Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 31 October 2 November >

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. Seems to be doing a lot for the Chicago community, but the consensus is that he does not meet the notability guidelines. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Angel Diaz

Jose Angel Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. The cited sources either don't mention Diaz or only name him as a member of a Chicago school council of some sort. This means he appears to fail WP:SIGCOV, and besides that the council in question is not itself notable so a redirect there is not an option. Jinkinson talk to me 23:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Everyone, My name is Cecilia Cervantes, Chief of Staff to the Chicago District Association of Student Councils and C.D.A.S.C President, Angel Diaz. 1. This is not Angel first positions, as he's been apart of many community councils and organization since he was attending elementary school. 2.The links attached does confirm Angel Diaz positions as President of the Chicago District Association of Student Councils (which you can also visit our official website at www.chicagodistrictstuco.weebly.com) LSC member of Curie High School Local School Council, Board Member of the Chicago Board of Education and Board Member of Dr. Barbara Byrd-Bennett (CEO of Chicago Public Schools) Advisory board. I'm in process of verifying Angel Diaz's account. He is a high profile in the City of Chicago for the work he has done for his community, working with Chicago Mayor and Illinois Governor, he is not your typical student, but a student leader and idol to students all over Chicago, if we didn't believe that Mr.Diaz has accomplished so much for Chicago, the page would have not been written.

Best,

Cecilia Cervantes, |Chief of Staff| Chicago District Association of Student Councils|

  • Delete. Quoting from the lead section of WP:BIO: For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.
Being the president of a high school-related body, or a member of another high school-related body, is not notable. This is an encyclopedia. Most of the references (no inline citations, by the way), are passing mentions, which might corroborate some information, but that's irrelevant since the person is not notable at all. Also, a large portion of the article is basically a copy-paste job of this source.
  • Delete, this young man might one day get the amount of coverage to pass the notability test, but he doesn't seem to be there yet. As pointed out above, most of the mentions of this person in reliable sources are just brief mentions, nothing in depth that constitutes "significant" coverage. This shouldn't be taken as a comment positive or negative on the subject of the article themselves, just an assessment of how they fit against Wikipedia's own peculiar criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:34, 9 November 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. This AfD debate is, as observed below, a disaster. There are lots of SPAs participating (on both the delete and keep sides) with ridiculous arguments '"this is good for Bitcoin"). The sources in the article are insufficient to establish notability. However, several editors in good standing claim that such sources exist and I would suggest to them that they should add those as soon as possible. I close as no consensus, because there are also well-argued delete !votes from established editors. I have ignored all of the SPA !votes and the opinions not based in policy. If better sources are not added within a reasonable amount of time (say, 1 month), no prejudice to opening another AfD at that time. Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Antonopoulos

Andreas Antonopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not notable outside the bit coin community. Has made one appearance in front of the Canadian senate (WP:ONEEVENT) and does not otherwise meet WP standards for notability. Most supporting statements/references will come from bit coin community "magazines" and "news" sites. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC) — Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to the Canadian Senate, Andreas Antonopoulos is one of the most notable experts on what looks to be a multibillion dollar economy. From a quick glance I was able to find articles about him and mentions of him from publications outside the Bitcoin community, such as this article from PandoDaily, a general technology website. Andreas Antonopoulos. I searched Bloomberg and found dozens of mentions of and quotes by Antonopoulos. He seems to be at the forefront of his field and a noted expert on cryptocurrency. The article content could use some work, but I don't doubt that it should exist.
    • Quite simply, the article topic meets all guidelines in WP:GNG and I see no reason for deletion. The article topic has many secondary sources discussing it, and the fact that most, but not all, of those are bitcoin related does not disqualify it. The sources are still independent from Andreas Antonopolous and are not authored by him. Many of these articles feature Andreas Antonopolous or actions of Andreas Antonopolous as the primary topic. See Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 PandoDaily

