statements. There are a handful of book references to the name but only one of them even begins to connect to these claims, and all of the them are in passing. Maybe there's a place elsewhere for a mention of these as allegations, but this doesn't pass any reasonable standard of verification, and at any rate it fails to say the most basic things about such a unit. Of course I would not oppose re-creation if better sources appeared. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Actually, I'm going with A7, per IAR. No reason to waste time on this. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey on the average German

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

(Expired) PROD removed by anonymous IP without any reason given. PROD reason still stands: "Pure unsourced original research." Hence, delete. (Sorry for bothering the community with this, but I don't see any valid CSD reason...) Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Methanol outbreaks

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

This is an indiscriminate list of methanol poisonings created by an editor who has recently shown to be disruptive in the topic of alcohol consumption. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The list could be made less indiscriminate by restricting the inclusion criteria to notable methanol poisonings, and rename to List of methanol poisonings rather than the term "outbreak" which seems inappropriate. There are 3 poisonings with articles in the list right now. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decently sourced; no unscientific claims. More of a list than an article, but there is value in it, perhaps under another name such as List of methanol poisoning incidents. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have eight articles on incidents in the category at Category:Methanol epidemic poisonings, which would appear to be of equal intended scope to this list (the same editor created both, and the list was originally titled the same as the category). That seems to be enough for a list even if the consensus is that only incidents that merit articles should be listed. Contra the nom, I don't think the creator's recent conduct has any relevance here, as this list is nearly a year and a half old, and there's no argument presented here that this list is itself the product of disruption. postdlf (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It all appears to be part of the original author's teetotalling agenda of just pulling crap from several unrelated articles to create some new article on the demons of alcohol consumption.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether that motivated their interest in the subject, how did that irrevocably undermine this list? Aren't there in fact many documented incidents of mass methanol poising, including notable incidents on which we have articles? postdlf (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—The single source used in the article probably isn't WP:RS (it's an application to include a particular drug on the WHO's list of essential drugs). It does contain multiple references to the primary literature, however, and I'm finding other sources like "Methanol Poisoning Exposures in the United States: 1993-1998" (L. E. Davis, Clinical Toxology, 40:4, 499–505). The article needs a lot of work, but the topic does appear to be notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After a review of the category, I think this could be made into a viable list article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced, it is neither the weirdest nor the worst stub I've seen lately. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Federalist Movement-Canada

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

Local branch of an organisation with doubtful notability (less than 39k Google hits over all branches and things) The Banner talk 13:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Initially I had trouble finding much info about this group, but it seems that it as more significant in the 60s and 70s under the name "World Federalists of Canada." I'm finding a lot of news coverage from this era. You can browse some of the past coverage here. Here are just a few of the articles I found covering this group: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. This should be more than enough to meet WP:GNG given that notability is not temporary (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). Tchaliburton (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the largest and most active member organizations of the larger World Federalist Movement. It has a Facebook presence and is active in social Media; it publishes its own Journal; and has chapters throughout Canada. Meclee (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did have some initial trouble finding contemporary news articles about them, but they are referenced in the most mainstream Canadian papers. This author pops up a lot as having received their organization's award in many publications.^[1] Here's another one from last year, where Walter Dorn, a reputable international relations professor is giving a statement on behalf of the organization. They also have a few former MPs and cabinet ministers. It's definitely active with a lengthy history tied closely to the Canadian political climate, even if their contemporary web presence isn't abundant.^[2]

^ Paris, Erna (April 29, 2013). "Rape must be outlawed as a weapon of war". The Globe and Mail. Toronto: Phillip Crawley.
^ Koring, Paul (June 7, 2012). "Blue helmets cast aside, Canada keeps the peace no more". The Globe and Mail. Toronto: Phillip Crawley.