Redpointist (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep A poorly written article isn't a reason to delete it entirely. Antonopolus has testified in front of many government panels and is a well-known consultant in the cryptocurrency industry. He is widely regarded as an expert in both the technical aspects of bitcoins and the impact of cryptocurrency upon public policy. The problem that many of the people suggesting to delete this article have is that whether Antonopolous is notable isn't based upon their own opinions; it's based upon the opinions of noteworthy sources. Whatever one feels about Antonopolous personally, it is indisputable that there are hundreds of secondary sources like the NY Times, PCWorld, the Washington Post, and so on that interview Antonopolous as an expert in his field. The only valid argument that Antonopolous is not noteworthy is if bitcoin is not noteworthy, and Wikipedia has ruled that the currency is noteworthy.quintin3265 (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether a subject thinks their article exists does not affect notability criteria, nor should it. Testem (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May not affect notability, but WP:BIODEL could potentially apply here, if there happens to be no consensus. Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Whether the article subject is relatively unknown or non-public is also debatable, I suppose. For reference, the comment from the article subject expressing their desire to not have an article is here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Antonopoulos, giving numerous public speeches, and publishing numerous articles, cannot be considered a "non-public figure". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the information listed in the article, (authored more than 200 articles) Andreas M. Antonopoulos is also the author of Andreas M. Antonopoulos (April 2014). "2". Mastering Bitcoin. Unlocking Digital Crypto-Currencies. O'Reilly Media. Retrieved 23 October 2014. and worked as the Chief Security Officer at Blockchain. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This talk page has been spammed by /r/bitcoin users for whom this issue has become religious. Their spamming shows how the page lacks all three of the Wikipedia's policy on biographies- this article is not NPOV (reads like an advertisement for Bitcoin), not V (see previous point) and seems like a coatrack article. Andreas has written one book about Bitcoin. He has his place on Bitcoin's wikis (there are many) but not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.217.3 (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 64.25.217.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment The debate over the deletion of this article is not dependent upon whether a website sent people here to participate in the discussion. Additionally, whether or not the current article is of spectacular quality is irrelevant to the discussion. This debate should focus on whether the subject is noteworthy enough to be included. If the article violates rules on biographies, then those violations should be corrected rather than the entire article being deleted. Quintin3265 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me ELI5 this. By now Andreas has become such a celebrity, that many people will be doing this simple google search: "andreas antonopoulos wiki". The most logical result would be to arrive to the relevant wikipedia article.
  • Keep Your argument started with "outside bit coin community". To me, this invalidate your whole argument because it would mean that we should remove Metallica because this music group is only notable in the Metal community. Therefore, because the Bitcoin is notable (getting people interest), their main actors are relevant and should stay on Wikipedia. Mostly because people might want to know who this person is (prior to buying his book or reading about him on the news, like the recent one about the canadian Senate), his page should stay here and serve these people. --Jflecool2 (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Jflecool2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— Therealneptun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— 92.201.54.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
"I've never heard of Bitcoin" Have you been living under a rock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.56.105.219 (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of Constantine the Great, should we remove Castra_of_Pietroasele? Your personnal knowledge is not a valid argument. Subjectivity Jflecool2 (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Jflecool2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— 207.166.225.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
  • Keep - A very quick Google search reveals that Andreas Antonopoulos has been covered by tens, probably hundreds, of top mainstream news sites outside of "bit coin" (scare quotes deserved) "magazines" and "news" sites (scare quotes undeserved and offensive). Giulioprisco (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Giulioprisco I also did a quick Google search and did not find him covered by "top mainstream news sites." After four pages of blogs and bitcoin sites, I gave up. Could you please list some of the ones you found? Thanks. LaMona (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 42.79.213.185 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
    • Another comment Again, an argument that adds nothing to this discussion. This comment reads more like patent nonsense than anything else. Quintin3265 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • See this source for a quote from the film Dr. Strangelove - General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. The vote is more likely a joke than patent nonsense. Alansohn (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Antonopoulos is a prominent figure in the Bitcoin community for a number of reasons. Bitcoin, although relatively new, is certainly not a fad and has existed with increasing popularity since 2009. I encourage anyone needing any more information on either Antonopoulos or Bitcoin to consult their respective Wikipedia entries which is of course why they exist. --10:49, 4 November 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.177.192 (talk)
— 67.184.177.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— Dmodell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment After much consideration, reading of policies, and other posts on this thread, I don't feel I have enough experience to add in a meaningful way to this discussion. Jmdugan (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Previous comment struck: Keep This kind of debate is entirely ridiculous. There is no downside to Wikipedia keeping people listed. In my opinion, anyone who's given a solo speech to parliament is notable enough to be listed in a global, shared repository. Gosh, Wikipedia has an article on a single My Little Pony animated series episode, here The_Return_of_Harmony ; Square that with what is or is not notable enough to be included (and there are many other examples of ridiculously non notable norms on Wikipedia). Jmdugan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Jmdugan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
Comment This is not the place to discuss the merits of wikipedia's notability criteria. Please try to consider the proposition on its merits Testem (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of wording: Antonopoulos was in one, exactly one, NYTimes article, in 2007. "...since at least 2007" makes it sound like there were other articles, but there were not. LaMona (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I agree with Wikipedia. I objected to the original idea to write an article about me, as I don't think I am "notable" in any sense of the word. All the article does is give trolls a public place to play out their petty battles and vandalism. I'd rather it was deleted." (emphasis mine)
This guy is a prominent figure in a marginal internet topic. This article could end up being a hazardous biography of a living person. I think until he gets some large fleshed out articles about him primarily, this article will be a hodgepodge of snippets of his work and casual vandalism.---Citing (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's notability criteria don't take into account the wishes of the subject, and nor should they. If the Queen of England expressed a wish to have her article deleted it too would be ignored. Testem (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen's opinion is irrelevant because she is a major public figure with thousands of published sources with her as the main topic. Antonopolous is a minor figure with very few (if any) reliable sources treating him as the main subject of interest. I prefer to be more careful about biographies of marginally important people.---Citing (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Sdietzer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
Comment As much as I agree with you, the proposition should be considered on its merit and we should avoid ad hominem arguments wherever possible. Testem (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 67.107.159.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
  • Keep Agree with Ethyr, Dmodell, Redpointist and Ladislav Mecir. Antonopoulos is a published author whose expertise has earned him council with the Canadian senate as well as quotes in news articles from a variety of sources. He is a published author and is as notable as any other expert on a niche topic. It is of note that there is not a wealth of secondary sources discussing him, but plenty featuring him.
With that said, the article is in need of much improvement to ensure it is accurate (as it is autobiographical) and encyclopedic. Perhaps those who have joined today to defend the article might be so kind as to stick around and help edit it. If you are unsure about anything then you can post a draft to the talk page. The most useful thing is reliable sources, which experienced editors will be happy to reference when writing and citing content. Testem (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few places that are lacking citations and that presumably should be easy to correct if there truly is a wealth of material on him. LaMona (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Foucault Michel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
— 5.249.112.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I hear about Andreas Antonopoulos all the time on every resource I read, that's why I'm pretty sure that he's notable person. He has been featured in many events on YouTube and Bitcoin community is always refers to his concepts, he's more likely to be the one who's was the voice of Bitcoin - I saw many places where community experts are referencing to him, because he's the one who introduced basic philosophy to rely upon for millions forth. I'm personally don't really believe in Bitcoin, but at the same time I seeing Andreas now on every Internet page related to crypto's & I'm using that info, that's why Wikipedia should keep his page or at least some place which explain his concepts he covered. The article should be improved, but not deleted. I'm wikipedia member since 2009 (my most popular nicknames in public are efxco, earlfox) so you can easily check that I'm not singed up to pump this page Fanees (talk) 2:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
— Fanees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - 92.25.139.20 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This deletion discussion is mentioned at [2]
  • Delete - Bitcoin has always seemed to be a minor fad to me, but we'll see. Notability is permanent, in a couple of years, nobody may remember what bitcoin was. There is no need for Wikipedia to pump this up. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Andreas Antonopoulos' presence in the bitcoin community is notable if for no other reason than as seminal history. He is a prominent figure for the decentralized movement and has spoken on many occasions about the subject. Wikipedia is itself a decentralized movement according to the decentralization page. The move to delete his Wikipedia page is a ploy and we are the pawns.Noisavni (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Noisavni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - 92.25.139.20 (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm one of the developers of the Bitcoin reference software (and a long time Wikipedia editor) and probably wouldn't know who this person was outside of using reddit; the result of the relative obscurity is that the Wikipedia article is pretty much guaranteed to be inaccurate and misleading. For example, the article falsely claims that the subject served on the board of the Bitcoin Foundation (he never has), it also falsely claims that he contributed to several software projects (bitaddress, ethereum, etc.) which he has not. etc. To those coming in from reddit being asked to mob this discussion: Having a wikipeida article about you is no kindness, the majority of people I know who have articles about them that I've discussed it with have considered it to be a negative effect on their lives, and the impact is more negative the more niche the interest around you is as the article becomes more distorted and inaccurate the sparser the coverage becomes. Wikipedia has a fairly high bar for articles on living people both to protect both the readers and the subject and to preserve the maintainability of the project. I was surprised to find that there was an article on this subject, but not surprised that it was only a couple weeks old and proposed for deletion. There appear to basically be no independant / secondary sources on the subject (as opposed to simply mentioning the subject and repeating a bio the subject provided). --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The statement "There appear to basically be no independant / secondary sources on the subject (as opposed to simply mentioning the subject and repeating a bio the subject provided)" seems questionable. There is a multitude of secondary sources. Naturally, most of them are focused on cryptocurrency, but there are examples of more general secondary sources, such as PandoDailyRedpointist (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, I hadn't seen the pandodaily article, ... it's a relatively poor source as it has many factually incorrect claims, e.g. claims that the subject is a "Bitcoin developer". Bummer. But again, this is par for the coarse for folks who are only well known in some narrow field; and it means the article is doomed to be inaccurate (if we're luckly) and libelous if we're not... and a single example is not "a multitude".--Gmaxwell (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "multitude" of secondary sources includes those that are bitcoin specific publications, of which there are MANY . Just because a source focuses on bitcoin doesn't invalidate it as a source. The notability guidelines call for sources that are "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Google Andreas Antonopolous and you will find a multitude of articles written by bitcoin related news sites that are in fact independent from him. Also, the fact that Pando refers to him, among other things, as a "bitcoin developer" doesn't disqualify it as a source. You might use the term to mean a "bitcoin core developer" when others might use the term more loosely, bitcoin being a distributed system, to mean someone contributing to the bitcoin software ecosystem as a whole, such as by working on blockchain.info security issues. Redpointist (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not complaining that sources "focuses on bitcoin", I mean they are litterally writing about Bitcoin and not about the subject matter of this article (Andreas Antonopoulos) to the extent that they say much anything about him at all most quote directly from his published bio-blub (No fault of theirs', after all those articles weren't about him, the articles are about Bitcoin). WRT Pando, "to mean someone contributing to the bitcoin software ecosystem as a whole", is what I'm referring to. I'm not aware of any Bitcoin network or ecosystem software development he's contributed to (you'll note there are 'sourced' claims in the WP article, but I pointed out here that they're incorrect, stemming from mishandling primary sources).--Gmaxwell (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you not think that as Chief Security Officer of blockchain.info he contributed anything to the blockchain.info software? Is blockchain.info not part of the bitcoin ecosystem? Regarding your claim that Andreas is not the main topic of any of any of these multitudes of secondary sources, let me provide some examples: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Redpointist (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • He did not (a significant portion of their service is on github so you can see the updates; and he was not responding to security reports or other issues). The citations you're giving are about Bitcoin, not about Andreas-- the first is about the Bitcoin foundation. The only statement of fact expressed about Andreas in the body of the article is 'That’s why it should come as little surprise that Andreas Antonopoulos doesn’t want to have “even the smallest association with the Bitcoin Foundation.”', though there are a good half dozen statements of fact about the Bitcoin Foundation. Similar for your second article, beyond the point that he spoke to the Canada’s Senate you cannot extract any facts about Andreas from the article, because he wasn't the subject of the article. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Perhaps it would be better to say that he oversaw a team of developers in his role. The point being that ultimately I have seen CNN make much more ambiguous or misleading statements about very notable topics. Also, I think its a stretch to say an article isn't about Andreas when an action that Andreas took is the title of the article itself. The fact that the article may go on to address what led up to the action or to explain something about bitcoin is irrelevant. I can clearly learn things about Andreas from the articles in question. Infact, from example 3, I've learned that Andreas has a Visa credit card. A source does not have to be a biography of a person to be about a person.Redpointist (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've been expanding this article all day. I added the part about his commits to Ethereum because he did make commits to the project. His github profile shows the repositories he contributed to, and it is linked in the reference. Quintin3265 (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You do not appear to be familiar with the primary source material (i.e. the github interface). Please refrain from making your edits about his code contributions, as it implies an expertise that does not appear to exist in any public record. Midnightmagi (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The information on github is incorrect, feel free to pull the actual ethereum-cpp repository and check for yourself. There are no commits to him from it inside it. Likewise for bitaddress (There is an actual commit in buttercoin although it was limited to in the OSX homebrew build documentation). I believe github leave those markers on the profile if you leave a comment. This is a fine example of someone being not well known enough that you're forced to use primary sources, with the inherent problems that come from not really understanding primary source material. Andreas contributes to the Bitcoin ecosystem in other ways, he is not as far as I can tell, a technical expert or sofware developer (or at least I don't believe I've ever seen software contributions from him on any publically available Bitcoin project). --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator noted that "Most supporting statements/references will come from bit coin community "magazines" and "news" sites," but a quick scan of the references (used appropriately) shows that accepted secondary sources such as PC World, NY Times, Fortune, Biz Journal, Oreilly, and Pando are used, in addition to the objectionable "topic specific" sources. I see that GMaxwell (bitcoin dev) and Andreas Antonopoulos have both agreed with the AfD proposal, but possibly for the wrong reasons (see above and a post at reddit.com). This article seems to easily meet WP:GNG. Calebb (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are the wrong reasons you're accusing me of? If you're referring to the remark that it's not doing the subject a favor--, I left that for fans that are flooding in from Reddit who though the proposed deletion was a slight against someone they like; it's not my motivation (I was a Wikipedia editor long before I started writing the Bitcoin software...). The secondary sources I've seen are not articles about the subject, they're ones mentioning the subject (e.g. quoting him). Not the same thing. In terms of being able to write a useful article we secondary sources about that articles subject in order to parse and contextualize primary source material. Am I missing one? Cheers.--Gmaxwell (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gmaxwell There is an article about Andreas Antonopolous on PandoDaily PandoDailyRedpointist (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It seems to me that, barring some strange circumstance, this article is going to be kept due to lack of consensus. I think I've added about eight sources, including places like the NY Times, just in the past hours. Deletionists can possibly argue that bitcoin isn't an important area, but it's difficult to state that Antonopolous is un-notable in bitcoins because there are articles all over about him. If bitcoin is important, then Antonopolous is important, and if bitcoin is "marginal," then Antonopolous is as well. Quintin3265 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, you've littered the article with "sources" which aren't even about the subject of the article. :( And along the way there is _still_ a bunch of misinformation (with helpful 'sources' which are themselves incorrect or misapplied, giving a whole air of truthyness to the misinformation), even after I specifically pointed it out. I don't mean it as an insult, but this is actually a perfect example of the kind of subject matter that wikipedia is not structurally equipted to handle, and exactly why there is a bar for inclusion. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment If you perceive problems with the facts, then why not change them yourself? I tried to follow the sources as closely as possible, but if you see something that is wrong, then you should correct it. There are still issues that need to be fixed with it, but I have to manage my mining pool and I'm not supposed to be a one-man editing team. Look at the article as it read at this time yesterday and see the progress. Something in the article being wrong isn't a reason for deleting it; multiple editors exist to correct each other's mistakes. It seems to me that it would be a better use of time simply correcting the mistakes than pointing them out to people here. Quintin3265 (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— XDexus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
  • Keep Andreaus is frequently a panelist at conferences, is featured as commentator on television programs, he is interviewed in newspapers, magazines and other media. It is a benefit that people can look him up and find more information on who he is and what his other work is. The benefits of deleting him would be ??? Saving a little bit of disk space? I don't get it. Jreighley (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Jreighley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
No disk space is saved by deleting an article, nor would it matter if any were. Rather, the hope is to improve the quality of information available to people as well as protecting the subject from misinformation and libel by covering less prominent subjects as part of other articles where they can be better expressed in context and better curated, or not at all. It takes real time an effort to maintain a wikipedia article and it isn't generally possible to do a good job of it if there is not a good set of secondary sources available. Right now, even though the article is receiving more attention then will likely be paid to it even again, it still contains many obvious inaccuracies, and a lack of available source material means that its unlikely that they'll be fixed in any persistent way.--Gmaxwell (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, through the use of the multitude of secondary sources, I corrected the inaccuracy in the article stating that Andreas served on the board of the Bitcoin Foundation. He actually served as the head of the anti-povery committee. If there was a lack of secondary sources, this would not have been possible for me to do.Redpointist (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, this is good for bitcoin Countered (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a relative new comer to the Bitcoin scene as evidenced by the references provided to support his entry. Prior to 2013 his activities seem to be within the field of online privacy and IT security generally. A check on the history of articles by him for IT World Canada ([3]) , Network World ([4]), Info World ([5]) and PC World ([6]) shows this. This ended some time in late 2011 after which he seems to have reinvented himself as an expert on Bitcoin. Lancer2K (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty much per GMaxwell. Even if you discount the idea that the article will inherently be inaccurate, the fact is that outside of the very specific topic area and the fawning sycophants that cover it on Reddit, this man is non notable and one speech plus a book doesn't change that. If he gains notability then there is absolutely no technical limitation to either undeleting and expanding or creating a new article for him, but until then this article should be deleted. Cat-fivetc ---- 10:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I read lots of Bitcoin articles, watch many videos on the subject and follow relevant Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency news. Antonopoulos always crops up here. If I had to name 3 major experts on cryptocurrencies then I would probably think of him first. Afterwards probably Satoshi Nakamoto himself (obviously he doesn't publically talk much on the subject), Vitalik Buterin (less well known). Actually if you put "Bitcoin" into Youtube, Antonopoulos crops up in the 3th, 7th and 15th results based on relevance. So if Bitcoin is to be allowed at all on Wikipedia then I can't see why he wouldn't be featured. Trying to keep this objective rather than a war of pro vs anti-Bitcoin camps. Nibinaear (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out in other comments here, a person simply being quoted by an article doesn't mean that the article said anything substantive about the person in question, usually not. Go actually look at your search results. --Gmaxwell (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland?