Nicbaird (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG per evidence of multiple instances of substantial published coverage presented by TCHaliburton above. World Federalists is an important international pacifist organization, by the way, and national organizations from many countries are apt to be notable in their own right. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2Late

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

Certainly a lot of user generated links for this film, and something called "Golden Global Management" has also issued a press release to push Wales, but the film does not yet meet WP:Notability (films). Perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. I also note that the article creator may be Wales himself, according to username. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator has added some references, that I couldn't find. Some might consider this one to be WP:RS. I certainly would. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Wales (actor). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being TOO SOON. Allow undeletion or recreation if and or when the film receives the requisite coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. No significant independent coverage. COI issue as main contributor's username hints that he is the director of this film. Maybe after release, when it gets more press coverage etc. it could become notable but not right now. Cowlibob (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SS Arabic (1902)#Sinking. Since four responents have advocated redirecting Arabic pledge as well, I'm also going to boldly redirect that article. Merging of content to the target from either article or both is at editorial discretion. Deor (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Case

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

Article appears to be a Content Fork of SS Arabic (1902) that adds nothing substantive beyond what's already in the main ship article. It is a single source Stub that seems to have little prospect for expansion into an encyclopedic article. I had considered the possibility of a merge but the subject is dealt with in much greater detail by the main article. As it stands I just don't see anything in here that's really worth merging. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Adds nothing that isn't already covered in ship article. —Diiscool (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to SS Arabic (1902)#Sinking given that searching show "Arabic case" to be used to refer to the incident in much literature of the time. Mangoe (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mangoe. Sentence on post-WW1 settlement needs inclusion if given source confirmed. Davidships (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangoe/Davidships. --Boson (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no objection to the suggestion of a redirect, or the inclusion of the last sentence from the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and add whatever unique content (I also don't see anything about the "attack occurring soon after the exchange of notes that followed the torpedoing of the RMS Lusitania..." in the SS Arabic article) there is to SS Arabic (1902). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arabic pledge ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully disagree. That article looks like yet another content fork that adds little of substance to what is already contained in the ship's article. I will look at it again when I have a few minutes buy I am seriously considering sending it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd also redirect that article and add whatever unique content there is to SS Arabic. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect. Agree redirect Arabic pledge to SS Arabic (1902) per Blaylockjam. Davidships (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine with me. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangoe. I don't believe the case is covered in sufficient depth in the literature to merit a separate article, unlike (for instance) the Corfu Channel incident and the Corfu Channel Case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. Redundant to SS Arabic (1902), nothing to merge. "Arabic Case" does not seem like a likely search term that would obviously refer to this ship, as opposed to any of a number of other cases of things Arabic or Arabian, so this would not be a useful redirect, and could in fact be detrimental for someone searching on some other subject that might be described as an Arabic case. Redirects are cheap, but their pointless proliferation is noisy. TJRC (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. If there are people searching the case with this title we should help them to find the ship article easily. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative psychoactive alcohol use

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

This is a highly unsourced compilation of facts that do not constitute an article on alternative forms of alcohol consumption. It was also created by a user who in recent days has shown a disruptive nature in regards to the topic area of alcohol consumption and abuse. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely original research of a non-notable topic, lacking any cohesion. - Mr X 18:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Since the "article" is a mass of unacknowledged copying from other pages in Wikipedia (and thus not covered by the terms of our licence), I've also nominated it for speedy deletion as G12; however, if people prefer to let this discussion run its course, please feel free to contest that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations really just tend to refer to users copying things from offsite rather than copying and pasting within the website because one could feasibly just attribute the source pages and be done with it. Also GNU and shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unscientific mishmash with no unifying theme. No suitable target for a redirect, and an unlikely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sections in this article are just quick overviews of existing articles. Probably not what you'd call a 'notable' topic either. Laughing at the quote "Ethanol is safe to use intramuscularly.[citation needed]" Gilded Snail (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MÄR-Heaven

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

Only in-universe information and no signs of notability Lucia Black (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten and merge to main article This information can be summarized much like One Piece#Setting with paragraphs to discuss the major areas and terminology like ARM (the different types can be listed in prose). The faction sections can be briefly listed there, and expanded in the List of MAR characters. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I exported the full history of the article to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/M%C3%84R-Heaven to preserve its content. Dream Focus 08:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @AngusWOOF: One Piece is a big article, and i will say that it shouldn't be an example for everything. but if others feel it can, so long as it doesn't take over the main article.