AfDs for this article:
Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was written by Hola2014 (talk · contribs), a now-blocked sock of a site-banned user, with no significant contributions by others. This was apparently not noticed or discussed in the previous AfD. The deletion is necessary per WP:CSD#G5 in order to enforce the banning policy and so as to not to incentivize ban evasion. My speedy deletion of the article was undone by another administrator with the comment "I'll take responsibility for it". However, this statement does not change the fact that the speedy deletion criterion still applies because there are no significant contributions by non-banned users. The article should therefore still be deleted. In addition, the topic - a short-lived investment advertising campaign - isn't exactly what I'd call essential content for an encyclopedia; it received media coverage apparently mostly for its odd slogan, which makes the whole topic border on WP:NOTNEWS.  Sandstein  22:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to have been a notable advertising campaign, mentioned in the advertising trade press and mentioned in the Polish press, even if most of the wider notability was in its parodying. So Sandstein finally succeeded in getting Russavia? I did an essay on issues related to the Eastern European Mailing List affair for an IT college course I was taking when the scandal broke. Scared me away from Wikipedia for years. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - G5 is not a valid criteria to speedy delete pages that have survived deletion discussions. Banning policy states "...This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes... ... can be allowed to stand)...", and "...If editors... ... made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page [note: an AFD talks about an article]... ...then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do...". We need to consider in this case, whether this is a helpfull change that can be kept. An AFD decided to keep the article. Without a new reason to delete, the AFD should stand. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Note that the admin who reverted the deletion with the statement "I'll take responsibility for it", was following banning policy, which states "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content". Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Taketa and close per the snowball clause. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very nice, well-sourced piece, actually. Passes GNG. A credit to Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is a piece by our Australian friend, Russavia. Carrite (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A well written, well sourced article of an advertising slogan that went viral. JTdale Talk 02:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article was kept per a recent AFD. The only new claim for deletion is that it was created by a banned user; however, once an admin in good standing says that (s)he will "take responsibility for it", while restoring the page, knowing that the article was written by the banned user in question, makes the author's identity irrelevant. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Are we really going to be bringing out the pitchforks against Russavia, despite the actual notability of the topic demonstrated by third-party reliable sources? There's a fine line between upholding policy in response to disruptive editing by troublesome users, and deleting something out of spite. Deleting this article does no benefit to the Wikipedia project, and if WP:BAN is the problem, then I'd suggest a simple WP:IAR since deleting this page is clearly a barrier to improving Wikipedia. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CSD G5 does not require the article to be deleted; any editor in good standing who wishes to take responsibility for the edits may do so, and in this case one of them has. I see no other policy-based reason for deleting the article; it seems well enough sourced. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:51, 7 November 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. MBisanz talk 07:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NMS Artist on the Verge: 2014 Top 100

NMS Artist on the Verge: 2014 Top 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not my field, but how can a list of "artists on the verge of breaking out" or of anything in that state of development be appropriate encyclopedic content. Very few of them will yet be notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K. Paul Johnson

K. Paul Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little known author who has written on Theosophical matters. A problem with trying to find reliable sources. None can be found. Does not appear to be notable. Goblin Face (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I actually am finding reviews of his stuff and I'm also finding evidence to show that he's fairly influential in his field- especially his Edgar Cayce book. ([7]) I'm still searching, but we do have at least three reviews in reliable sources (two of which are in peer-reviewed journals) for his work which is making me lean towards a keep. I'll continue to look, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm finding a LOT of reviews in Google Scholar that aren't showing up in JSTOR or the other places. I'm also seeing his work frequently cited in various texts. (see below)
Sources
  1. SMOLEY, R. "THE MASTERS REVEALED-BLAVATSKY AND THE MYTH OF THE GREAT WHITE LODGE-JOHNSON, KP." (1995): 102.
  2. Ferris, J. "K. Paul Johnson, The Masters Revealed: Madame Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge." INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY 11 (1996): 176-178.
  3. Constructing Tradition by Brill Academic Pub
  4. extensively mentioned by the The New York Review of Books
These reviews and mentions, paired with the ones already in the article, do show that Johnson passes notability guidelines. It's not the easiest search I performed, but I did find enough to justify notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several more articles on the Bio talk Page. If he is notable enough, then we need to be sure that his page doesn't get attacked again. Is that possible? He gets hit by Theosophists (followers of Blavatskyism) pretty often. JEMead (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This writer is definitely notable, indisputably an authority on the occult. This review of one of his books in The New York Times is a very strong source, which is provided in the article. Material from two of his books is discussed in this article featured in the prestigious The New York Review of Books. By performing a Google web search on Paul Johnson occult, I found several books that make references to him, which further proves his notability beyond any doubt; for example, The Dawn of the New Cycle: Point Loma Theosophists and American Culture by W. Michael Ashcraft here, Theosophical Enlightenment by Joscelyn Godwin, here, among others. Johnson is called "a most valiant researcher" in this article. The article should be improved, not deleted. Dontreader (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Seems like there are enough sources to justify an article. It seems borderline, AUTHOR seems to ask for a little more than what has been presented so far. Given the difficulty of finding sources, I'm guessing some more will be forthcoming. I haven't found much yet myself but my efforts have been limited. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's enough to keep; articles about relatively obscure scholars are useful.ShulMaven (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I think this is borderline. I somewhat started this discussion, wanting to delete the Bio, but people have made a good case. In light of this, I added some articles he wrote for Gnosis and Theosophical History (an academic journal). Paul wanted the Bio deleted mostly because maintenance slacked (bashing on the Masters Revealed, again), and he did not think he was much above a minor author. However in certain obscure circles, he is somewhat famous. Since this is Fringe anyway, keeping makes sense. JEMead (talk) 07:09, 5 November 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. This is a bit complicated. At first glance, "keep" votes outnumber "delete" votes 8 to 4 (counting the IPs obvious intent to say "keep"), but the delete votes do present solid rationales (on average stronger than the keep votes), some which were addressed and others that were not. This forces me to close a qualified "No consensus". I would recommend shoring up the article's sourcing, as another AFD in 6 months is a real possibility. Dennis - 2¢ 14:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy (journal)

Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources, only one minor (and also non-notable) award. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Randykitty! Glad to see you back hard at work ensuring other people's misguided efforts to collaborate on a Worldwide Encyclopedia Project are managed to within your scrupulous guidelines - I'm just (pleasantly) surprised you haven't brought more conscientious editors along to force the issue this time - we can use productive editors who can stick to due process without pushing a POV. Zambelo; talk 17:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zambelo is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment I strongly disagree with all of the above "keep" !votes, none of which, in my opinion, is even slightly based in policy. The "West-European/US oriented selective databases" certainly do not exclude journals in other languages and contain journals publishing in Japanese, Chinese, and, indeed, also Russian. The own national citation index (Russian Science Citation Index) is not selective at all. Accepting indexing of journals in the RSCI would actually create a cultural bias: English-language journals need to be included in a selective database, but Russian-language journals only need to be included in the RSCI. The journal under discussion here has no impact whatsoever. Searching Google Scholar (not using the above link containing the dab) under its English title gives a grand total of 3 cites. Searching for its Russian title lists a few hundred articles published in this journal (showing, by the way, that GS indexed journals in Russian), none of which has been cited, not even in Russian journals. In short, we have no sources discussing this journal (and for those claiming there is a cultural bias at work here, I would like to remind everybody here that sources in Russian are perfectly acceptable), we have no inclusion in databases that are even remotely selective, and we have no evidence that this journal has any significant impact. I fail to see how anybody can argue that this journal is notable. --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It meets notability. Karlhard (talk to me) 00:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be a bad idea. An AfD is supposed to be a discussion, which could hardly be done if the nom would be barred from further participation. I have seen many an AfD where the discussion led to the nom withdrawing the nomination or to other participants changing their opinions. Not dicussing would be detrimental to the process and eventually to the project. --Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per this section in WP:NJournals; "Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia, without exception (see Wikipedia:Verifiability: 'If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.')." Origamiteⓣⓒ 12:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that policy, which is entirely correct, is about verifiability, not notability, and requires only reliable sourcing, not reliable sourcing sufficiently substantial to establish notability under the GNG. We have never relied on the GNG for academic journals. Verifiability is met by Ulrich's. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if the claims in the article cannot be verified through reliable sources (not just one lady's "Editor of the month" bio) it doesn't meet notability. Origamiteⓣⓒ 22:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: It would have been easy to close this keep, but the potential bias issues with inclusion and/or exclusion based on RSCI are signficant, and I would prefer to see more discussion on that point, as the answer to that question may have some signficant value as precedent. My apologies to participants irritated by the relist, but I really think this is a question worth getting right. Thanks for understanding. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but as far as I can see from the VAK website, the strict criteria consist of being peer-reviewed, having a website and editorial board, having an address, etc. There's nothing that indicates any stricter than that. Could you perhaps provide a link that shows there is more selectivity? --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From editor. The link with VAK's rules is [8]. Editors of Russian journals dream of including their publication in the VAK's list but meeting criteria doesn't mean that they will be included. VAK has its own selection policy based on commission experts' opinions. The selection process is not clear enough but it is a selection process. The total number of Russian scientific publications is 10028 while the VAK's list contains only 2269.66.56.43.231 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had already seen that document, but unfortunately my Russian is not good enough to read it and it is not in a form acceptable by Google Translate. However, over 2000 journals from Russia alone does not strike me as very restrictive, comparing that with WoS or even (the much less selective) Scopus, which both cover the whole world. --Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: We need to come to a conclusion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrDevilFX (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is my breakdown. DGG, Wikicology, Cirt, James500 and Rotten Regard think that the RSCI is enough. Karlhard asserts that it meets the GNG. 73.43.243.35, 184.188.97.130, and 66.56.43.231 say that the other journals are selective, which Randykitty directly disagrees with. Zambelo was trolling and wikistalking Randykitty. Randykitty and AioftheStorm say that the RSCI is not selective, and that no reliable sources mention this journal. I agree with Randykitty, and say that without sources, notability can't be established. Origamiteⓣⓒ 01:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It really is not enough to just say "meets Notability", you will also need to explain how it meets that. What sources do you consider sufficiently in-depth here? Strangely, I get just 35 Ghits (and only 13.9 million without the ""), but, in any case, numbers of Ghits are really no measure of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single claim made in the article on this non-notable journal is backed by a reliable source and it's evident that the reason for that is the absence of reliable sources that we could use. It's too soon for Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy to have an article on the English Wikipedia. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The discussion about what kind of database inclusion is required is irrelevant and misleading. Per WP:GNG, what we require for inclusion is substantial coverage in reliable sources, because otherwise we have nothing to base our article on, and such coverage is not attested here.  Sandstein  10:16, 2 November 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) 05:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Men's Health and Gender