@Dream Focus: not necessary to mention here unless it affects the AfD. Lucia Black (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If those that worked on the article cared about its contents, they'd want to know that it had been transwikied. Dream Focus 10:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can send them a message on their talkpage. i doubt it though, its been here for a long time and has barely been touched. Lucia Black (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content has been moved to wikia, if someone wants to take the content from there and merge it into the main article then let them. The thing I always ask when it comes to plot merges is: After the merge will the result benefit the main article? If not then it is not worth it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Number 5 7 11:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per above. This has no business being its own article, as this world is unique to a single series. The information should be included on that series' page instead. Bensci54 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article lacks any sort of real world coverage, so it is an unsuitable topic best limited to the main article. TTN (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark David Major

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

Non-notable person. Autobiography. Google returns 79 hits with little direct coverage. Besides self-published works (one of which is given with no title and an ISBN that leads nowhere), the references in the article include a broken link (the Henderson one), a person who in an off-line source apparently called him a "genius", an article in a local newspaper from near his high school hometown (Belleville is near Collinsville) about a play of his that was being put on locally, and a vanity listing in Who's Who Among American High School Students. His listed works likewise have almost no coverage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In my own search, I thought I had found some coverage, but as the navigation trail shows ("Home / News / Press Releases / Arts & Entertainment"), it's a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know the person who is actively editing Mr. Major's page and she has nearly 90 more print and electronic references to add to the page. I suggest patience Gattvolgio (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC) — Gattavolgio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The user isn't Mark David Major? Unless her initials are also MDM and her last name is also Major, then she's pretty much impersonating him, and it's kind of surprising that when I tagged the article as an autobiography and left her a notice about that, she saw no reason to explain that it isn't an autobiography. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that MDmajor19 could be the 19-year old daughter of the writer, who himself prefers the nick Gattavolgio. Delete anyway as N/N. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If she has a case to make for keeping the article based on her intentions and resources, she would ideally be making that case here herself, relating her intentions first-hand and giving concrete examples of the resources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, massive promotional and seemingly autobiographical (whether he posted it himself or not) article on a non-notable person. Unless some abundant external independent reliable major notability is demonstrated pronto, then my !vote remains Delete. (BTW, I agree with Why should I have a User Name? that Gattavolgio appears to be the party himself, and only created his account to make the one comment above.) Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with all apologies to Mr. Major, he appears to be run of the mill from the sourcing - Who's Who Amongst High Schoolers and the Local Newsweekly? I'd be willing to change my mind if the sourcing were both independent and reliable as well as being significant and more than mere passing. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum I discovered that the first of the works cited to support the claim that Major has been called a "genius" has more than the one author originally listed. In fact, it's actually by him. The author he referenced, Tena L. Griffin, cowrote the preface. So the person calling him a genius is a collaborator of his. It's a self-published book, by the way, published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Revell

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

Poorly sourced BLP of a non-notable person. Declined for CSD. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 11:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She scored 5 goals in 31 matches for the Australia women's national association football team between 1995 and 2001. [4], p. 54. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets WP:NFOOTY, through playing for national team. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does NFOOTBALL really mean a referee is notable if they work a match? That borders on the preposterous.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She has scored for the Matildas against France in 2001 (2-1 in Coffs Harbour, Cheryl Salisbury added second goal) [5] (SBS). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors may need to keep in mind that this page was created, and 're-created' by likely sockpuppets of indef. blocked editor Nixon2 (talk · contribs). --220 of ^Borg 15:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bureaucrats might want to keep that in mind, but editors and readers interested in the history of women's soccer in Australia couldn't care less. From WP:BANREVERT "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor". The-Pope (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable footballer who played at the highest level. The-Pope (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Footballer who played for a national team currently in the top ten in the FIFA rankings. I really have to ask: would we even be having this discussion for a male player who had played 31 times for any national team? The article does need work, but that is an argument for doing the work not deletion. Wilmot1 (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can only assume this is an error on the part of the nominator. Nfitz (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alaa Zoheiry