International Society for Men's Health and Gender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 2 November 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) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StaxRip

StaxRip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Previous PROD removed with no improvements. Tassedethe (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of smartphones

AfDs for this article:
Comparison of smartphones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inclusion criteria is arbitrary and undocumented due to the increasing number of smartphone models produced yearly, "Article is an indiscriminate collection of items that can't ever aim for completeness", Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports ViperSnake151  Talk  18:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • SNOW Keep. Oy, a klug. 4th nomination? Yes, I see the last one was "no consensus" after much discussion (the first two were kept), but it was also quite recent and the discussion was strongly leaning toward keep, and there's nothing essentially different about this nomination nor any reason to think it would go differently. I vote that this AfD be closed immediately per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, to avoid wasting everyone's time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know that's generally how SNOW works. But surely there has to be a way to avoid rehashing the same discussion from two months ago, and two years ago, and four years ago, which you now say has to be argued again on the basis of something else being deleted (WP:OTHERSTUFF). I don't want to do that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - as much as I don't like these product comparisons of specific models that would be just at home on bestbuy.com or some other commercial site, this one does, to me, tilt keep. The problems here seem like they could be solved by more clearly articulating inclusion criteria that ensure it remains reasonably encyclopedic (for example, every model has to have its own page, without linking to an article on a phone series or a manufacturer article, and all data on it has to be sourced in the list)...but that could be done on the article talk page. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article is just a wall of tables, statistics and numbers... I'm incredibly interested in the topic, but I found myself glancing at a few boxes and then leaving the page (albeit catching myself when I saw the deletion notice). It serves no real purpose, provides no meaningful information, and is incredibly outdated and incomplete. Nobody in their right mind wants to compare xyzSmartPhone to 200 other phones on a whole bunch of arbitrary statistics, and if they want to compare xyzSmartPhone to zyxOtherSmartPhone, they can do so using the existing articles for those devices. It's November 2014 and there's a single entry for this year, while even a quick glance shows that the others are incomplete. Audigex (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not unreasonably general, and it is split into sections, by year. As for the other concerns, they might be reasons for improving the content, but how on Earth are they reasons for deleting the whole list? Are you saying that this topic inherently cannot satisfy WP:V, NOR, or NPOV? Actually, although not every single claim is referenced, I don't even see major concerns of this type in the current version. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article is incomplete and the layout could be improved. Despite this, I can see how the article might be useful to someone who is looking for specific features such as 2 GB RAM or a 13 MP camera. The article certainly needs to be updated. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pinkprint

AfDs for this article:
The Pinkprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and WP:NALBUMS failure. Note that this is not a WP:GNG problem, and meeting the general notability guideline is not a counterargument. Through general convention, we do not create articles about albums until they have three essential elements: a confirmed release date, a confirmed title,and a confirmed tracklist. The Pinkprint does not have the third element: there is no confirmed tracklist. Album articles released before that time invariably become edit-wars over leaked tracks and promotional puff-pieces. This article has been no exception to that rule. For those that will scream "But the article will just be created again in a few weeks", why yes, it probably will. But it won't consist solely of advertising when it does. —Kww(talk) 17:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree that this is publicity. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does not need to be a full article for The Pinkprint yet. It feels like most of the edits the past few weeks have been unsourced additions to the tracklist (or removal of tracks for which sources indicate they will be on the album). I'm not sure whether we should delete the history or not, but I do agree that, until the tracklist is verifiable in full, this title should be nothing more than a redirect to (a section of) Nicki Minaj's article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NALBUMS does not require a track listing; that is only a general rule. It is also noted that high-profile projects that are heavily covered in third party sources, such as this album, are an exception. It should also be noted that it is standard practice for hip hop albums to not have their final track lists revealed until shortly before the album release. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing about the publicity this album has received that places it in the category of "a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects" that WP:NALBUMS treats as an exception. It's typical promotion of a typical work by a typical artist.—Kww(talk) 20:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, your arguments for CRYSTAL, NOTADVERTISING, and NALBUMS are rather weak. The album has a confirmed release date, eliminating CRYSTAL. The article may currently have some puffery but it's far from an advertisement. NALBUMS states, "Unreleased material ... is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources" (23 sources, most of which I would consider reliable and more than passing mentions, are cited in the article, not to mention the 27 million Google results I previously mentioned). –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other cases I would have understand the issue but this album is coming out in a month and two weeks and this page is actually very relevant and necessary now. The album cover will be released this Monday, other things related will most likely come short after it. No reason to delete the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thijn23 (talk • contribs) 0:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only in the sense that compliance with guidelines is never required: "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label" is explicit. Since no reasonable reading of the guideline would permit this article to exist, Chace's argument is completely devoid of merit.—Kww(talk) 03:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the exception to "generally" is defined, and there's no reason to believe that the exception applies. A well-orchestrated publicity campaign doesn't qualify an album for being one of "a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects", and your second argument is also inapplicable: "Unreleased material ... is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources" does not say "if there is significant independent coverage, no other part of the guideline need be considered". No one is arguing that there isn't significant independent coverage in reliable sources: that's a restatement of WP:GNG, which is not the issue here.—Kww(talk) 22:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your interpretation of "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label" is? Like Chase, you are arguing that it meets the GNG, which is not at issue.—Kww(talk) 04:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have 2/3 criteria generally required at this point, I think you're nitpicking at an article, when there are others that I'm sure require more attention for deletion than an album coming out in a bit more than one months time. The articles features a wide variety of real-world context beyond a first-person resource, and I simply don't see the need in deleting and/or redirecting the article. I believe other articles that exist should have attention brought to them, instead of being ignored as they always are. livelikemusic my talk page! 04:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just took a look back through the current version of the article. It does not have the tracklist speculation issue of earlier versions. It does have an extensive list of sources. Even though WP:NALBUMS wants a track list, I think the other two items with the depth and breadth of coverage currently present is enough to justify an article; I feel the encyclopedia is better served keeping this article in place than deleting it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above with the majority, plus agreeing with the fact that if it gets deleted, someone will only have to make the article again. Her other albums have articles, plus the date of release is not far away at all. Also can I point out that it now has all three major elements? Shouldn't that wipe this deletion notice straight off? Limbsaw ~talk~ 22:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it doesn't. It just has the usual gang of incompetents adding fake tracklists based on forum rumors before an official one is announced. That kind of thing is the reason our guideline against having this kind of article exists.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 7 November 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. MBisanz talk 07:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mooney