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

Non-notable person. This is an engineer who owns a construction company. No indications that the company is notable (or even real -- their website looks like something dashed together in an afternoon website class). The only other citation provided is to a music download page containing a video by someone named Youssef Alaa Zoheiry, but this video has nothing to do with Zoheiry the engineer and businessman. Article has been created and deleted multiple times. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per nom. Stated facts confirm non notability.--Canyouhearmenow 11:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm tired of removing promotional material from this article. The guy has yet to establish notability, and the article is being used entirely for promotional purposes. Salting the article might be necessary if it's being repeatedly recreated. It looks like someone really wants to use Wikipedia to host his resume. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete per nom and the obvious and persistent promotion pointed out by NinjaRobotPirate. If we are going to salt, it might be worth doing so on the original article title of علاء زهيري and the romanized version. Dolescum (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete per nom. --Seduisant (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For what it's worth, there are a few comments on the talk page, but they're nothing more than the usual "please don't delete". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Comparison of single-board computers. Tawker (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of single-board computers

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

No clear inclusion criteria and a scope of potentially thousands of unimportant and hugely non-notable boards with very little in common. The WP editing model is inappropriate for this sort of article, per WP:NOTDIR. As a result, this is just a spam magnet, hugely skewed by listing those with the most active EL adders, not those with significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restrict to boards with their own Wikipedia pages to remove the less significant examples. A surprising number of the entries do have Wikipedia pages, which suggests this could be valid for navigation. A merge with Comparison of single-board computers (at either name) is possible, but a lot of people seem to dislike comparison articles even more than overlong list articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against that simple statement for inclusion, per WP:IMPERFECT. The fact an article exists is rather random, depending too much on whether someone has bothered to write it as yet. I'd be happier if such a condition was stated as "meeting WP:N" instead. There's still the risk of the list bulking out with linked articles on boards that meet WP:N, yet are trivial and show no overall importance in either the current landscape of products, nor historically.

There's also the important principle that list articles are valued for listing items that don't meet WP:N. Many boards on this list should be listed as families (where their family is significant), rather than just listing the model year and RAM size variants.

If this article is to exist (and I'm happy for it to exist, if we can fix its problems) then it needs some sort of editorial narrative. Why are boards presented here as significant? "Significance" here would have an editorial meaning above WP:N, meaning that they tell us something about the overall picture of single board computers, either now or historically.

Also, what's a computer? I'm in favour of losing the Arduino and similar, to an article on single board microcontrollers. There is significant difference between things that are controllers and things that run general purpose UIs.

As it is, the most crucial to lose are the un-notable parts catalogue entries, such as a list of half-a-dozen near identical ARM boards from the same maker. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cause we also have Comparison of single-board computers which contains nearly all relevant boards. And in my opinion a board is not really relevant if nobody has the time to write it in the comparison. Also I could just add every wireless router to the List of single-board computers cause they use just one board. --Txt.file (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of single-board computers: this title is occupied since 2 February 2012‎ and recieves over 13k monthly views, so it deserves redirect per WP:R#HARMFUL. While Standalone lists are perfectly legal on Wikipedia, the scope of this list is well-defined, and inclusion criteria problem may be addressed by editing, this list is redundant to aforementioned comparison and provides little to no encyclopedic value. Also note, comparisons are also considered standalone lists, which means that we have two lists on the same topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comparison of single-board computers per czarkoff and txt.file. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It complements "Comparison of single-board computers." While there is an overlap, both present lists in an informative manner. Ideally a "database" would have one entry for each datum with various windows into the db. This being a user-written text, we can tolerate some overlap. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to comparison. Scope and incl per above. Widefox; talk 23:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 NBA player salaries

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

WP:NOTSTATS. Just a list of numbers with no actual evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a perfect example of WP:NOTSTATS. It is also an example of how an article that is exactly what Wikipedia is not has managed to survive AfD. At least we have a chance to correct that mistake.Jacona (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just stats. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jacona and Whpq hit the nail on the head: rarely, if ever, have I seen a better example of WP:NOTSTATS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fast-5 Diet

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

This dances around the edge of notability. There is the scattered local television station coverage. However, in the end, I think this falls short of WP:GNG. In any event, previous AfD ended in a no consensus and the article has been tagged for notability for virtually its entire existence. Beyond time to settle the issue. Either delete entirely or redirect to Intermittent fasting and give a brief blurb on this subject in that article. Safiel (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Superficial transient coverage, so fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 01:55, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary sources and a little bit of passing coverage by local TV. For a medical-related article especially, we need more than this. GNG is not the standard; MEDRS is. MEDRS was established specifically so that we wouldn't be in the position of promoting unproven medical claims because they got a little coverage in the popular press. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article was a duplicate of 2014 Lahore clash, and has been redirected accordingly. To discuss this page further, open a discussion at WP:RfD; to discuss the main article, open another AfD discussion. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 10:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Massacre