Richard Mooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not seem to be remarkable on the Internet. I cannot locate any sources that refer to this person, and out of the 2 references, 1 is a dead link(dead link was fixed), and another requires a subscription to access. Thus, there are no sources to support any information found in this article, and this article should be considered for deletion. (Correction: There is one source, but I am not sure if it is sufficient.) Tony Tan98 · talk 16:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One source only may show (if reliable) that the person exists. If there are no more sources I would say delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • University West of Scotland in its current form was only founded in 2007, so the subject would have graduated from Bell College if the 2007 graduation is correct.
  • This article was created by a user called Yorae - also name of subject's own fictional character. ([9]) It is possible this was written by the subject himself, which is usually discouraged. I would say delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.231.29 (talk) 15:36, 4 November 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) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TwentyThirtyThree

TwentyThirtyThree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD with the reason "Non-notable." Euryalus (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:57, 1 November 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) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CoolJunkie.com

CoolJunkie.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination,. Originally a procedural deletion with the reason "Non-notable local (and now defunct) website fails WP:WEB" but ineligible as has been listed and contested previously. Views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:57, 1 November 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. MBisanz talk 07:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nayeebrahmin(Vaidya brahmin)

Nayeebrahmin(Vaidya brahmin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find these Brahmins in Brahmin, but with the vagaries of transliteration, they could be. Are they notable? There is one reference given, which is as hard to read as this. (Not being Indian doesn't help me there...) I can't decide if it's a WP:RS or not. Bits of it look rather similar to the referenced site, but as it's in rather small type and long words, I'll leave that to others to decide. Peridon (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that the article is referenced to http://vaidyanayeebrahmin.hpage.com/ and that site is referenced to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brahmin_nayee which looks a bit circular to me. Peridon (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Nayee Brahmin community does exist but there is almost nothing written about them other than one-line mentions in lists etc. This article is hopeless in its current form and is never going to amount to anything that meets WP:GNG. This is not the first time that an article about Nayees has been attempted, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many Brahmin communities exist but not all are notable as they never get any coverage in reliable sources and this article is an example of such non notable communities. Jim Carter 20:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 (hoax). Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honda-Vodafone Stadium

Honda-Vodafone Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. School sportsgrounds are well below the threshold of notability for inclusion. Additionally no stadium by either of these names in the Mornington area appears in web searches. Falcadore (talk) 14:18, 1 November 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. MBisanz talk 07:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Lynch Lamar

William Lynch Lamar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 14:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • As the article creator I realize that there is limited reference material available. This is, however, typical of all too much of early U.S. history. The search for additional sources continues and will be added as found. Tlc356 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A stub is an article quality rating, stub articles are still subject to meeting notability requirements in order to be retained.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:05, 4 November 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 deckertalk 06:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristy Coors Beasley

Cristy Coors Beasley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are primary, the few non-primary sources show no discussion of subject. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Golding

Isabella Golding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Australian suffragist, only one source (the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which covers her in a shared entry with her sister, and mostly covering her sister in that entry, giving Isabella a passing mention), and only one other I could find was from the Australian Women's Register, which exclusively used the aforementioned ADB as a source, only restating info found in the ADB. Notability requires multiple sources, and since the Australian Women's Register only rephrased the ADB, it should be treated as the same source.

Also, based on WP:ANYBIO, she would not be notable, as being "the first female inspector of public schools" is not very notable, and the ADB says she was the "first female inspector" (this is under the Early Closing Act of 1899, which moderately expanded the scope of inspectors to cover shops [and no mention of schools]), I would say that is a blatant lie, since Augusta Zadow was the first female government inspector in Australia. Since Isabella Golding's "claim to fame", so to speak, would be being the first female inspector, the fact that she is not the first female inspector pretty much makes her non-notable (as per WP:ANYBIO, because her well-known or significant honor [that of being the first female inspector] or alternately, her widely-recognized [no sources other than the ADB recognize her, and the ADB only recognizes her in conjunction with her sister] contribution, doesn't actually exist). Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Being the first woman in the entire country to achieve the position of inspector of schools - effectively the highest career rung in the education field - is a big deal. It's an obvious claim to notability, which is why it's in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. The Australian Dictionary of Biography is the source on Australian biography - it is authoritative, peer-reviewed, and highly selective - most Wikipedia biographies would not come close to their notability standard. The ADB entry cites their sources, which includes two books, amongst other things. She passes WP:N more than easily, and I find this nomination - 48 hours after a brand new editor created it as part of a specific effort to recruit new editors - abhorrent. This is a flagrant case of biting the newbies for no justifiable purpose. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Drover's Wife, there's a reason the Draft process exists, so that users can demonstrate notability before being put up for deletion in the Article space. The creating user should have done so, but now that it's done I suppose the article will either be improved (demonstrating notability) or deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article does demonstrate notability, and it would have been far better if any concerns had been raised with the editor rather than making their first interaction on Wikipedia be a deletion discussion on someone who should be pretty clearly notable. This would have allowed them to fix any issues and not be scared off first. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the ADB, she was just "an inspector". Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I misread the type of inspector - she was in industrial relations, not education: nonetheless, holding a, for the times, significant public service role a full eight years before women's suffrage was, and is, a big deal, combined with her other positions in politics and public life. It's not hard to see why the ADB found her to be notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Augusta Zadow also held the significant public service role of inspector as well, she was also a woman, and did it before Isabella Golding. The ADB source also states the entry is a joint entry. The entry also covers mostly Annie Golding, with Isabella getting passing mentions. Annie Golding was the main leader of the organization, and Isabella Golding was "the first female inspector under the Early Closing Act 1899", and taught in public schools. The ADB also states that it "seems likely" that most of Annie Golding's knowledge came from Isabella, which seems like an inference, and therefore not supported by a secondary source. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Her obituary in the Sydney Morning Herald provides some more claims to notability, including stating she had much to do with the granting of suffrage in NSW. Her obituary in the Catholic Worker adds her prominent role in the anti-conscription campaign in WWI and her role in the founding of the RSPCA. This article and this article give some context for why her inspector role was significant. The Sydney Morning Herald reported on her retirement and provides some more information about her roles in the suffrage organisations. This is one of many articles reporting her anti-conscription speeches in great detail. Trove has nearly ten thousand hits for "Belle Golding", extensively documenting her life and activities. The coverage about her specifically is actually so significant I think you could write a featured article about her without too much strain. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: Notable enough coverage for me, so withdraw. Never heard of "Trove" before, will check it out. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:07, 1 November 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 deckertalk 06:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Domnall mac Brian Ó hÚigínn

Domnall mac Brian Ó hÚigínn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: non-notable per WRITER. Tiny stub of an article which appears to exist solely due to connection to other bardic families. Not even a cursory indication of anything, much less anything notable, which he wrote, or did. Quis separabit? 13:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 November 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 deckertalk 06:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Rai Gupta

Rahul Rai Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is not supported by any reliable independent sources that confirm the notability of the subject. Appears to be a self-written vanispam article to promote the interests of the subject. WWGB (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 November 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) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ADK Assault Rifle

ADK Assault Rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As for now I found absolutely no proof of the weapon in question even existing in real world (not only in Red Alert 3 videogame).
Weird technical specs are also listed, non consistent with how 7,62x54R round usually behave (for example - muzzle velocity is stated to be as high as 1200 m/sec, while it is only 865m/sec even in Mosin-Nagant M91/30 with its barrel lenght of 730mm --RussianTrooper (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This AfD nomination was malformed. I've formatted it properly and am relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deor (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Wichita King Air crash