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

I can't find any authoritative references that refer to this as the "Lahore Massacre," although that term is used for previous events (in 1947 and 2010). As tragic as this incident was, it does not appear to meet the general notability requirements or WP:NEWSEVENT. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and maybe rename to 2014 Model Town shooting or something similar. Hierarchy of Death. Can you imagine this happening in the United States? There would be no discussion about WP:GNG. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dio Zambrano

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

A BLP article with only bare URLs and primary sourcing as, well, sourcing. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY without unaffiliated sources. --Drm310 (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability presented or found. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Total vanity and self-promotion. MiracleMat (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete--When one goes to the article and in the first line it states "Very important music producer" one can only imagine what the rest of the article contains. This fails notability hands down.--Canyouhearmenow 11:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should be willing to give the benefit of the doubt for non-English speakers because they might be notable in other parts of the world. However, the parallel article at es:Dio Zambrano was speedily deleted this morning, so I see no reason to keep this article. Green Giant (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' as no evidence of any notability –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young vampires chronicles of the hunters

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

Unremarkable novel. A search failed to find any reliable coverage, and mostly Amazon links. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book is ultimately notable. It looks like this is the author creating his own page, so I've pointed him towards our WP:COI policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammy nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear COI. Non-notable. No significant independent coverage. Created for promotion by the author. Cowlibob (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious WP:COI. Fails WP:NBOOK. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this looks like a promotional conflict of interest. Can be recreated later if it gets any professional reviews. Until then, it's not notable enough for an article. I don't see any evidence at all of critical attention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 18:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliStar

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

This computer from The Weather Channel lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources required to establish notability Agyle (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found three reliable sources that mention it. One is a BSDCon conference paper by a The Weather Channel employee, and as a non-independent source, it wouldn't count toward notability. Another is a book of Broadcasting & Cable magazine issues, with an unknown amount of coverage, as I can only see from Google's snippet view that it mentions IntelliStar. The third, an article in The New Inquiry, is about hardcore Weather Channel fans, providing very little informatino about IntelliStar, although it is mentinoed three times. The references are:

Baldwin, John H. (2003). "Using FreeBSD to Render Realtime Localized Audio and Video". Proceedings of BSDCon '03 (PDF). USENIX Association. pp. 115–123.
Broadcasting & Cable, Volume 134, Issues 40-51. Cahners Publishing Company. 2004. (Snippet view, mentions Intellistar, not sure whether coverage is trivial or significant.)
Shapiro, Amanda (January 10, 2013). "Not for Prophet". The New Inquiry. Among them, there's a sizeable subset devoted to geeking out over the tech specs of the various generations of WeatherStar/IntelliStar systems, which receive and process forecast and weather information.

--Agyle (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Skilton

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this actor under WP:GNG. I believe some of the statements in the article are false. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ to Delete-- The subject seems to be listed in the IMdB database [6] and is mentioned in the article for the dvd's release announcement here> [7]. However, when you do a research on the various projects listed there are very few of them that list him as being involved. This may be one of those cases where there is more self injected participation than actual participation? I am really on the fence with this one. After reviewing it and trying to verify I can assert that the titles do not exist and the subject does not meet notability standards.--Canyouhearmenow 11:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't very clear. Some of the listed films do not exist, moreover, it is unlikely that he participated in Kentucky Pride before he was born. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You raise a very good point Joe Decker. This is why I said I was on the fence. I know he wasn't in Kentucky Pride for a fact, however, in many cases they could participate in various projects and go uncredited. I think this takes us right back to our original problem which would be notability. IF we cannot source the claims, then we have no other choice but to delete this article.Canyouhearmenow 15:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, and most appreciated. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What we have here is a mostly unverifiable mess. About the only thing that can be verified is having a credit in Crocodile Dundee. There is no substantial coverage about this actor that I can find. There is a claim for being known for the Kentucky Pride Film series of the 1990's. I can find no evidence for the existence of such a film series. None whatsoever. There is also the claim of hosting the game show "Imminent Answer" from the 70's 80's and 90's. For such a long running show, again, I can find no evidence even for its existence. This article fails one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies of verifiability. I suspect that much of this article is actually made up. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low level actor, who had a variety of very-minor roles and roles in extremely minor and unverifiable films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The Demonata. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 05:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's Heroes (novel)

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

Non-notable book; long unreferenced, no viable sources. Fails WP:NBOOK Mikeblas (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demonata, the series of which this book is a part. This book is not in itself notable, owing to the lack of reviews and other third-party sources. A little on the plot could be added to Demonata but merging the entire summary here would be excessive per WP:NOTPLOT. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 22:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chantel Jeffries

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

Primary claim to fame is "...launching product lines of Draya, a character in Basketball Wives". Got arrested with Justin Bieber. I'm pretty sure we haven't achieved WP:BIO quite yet. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Can't see significant independent coverage. Being associated with notable people doesn't make you notable. Cowlibob (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Either keep the article, or merge and redirect to Justin_Bieber#Legal_issues. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hanging around notable people or having plans don't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid news source. We do not need articles on everyone with Justin Bieder when he was arrested. At the rate he is going, soon that would be all Wikipedia is. OK, that might be an exaggeration, but we still do not need these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move back to draft space.. It has been suggested that some cautionary comments be added to Draft talk:Cantata++; I am not going to do so, but if anybody else feels it would be useful, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cantata++

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

Since there seems to be a dispute as to notability, taking this into AfD. Since it was restored only a month or so after being deleted at the previous AfD, a new AfD is certainly warranted. Safiel (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. There is no dispute as to the notability of the product: it's clearly not notable. Since it failed the AfD only two months ago the following four references have been added.

[8] A mention of the product in a book. The discussion of the product in the book does not constitute significant coverage. It is only mentioned on p. 214 and in the linked table.
[9] Mentioned only in a comparison to similar products. It is mentioned four times, but is again not significant coverage.
[10] Only mentioned in the bibliographic notes section of the book. Again not significant coverage.
[11] Clearly not independent of the subject as it states that they are a "Partner to Meteonic" at the top of the page.

None of the references help the subject meet notability guidelines. SPAs spent one day (today) to improve the article. The editor who closed the last AfD, undeleted the article and moved it to draft space then moved it out without checking if the sources were valid. This is a joke. Why are we being forced to go through this again? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who nominates an article for deletion should be sure to walk through WP:BEFORE. Is there a similar set of steps for editors to walk through before moving drafts to main space? If not, there should be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are instructions at WP:AFCR. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ alternatively strip right back to a stub since there is probably sufficient reference material to back that, though it is borderline. There is certainly insufficient to support the larger article. I've searched for further sources, hoping to find one and failing. I've corrected a failing reference, and flagged it so, which turns out to be a primary source. Cantata++ seems to be just another piece of software with no current notability. Salting is not required here, just deletion without prejudice to future re-creation when notability is established. Sometimes folk make mistakes. Gosh, everyone's human. It seems that accepting it at WP:AFC was premature. It happens. Get over it. There are no errors that are fatal and nothing the community cannot put right, as we are doing now. Fiddle Faddle 07:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Draft:. I have reviewed the author's additional work. While it is not yet quite in the right direction it is much more appropriate to return the article to draft than to delete it. They are working actively in it and should not be penalised for an over-enthusioastic early acceptance from WP:AFC. We have the draft: namespace and that means we can give the author and article some much needed space and time. Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move without redirect to Draft:Cantata++ and salt Cantata++: coverage severely lacks depth. Apparently plain deletion is impractical here, as there are editors dedicated to improving this article, and they would probably bring it to the standards once reliable sources with significant coverage would be found. Until then let them work on improving this article in "Draft:" namespace. A warning for AfC reviewers should be left at Draft talk:Cantata++. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft agreeing with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, there is still scope for improvement, as this current version contains a fair bit of fluff and not enough quality references yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Restored after seemingly no consensus. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to Draft I was working again on the article and added some new references (case studies, technical briefs, a master thesis). It is still not perfect yet I know, but I'm working on it! I just need more time to edit some parts of the article. So please be a little patient because I really spent a lot of time writing and searching this article. And I also think it's going to get a good added value for users. QARon (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move without redirect to draftspace. I one potential review here, but that's not enough for me to recommend keeping the article in mainspace. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft without redirect. I think it can be improved, not yet ready for mainspace. Jim Carter 09:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last time that happened the SPAs did very little work on the "article" and then requested it be moved back. The editor who moved it back did no due diligence and later removed the PROD. Since it was a disaster the last time it was moved to draft, I strongly oppose a move to draft space. There's no reason that the SPAs can't copy the text and keep it in their offices. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a ground for opposing return to draft. It's something you need to take up with the reviewer who was overenthusiastic. IN general at WP:AFC the authors are single purpose accounts. Gosh, that;s because this is, generally, their first article. Every reviewer makes mistakes. LIfe happens. Fiddle Faddle 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