2014 Wichita King Air crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable WP:NOTNEWS - TheChampionMan1234 09:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why is it no news? It has been reported in the news. ( The page is also created in French) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here is the AfD in question. The accident occurred in October 2013, the article was made and the AfD was started in August 2014‎, and was concluded on September 15. Here is the article prior to becoming a redirect. In that case, the reason the AfD was brought forth was because of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, and WP:AIRCRASH. In the end, both sides used WP:AIRCRASH, which recommends that it not be cited at AfD. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was also cited as a counter to other articles to delete if that article was deleted and WP:EVENT was cited under the opinion that the article failed to meet it. So, the possible issues would be WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, and WP:EVENT. We have heard about each, except for WP:EVENT. As for the articles themselves, that article only had three sentences with a single citation when compared to the current article having what appears to be nine sentences and sixteen citations. Furthermore, the other article was created several months after the accident, while we are still within a week of the accident at this point. So, I do see some differences between the two cases. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:02, 2 November 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 deletion (G5). Non-admin closure. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DCM Sir (Director)

DCM Sir (Director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as of now it doesn't appear that this person passes WP:CREATIVE Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 1 November 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) 22:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A New Life with Maurice 13

A New Life with Maurice 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this while looking at an article for one of the director's other films and I noticed that this article has the same issues as Praison's Last Chance. The sources are all either WP:PRIMARY, routine database entries, or links to places that host the film. I wish the directors well, but right now this is just WP:TOOSOON for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 1 November 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) Good afternoon (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night Magic

Friday Night Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cultural phenomenon Keilana|Parlez ici 03:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:10, 1 November 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 Christopher Memminger. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 13:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Nullification

The Book of Nullification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meath WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. Even using the looser criteria for non-contemporary books, I cannot find any indication that the 28 page pamphlet has been widely cited or written about nor that it has a significant place in the history of literature. In looking for significant coverage of the book in both gbooks and gscholars, 99% of the hits are simple trivial mentions of usually one or two sentences. FyzixFighter (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be widely written about. The criteria speak of the fame the book enjoyed in the past. It would be famous if it was widely read or talked about. We have multiple sources claiming that the book "attracted much attention" etc from its publication onwards. That clearly satisfies the criteria. There was much less publishing going on in the 1830s than there is today, so it is unreasonable to expect as much of this discussion to be committed to print as would be today. James500 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree good idea, redirect it EoRdE6 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. In my view this satisfies GNG, which does not define "trivial" in terms precise enough to exclude the sources available. There are what appear to be strong indications of historical importance. The pamphlet "contributed largely to the overthrow of" the doctrine of nullification: Representative Men of the South, p 33 [10]. "The sarcasm of the paper is said to have excited much attention": Meigs, The Life of John Caldwell Calhoun, v 1, p 443: [11]. And so forth. James500 (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect From the sources I have found, the book is only notable in the historical/political context of Christopher Memminger. The book is adequately covered in his article. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It is notable in the context of the doctrine of nullification. (2) It is manifestly not adequately covered in Memminger's article, which only says that he wrote it and says nothing about its effect. James500 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Newspapers.com and there were only a few newspaper articles all focusing on Christopher Memminger and providing at best a one-sentence description of the book. I was hoping to find something of substance, but I couldn't. I am One of Many (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:41, 1 November 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. (WP:NPASR). The first keep !vote does not provide guideline or policy based rationale for retention. After two relistings, closing as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum control speeds

Minimum control speeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:OR and WP:NOTMANUAL. To see what I mean, read what was removed from the article here[12] when the PROD was taken down. ...William 13:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article simply needs a few more sources... I think it is a fairly well written article other than that EoRdE6 (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article seems to be well-written and sourced, and covers one of the important distinguishing concepts common to most multiengine aircraft. The content here is exactly what I was expecting to find on wikipedia when I searched for this concept. -- Bovineone (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 1 November 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. I close it because the nomination was formally withdrawn, and also the keep arguments dominate.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University and College Crowdfunding Platforms

University and College Crowdfunding Platforms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Runs into problems with WP:LINKFARM and WP:GNG as well as EL/list standards. None of the items on the list have a Wikipedia article (other than the universities themselves, of course) or even a source. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we determine the list items aren't individually notable as crowdfunding platforms then what's to prevent any article of format "universities and colleges with ___" (e.g. buildings built in 1951, movie theaters, Taco Bells, Moodle servers, freshman-only dormatories...) Moodle and movie theaters are notable subjects, but if specific instances at specific colleges aren't, it just seems inappropriate to have a supposedly encyclopedic list of them. But, again, that doesn't mean there couldn't be an article about university crowdfunding websites that uses some of them as examples. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely see your point. Perhaps the best approach would be to first turn this article into a stub about the topic. If someone later wanted to add some sort of table, the history would still be there to help that project out. Maybe I'll take a few minutes and do that and see what you think? --I am One of Many (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup I made it into a stub that could be expanded. Probably a name change to "University and College Crowdfunding" would be a good idea. What do you think? I am One of Many (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have completely re-worked the article, but it definitely isn't perfect. I agree with the name change, I just don't know how to facilitate that change. laurenwake 12:44, 7 November 2014 (PST)
  • Delete Link aggregation, fundraising, social media tool are a misuse of this venue--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close, per following indented comment Delete. An article should not be a collection of links -- which is what this is. As stated in the article, it is "a list of crowdfunding platforms". As a side issue, I see no independent reliable sources showing that any of these sources are even valid crowdsourcing venues, much less notable (one's own website isn't proof -- anyone can create a website). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this AfD was opened, the article has in effect been deleted and recreated: it was changed from a list of university and college crowdfunding platforms, into an article about those platforms (with no list). I'd say the AfD should be closed for this reason, with no prejudice to opening a new Afd. I should note that while I haven't yet reviewed the new sources, the article looks promising. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - Since the nomination was not the only delete !vote a speedy keep isn't possible, I don't think, but the article is indeed a totally different animal from when I nominated it. Consider this my Delete → Weak Keep. It could still use more secondary sources, but it's at least a weak keep from me. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. No arguments put forward for deletion. No contributors other than the nominator favour deletion. Michig (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes Institute of Management

Great Lakes Institute of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How is it that in eight years nobody has managed to turn this into a decent article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was responding to the comment by the nominator. The "reasons" for deletion are obvious, material copied from the institute's web sites and literature, by editors that appear to be employees of the institute. I changed the above vote to a comment. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 1 November 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 Hillcrest, KwaZulu-Natal#Schools. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Primary School

Hillcrest Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary schools are not normally notable as per WP:OUTCOMES. Unreferenced with no indication of notability. Gbawden (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden:. In my experience, having processed many hundreds of school AfDs and redirects, the likelihood is rare. If it does happen, I full protect the redirect, which at the same time also prevents a new article with the same name being created. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:38, 1 November 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. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Morrison "The Bard of Mallusk"

William Morrison "The Bard of Mallusk" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable poet. A local hero, to be sure, but notability does not seem to extend beyond the Mallusk area where he lived. No indications that his poems were ever published except by the people of Mallusk as part of a memorial. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:37, 1 November 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. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Walker

Oliver Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor with small appearance in movies. Ireneshih (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actor has had several notable roles in several television series. RowanWood839 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Crumbs

The Crumbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find reliable sources for this band, though it may be due to the commonality of their name with leftover food. However, article itself does not give indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. The Article certainly needs fixing up, but I did find an Miami New Times article in 2014, Broward/Palm Beach New Times in 2011, coverage in CMJ New Music Report way back in 1998, an article in Punk Magazine here in 2001, Record Review in Razorcake. Some coverage in Summit Daily, a Colorado publication. There name does make it hard to find references though. JTdale Talk 05:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:37, 1 November 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. Opinion is slightly in favour of keeping, and moreso among the later contributions after some of the article issues had been dealt with. Michig (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzgerald Auto Malls

Fitzgerald Auto Malls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can a car dealership be notable by fact of being a car dealership? I mean omitting possible qualities as being the largest dealership (employees, volume of sales), a newsworthy innovation, or notoriety (e.g., a dealership whose owner was notorious for hiring teenage boys who responsibilities included unsavory activities). I honestly don't know.