these SPAs are unusual since this wasn't a single-time editing, they're a long-term SPAs. I did take it up with the reviewer, but he hasn't responded. And while life may happen, this wasn't "life" it was a series of mistakes, and we have the opportunity of repeating those mistakes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what WP:SALT is supposed to prevent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, thank you Lesser Cartographies (talk) for the reference. It may be useful for some prove of the article.

So, as you all see I'm still working on the article. I enlarged it a lot and it has definitely more value for users as you can see. I think the article also fulfills most of the Wiki criterions. And last but not least nothing is perfect at the first time... I promise to work on it! So come on, give me a second chance ! Regards, QARon (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

QARon, just to be clear, I did a moderately nontrivial search for sources and wasn't able to come up with enough to reassure myself that the topic is notable. I assume you're an expert in this area and, given enough additional time in draftspace, you'll be able to track down a couple more really solid sources. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure that's why I wrote "it MAY be useful" ;-). But nevertheless I'm hoping to get a little more time to improve everything. Even God didn't create the world in one day...he had 7 days :-) :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QARon (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not God. You're not even a god. And you've had months so stop whining. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz (talk), you are always telling me to obey and meet the Wiki Guidance. I always try to do so! But at this time I'm really asking myself if you do "obey" to them? I even didn't compare myself with GOD. So please, would you stop your sarcastic comments about me or my article, just stay neutral... Because at this time it's really going to be ridiculous and it seems like that it is your personal interest to stop me on writing on the article. I always thought Wikipedia is such an objective encyclopedia and nothing personal. I never attacked you in any way, so please stay calm and behave yourself professional. Thank you. QARon (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Whatever your personal feelings you must keep them to yourself. I am torn between WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for that unpleasant remark. AfD is not the place for this. INdeed there is no place for this. Fiddle Faddle 21:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you think or how you choose to "warn" me about this, the previous editor made the comparison and it's ridiculous at best and offensive at worst. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Gorlitz: This might sound patronizing, but you're claiming that the comment is "ridiculous at best and offensive at worst". First of all, it IS a ridiculous comparison, that's the point of that method. You use a hyperbolic statement, such as "Rome wasn't built in a day" or "God took 7 days to build the entire Earth", and say essentially, that you are a lot less powerful than the people who created this grand things, and what you're trying to do is also less grand, so you shouldn't be penalized as you haven't gotten your objective done yet. You're picking apart minor flaws in his argument to avoid the actual content of his argument. His argument, is that he is making a draft article. The article was approved into mainspace, yet the article wasn't ready. Don't tell him that "you've had months so stop whining". That goes against the consensus on AfC, which is that if a submission is being actively improved, not to delete it. The submission has to be inactive for 6 months for it to be marked for deletion by the inactivity guideline. If you're going to say that this user's lighthearted comment about how long it is taking to make the article somehow offended you, as WP:UNCIVIL, then don't make uncivil comments in your retort. Don't get worked up over all the minor details. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting words into my mouth. I suggest you stop.

You're also ignoring my argument. Feel free to re-state it to show you understand why I believe that this article should not be moved to draft space.

Regardless, the article is on my watch list and if it comes back and doesn't meet notability guidelines, I will jump on that article too. The creator of that article has no excuse for not understanding notability criteria since the article has been through to AfDs and both indicated what was missing.

Finally, to indicate that the editor had (has) limited time is not at all true. The article sat in draft for over a month. An AfD has no time limit. It could be over in a day or a month. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article has 53 freakin' edits, Walter. If he did understand notability I'd take that as evidence of his godhood. Feel free to jump on the article as much as you like, but lay off the personal remarks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above Userfy if requested. --Bejnar (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big T

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Awards aren't notable, no secondary sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Subject fails WP:MUSIC, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP standards and requirements. All search material chases back to subjects own created articles in the majority of cases. Awards are not mainstream recognized, although that means very little as there are tons of awards out there. Finally the discography listed is not found in Soundscan or bar coded so I would assume they would fail WP:ALBUM as well.--Canyouhearmenow 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:MUSICBIO, lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 22:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark Market

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

The subject seems to be not sufficiently notable and is wroten with a tone that IMHO looks like promotional. It is linked to other 2 articles wroten by BP09Zahra: Saira Nisar (See AFD) and Tastemarket (See AFD): both articles, that I've tagged with AFD, have the same problem of promotional tone related to Saira Nisar, notability and spelling. Dэя-Бøяg

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This 'article' is painful to read. Not only is it a grammar disaster, but I honestly do not understand what they are talking about. MiracleMat (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial, independent reliable sources offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tastemarket

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

The subject seems to be not sufficiently notable and is wroten with a tone that IMHO looks like promotional. It is linked to other 2 articles wroten by BP09Zahra: Saira Nisar (See AFD) and Trademark Market (See AFD): both articles, that I've tagged with AFD, have the same problem of promotional tone related to Saira Nisar, notability and spelling. Dэя-Бøяg

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing how this event is more notable than any other event. Bali88 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have been a 3-day food convention, held at some hotel for the first time this past December. Refs provided or to be found all look like press releases or variously summarized retreads of same in non-reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Nisar

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

The subject seems to be not sufficiently notable and is wroten with a tone that IMHO looks like promotional. It is linked to other 2 articles wroten by BP09Zahra: Tastemarket (See AFD) and Trademark Market (See AFD): both articles, that I've tagged with AFD, have the same problem of promotional tone related to Saira Nisar, notability and spelling. Dэя-Бøяg

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but weak one; found a possible source here. My sense is the subject is an entrepreneur affiliated with a big trade show (?) in Britain called Trademark Event (?), but language problems (eg some sources from Pakistan) make it hard to verify; few in-depth treatments suggest she does not yet meet GNG but my guess is she may do so in future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per WP:TOOSOON--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Allen (politician)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, candidate for a state level legislature without any other evidence of notability. Citations are limited to campaign announcements, articles relating to it or his own websites. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Does not meet NPOL criteria. Can't see any coverage which isn't related to him running for office. If he wins then maybe but not right now. The article is basically a copypaste of his campaign website and the smartvoter website. To compare, Sandra Fluke, another candidate for that seat has extensive coverage from reliable sources. Cowlibob (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment The creator of this article is called 3250OceanPark which is similar to the address (3250 Ocean Park Blvd) given for the campaign office on his official website so suspected COI as creator is likely to be close to the subject. Cowlibob (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the talk page: "This Wikipedia page was created by Ben Allen's social media team", so an admitted WP:COI.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Cowlibob (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:POLITICIAN. Might be WP:TOOSOON if he ultimately wins, but for now, either way, Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates for elected office do not qualify for articles just for being candidates; a person must have a permanent claim of notability, which for most politicians is established only by winning the election, before they qualify for an article. No prejucide against recreation if he wins, but delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our resume guidelines, which is how this is written. Also fails my standards for lawyers, but is up and coming. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per too soon. If he wins the election he will merit an article, not until then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Paris, Erna (April 29, 2013). "Rape must be outlawed as a weapon of war". The Globe and Mail. Toronto: Phillip Crawley.

[2] Koring, Paul (June 7, 2012). "Blue helmets cast aside, Canada keeps the peace no more". The Globe and Mail. Toronto: Phillip Crawley.

[1]

[2]