I came across this article, originally written 19 September, while working thru the New Pages backlog. By inclination, I'm an inclusionist (although I'm not interested in marking reviewed articles on sports people or record albums; if you don't like it, help drain the backlog yourself), but I'm interested in keeping obvious vanity entries & advertising. And here I honestly don't know the answer.

In this case, let me lay out the reasons to keep & the reasons to delete:

To keep --
  • A passing reference that the owner played a role in the 2008-2010 Automotive industry crisis,
  • Based on number of employees, it appears to be a sizable company,
To delete --
  • WP:NOTADVERTISING (This article reads very much like an advertisement, & if kept would need to be rewritten.)
  • Article was created with the edit summary, "Putting up a legitimate Wikipedia article for Fitzgerald Auto Malls, an auto dealership in with its headquarters located in Maryland" -- not a promising sign.

As an additional point, even if I reviewed this article, I know this article will eventually find its way to AfD. So we might as decide this issue now. -- llywrch (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To Keep I am the user who put the article up in the first place and here's why I believe the article should NOT be deleted. Fitzgerald Auto Malls employs well over 1,000 persons and is one of the largest employers in Montgomery County, Maryland as well as the state of Maryland. Fitzgerald Auto Malls comprises over 20 locations in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Florida and therefore has some national recognition. Also, as you mentioned in your reasons "to keep" this article, Fitzgerald Auto Malls played an integral role in passing legislation that saved numerous dealerships and thousands of jobs across the U.S. following the auto industry crisis of 2008-2010. Fitzgerald Auto Malls plays a key role in supporting child car safety in Maryland through its monthly Car Seat inspection events, in which trained technicians install car seats for families in need of assistance. I understand that this article may read to some like an advertisement and I would be happy to partake in the rewriting process to make it more neutral. However, the fact that I put up a lackluster edit summary is listed as a reason "to delete" is completely unfair and does not take into account the validity or importance of the article. If I had to resubmit the article my edit summary would read as follows: "I am adding a legitimate article for Fitzgerald Auto Malls: one of the largest employers in Maryland, a leader in child safety and recycling, and a key player in the U.S. Auto Crisis of 2008-2010." Please take my reasoning into consideration before deleting this article. I would be happy to discuss this further and accept anyone's input as to how to improve this page so it may avoid deletion. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC) It is also worth mentioning that Fitzgerald Auto Malls is the only car dealer group in North America to achieve ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certifications. HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC) I recently made several significant edits to the Fitzgerald Auto Malls article and added a few new sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13jlsilver (talk • contribs) 14:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As I look at the guidelines on company notability, I think this is a near miss. There's just not significant, in-depth coverage of the company in non-local sources. It seems as if the man is more notable than the company (and notability isn't inherited). Indeed, it's possible the man could have an article, but I did insufficient checking to say for sure; others might wish to comment on that.
    • To me, the size of the company doesn't matter; I subscribe to essay WP:BIG.
    • The creator has done a good job ferreting out references, but they're a little weak. The best one are about the man, not the company (e.g. [13][14][15]).
    • Others are local (they're easy to spot). I couldn't find any references that were at least regional, and also had in depth coverage of the company (not just a couple of sentences, or about a single event). Subsection WP:AUD seems worth quoting: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."
    • There was some non-local coverage, such as Outraged: How Detroit and the Wall Street Car Czars Killed the American Dream [16]. Fitzgerald Mall was named several times. However, the coverage wasn't extensive; it was mentioned in context of a single event, and lacked depth.
    • For what it's worth, I looked at the essay on outcomes; this has no formal weight, but is sometimes helpful. Some of the items were interesting (e.g., reference to WP:BIG), but nothing was exactly on point.
    • As a side note, the nominator was correct to say that the article was highly promotional. It's since been toned down. I still see significant issues, but not enough to blow up the article. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully now a Weak Keep Larry/Traveling_Man[I have removed the bolding, and struck through this, as it makes it appear that I have changed my vote.--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)] I would like to start by thanking you for taking such a vested interest in this Wiki page. I now understand more of the process required to keep a Wiki page up and running as well as the process for deletion. Just now, I added a national source from Reuters to the article, which I had not been able to locate previously. This reference should qualify as being one of the "best" references that you listed above in addition to preventing the article from violating Subsection WP:AUD since this is a nationally published source. I appreciate you noting that the article has since been toned down with regards to advertising and that it's issues are not enough to blow up the article. I am still in the process of toning down the article's apparent advertising and will continue to work to improve this article and stave off deletion. Any suggestions as to how I could do this would be truly appreciated. Thanks again, best HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • [I edited your text, above, as it put a bolded !vote next to my user name, possibly giving the impression that I had changed my !vote. Each person should really !vote just once -- so just one bolded item.] Unfortunately, the reference to Reuters [17] might sound promising, but it's just a press release. Indeed, the reference includes the text "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." If you could find an article that Reuters wrote, where it talks about the company in depth, that would be different. Hopefully more people will comment on this deletion request; it's quite possible they'll disagree with me. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for responding, I did not realize that this source was a press release. I am still working on finding more reliable, nationally published sources and will continue to update the Fitzgerald Auto Malls page as I am able to locate them. I agree that one vote per person makes sense and I apologize for making it appear as though you had changed your vote. I do hope that more people weigh in on this page so that I may continue to improve it and avoid deletion. -- HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just able to replace the Reuters press release with two other sources I found. Still in the process of improving the page and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:JTdale - Thanks so much for providing these references, I really appreciate it. A few of them have already been added to the article, but I added one you provided to bolster the Wiki page's intro section. Great that you fond a copy of the book, I had been looking for that! Thanks again! Any more help you can provide would be awesome. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:34, 1 November 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 deckertalk 06:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Calvo-Dahlborg

Monique Calvo-Dahlborg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient claims of notability to meet WP:PROF RadioFan (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney University

Disney University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic, does not meet notability guidelines, lacks references, search for sufficient references found only primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only looked for a few seconds but http://www.cnbc.com/id/100619276# and http://www.trainingmag.com/content/inside-disney-u.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we do have an article about McDonald's Hamburger University. When an entire book has been published by a reputable company about Disney University, as well as significant coverage in several other books, and articles in management journals and newspapers going back decades, then the topic is notable, even if you don't like it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reynolds (manager/lawyer)

AfDs for this article:
    Robert Reynolds (manager/lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Notability Zacaparum (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is mere self-promotion. This a a lawyer who represents famous people as a lawyer and a manager. He is not himself notable. He even goes so far as to list the successful records of his clients, as if that makes HIM notable. So what? Most famous people (including rock stars) have lawyers; that doesn't mean every such lawyer gets his own Wikipedia article.

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though I totally agree this should be deleted, It think it's worth mentioning that it's not any one in particular's responsibility to prove notability of a given article. It's a community effort.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. I will userfy the article as requested by I am One of Many. Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Madison McKinley Garton

    AfDs for this article:
    Madison McKinley Garton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Most of the references in the article fail WP:RS and the others do not establish notability. A similar article about the same subject was deleted in July (article was previously titled "Madison McKinley") and there does not seem to be any significant new reason in the article or in the WP:RS that indicates more notability than before. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_McKinley. A speedy delete G4 was declined. Jersey92 (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • keep This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON with her acting career, but it is close. What pushes it over the top for me is that she was on The Bachelor because she was a model an actress and then received substantial coverage when she walked off. So, being at the tipping point in her acting career, the wide-spread coverage with the The Bachelor incident tips the article to notability as I see it. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The Bachelor episode was true in the last AfD as well but being on the show and walking off does not establish notability and the obvious consensus was to Delete. WP:TOOSOON is a reason to Delete, not to Keep. Please also see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, nothing significant has changed. However, I did not participate in the first AfD and if I had, I would have made a similar argument and the discussion likely would have closed as no consensus (minus the SPAs). --I am One of Many (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Speedy Delete has stricter requirements than AfD. Admin did not feel a G4 was warranted. Acceptance at AfC does not mean that there is consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:06, 3 November 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_November_1&oldid=1142627852"