Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 November	29 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Maarefvand

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

I'm not entirely sure whether this is a footballer or a businessman (probably not the latter, since that version seems based on Babak Zanjani), but neither version of the article cites any reliable sources that mention Maarefvand. No indication of notability. Huon (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Also a possible/probable hoax. Giant Snowman 09:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - the current stub is a mess. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence to suggest that he is an actual footballer. Hoax article? IJA (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is non-notable and its formatting is terrible. --Canyouhearmenow 13:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax - not listed as being in the actual squad for the team he claims to play for either on Wikipedia or elsewhere. (Would probably pass wp:NFOOTBALL as playing in a fully professional league if the claim is true) Neonchameleon (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Non-notable and does not contain any useful information. BenLinus1214 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 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. Secret ^account 22:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fumi Hancock

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

Non-notable person. Author of two non-notable novels. Claimed winner of the "African Heritage Award" but no verification can be found for this, nor even any information about who might have awarded the award. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, no reliable sources, and her books are self-published. LaMona (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts the question is whether the Nollywood and African Film Critics Awards are something worth taking into account. If they are then keep. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it can be verified (in something other than a Youtube video in which Hancock herself mentions it) that Hancock has actually won this award. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:12, 28 November 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 22:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AfricanNAFCA says she's won the award. So if it counts then I'm pretty sure that's a keep. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The link provided does not verify the claim, so unless you can provide a better link, we're still left without verification. Also, even with verification, I'm not sure the award is significant enough to claim notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - They've got some horrible Javascript going on on their website, sorry. Click on "Favorite Screenwriter-Peoples Choice Awards" to verify. As for whether the award is significant enough, I have no idea. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Page appears broken: every time I click on the "Favorite Screenwriter" link, the connection times out. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't get it, Neonchameleon. If you have no idea if an award is significant or not, how are you voting Keep based solely on that award? Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If I'm going to advocate keeping an article on someone who doesn't meet the GNG, I'm going to want to see a MAJOR award: a Pulitzer, a Newbery, a Booker, one of the heavy hitters. This? Not remotely close. For one thing, I doubt that these 3-year-old awards are notable enough for a Wikipedia article: there's zero hits on a G-Newspaper search [1] and a straight Google search turns up nothing but press release sites, YouTube pages and the like.[2] So the subject stands and falls on the GNG, and she doesn't make it. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:37, 5 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Ismail

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

Notability Mjcyn (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page should at best be a sub category under Singularity University — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjcyn (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep subject is obviously notable, with many reliable, independent sources cited in the article. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I'd never heard of him, he seems to be an accomplished person, and the sources look reliable. The nom has made no substantial edits. Since nobody else has, I'll welcome him to town. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Decent article, well-sourced. The subject appears to have made significant contributions in his field. BenLinus1214 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 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. Secret ^account 22:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Desperate Mind

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

No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A band with no released albums, according to the article. C 679 22:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. C 679 22:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. C 679 22:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage that would constitute keeping this article. It may be a victim of WP:TOOSOON.--Canyouhearmenow 13:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable.Vrac (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and no inline citations, badly sourced. BenLinus1214 (talk) 16:05, 5 December 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 housekeeping closure: 11:12, 3 December 2014 Anthony Appleyard deleted page Homeschool Spanish Academy (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) czar ⨹ 04:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homeschool Spanish Academy

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or WP:ORG. Looking at the references provided, the writeup in Charisma magazine appears to be the only one that appears to discuss the subject of the article in depth (albeit with significant POV issues). The biographical sketch/interview from the Trinity website is about Ronald Fortin and his other project in Guatemala, but does not mention Homeschool Spanish Academy by name; the two-paragraph blurb in Language magazine reads more like an advertisement for the program's opportunities (among dozens of such brief blurbs) rather than actual in-depth journalistic coverage. I am unable to find anything else, and thus I do not believe there is sufficient in-depth coverage in multiple third-party sources to warrant a standalone article. Kinu ^t/_c 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No meaningful hits (other than a business listing) in secondary source databases ProQuest, Lexis Nexis, HighBeam, Questia, or Google Books. With a lack of significant coverage, it does not pass the general notability guideline. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 05:34, 23 November 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 21:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be a small online academy, and a non-notable organization. "There's no there there." Fails WP:42. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 2 December 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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Anderson (tenor)

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

Non-notable person. An opera singer with little indication of significant coverage in independent media. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found a brief bio about him here --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 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 21:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very marginal. Ref links barely mention him (and they are all raw URLs anyway...). Generally, I'm included to be generous and hope that someone will come up with a few good links, but this article can only be valid if there are distinctive features about him and his career which can be supported. Opera-L ref could be posted by anyone; no specific operatic expertise is required there. Too many former Adler Fellows, etc. have had insignificant careers in musical theatre, let alone opera. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found several reviews from Indianapolis and Cincinnati, as well as one from Los Angeles. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Self-created vanity article. A singer needs to have national recognition and extensive coverage in a variety of independent WP:RS national or at least regional publications to be included in wiki. See: WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ENT. The only mentions of the guy which are not passing mentions are in very local publications: [3], [4]. Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Striking my !vote per NQ's discoveries. I still don't like it that this is still obviously a self-created (or friend-created; either way, the SN is Hiyakevin) vanity article, and incredibly clueless. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: You're right. It looks like the page was created by the singer himself. [5][6] However, in terms of notability, he easily meets the general notability guidline - NQ (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Viva-Verdi and Softlavender.--Smerus (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO #1 and #6. One of the lead cast members alongside Plácido in L'Africaine#Recordings. Performed lead roles with several major opera houses. [7] [8] Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources; for eg.:

This tenor is slim and sexy Chamberlain, Adrian. Times Colonist 16 Sep 1995.
Kevin Anderson puts new spin on the word 'tenor' Craig Smith, The Santa Fe New Mexican 27 Aug 1999, among others. - NQ (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrace's Romantic Duets Spaeth, Jeanne, The Washington Post, Mar 23, 1990. - NQ (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He's notable for his part in the creation of roles in Six Characters and Candide alone. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be clear, Anderson did not create those roles. He performed those roles in revivals of the works, but both works existed before Anderson was even born. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, if the overall feeling is for "Keep", then I hope someone who supports keeping the article will do some more research, come up with more and better and more specific refs (there appears to be a few) and incorporates them into the article to make it worthwhile. Otherwise, it will have little more value than being a vanity piece. There are far more valuable articles which exist as stubs and which need to be worked on right now......Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though I am thoroughly convinced that the subject created the article themselves, I believe that the article does meet the WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG guidelines. The article is certainly in need of a huge rewrite. --Canyouhearmenow 13:16, 5 December 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. Secret ^account 22:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya Gaem Awards

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

This does not meet the notability requirements. Most of the article relies on self-referential or self-published content. I'm not even sure that the two independent sources support notability either. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These appear to be the only three reliable sources: [9], [10], [11]. Sam Walton (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable "awards" given out by messageboard users. Coverage is very minimal and says little other than "it exists". Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hits on gry-online.pl and a two-sentence Kotaku article. For the sources currently used in the article, I'm not sure about Gamona's reliability, Giant Bomb is not a reliable source, and the primary sources aren't useful for establishing whether the awards are notable by independent, secondary sources. I don't see significant coverage to meet the GNG—not many hits for either "vidya gaem award" or "/v/mas", and thus not enough content to write an article. At first I considered a redirect to a new article, the only reasonable spin-off, /v/ (4chan), but after a quick search, I don't think /v/ has sig cov as of now either. czar ⨹ 08:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor question regarding Giant Bomb. Are you suggesting that the paricular citation is unreliable or the entire site in general? I ask because if it is the latter it goes against what the sourcing page linked to says. The site is listed as situational and is considered reliable or news coverage and reviews by staff members. If on the other hand you were calling it unreliable the article in question did not meet the situational threshold to be considered reliable please disregard.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is what Czar meant, but the Giant Bomb article doesn't actually mention these awards, it just seems to be being used to back up the statement about negative reception of another award ceremony. Sam Walton (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure either, but the general consensus on GB is that their articles written by staff members are usable, but their wikia-like stuff is not, per WP:SPS - any ol' random person could alter it at any time. I don't have a link, so I can't tell for sure which it is, but either way, even usuable sources don't seem to be covering it in significant detail. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

69.157 is right—I read it wrong. Alex Navarro writing for Giant Bomb should be okay. (GB is almost always a link to their wiki, which would be unreliable.) This said, a skim of the GB source doesn't mention the Vidya Gaems, so it wouldn't be used to prove notability anyway. Only sites I found were the ones Sam mentioned above and the brief gry-online stuff (not enough content to write an article). czar ⨹ 01:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any idea how much votes are cast?PizzaMan (♨♨) 10:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine votes cast towards the awards. In any case, it doesn't matter for our purposes since we need secondary source coverage czar ⨹ 03:59, 4 December 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. Michig (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Timoney

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

Non-notable actor. A series or minor films roles and regional, off- and off-off Broadway roles. Nothing significiant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 22 November 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 21:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable bit player. Does not meet WP:N, WP:GNG, or WP:NACTOR. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find sources to meet the GNG, and from the film and TV roles listed he doesn't seem to meet NACTOR either. Some of the stage roles listed are for major characters, but the article doesn't specify which productions of those plays. I found one NYT review and one blog review of his performance in a play called "Three Movements", but the blog described it as "off-off-Broadway", and Timoney isn't listed in the internet broadway database, so I think it's safe to delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Clearly does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:BLP. Sources are scant to none.--Canyouhearmenow 13:29, 5 December 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. Secret ^account 22:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Host: Jon Hamm (2008 episode)

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

The article was created a while ago to gauge interest in creating individual SNL articles, but no articles have been created since. It's also overly detailed and would take lots and lots of effort to create 750+ articles of the same level of detail. Also not enough sources. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Flawed as a concept, as there will not be sufficient references to support individual shows, and WP is not the right place for a blow-by-blow account of an SNL episode. (Very odd that the title doesn't include SNL - on first glance it isn't clear what the article is about.) LaMona (talk) 02:37, 24 November 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 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Saturday Night Live (season 34). I guess you could make a case for notability based on sources like [12] and [13], but it doesn't make sense to have only one episode article, and the details of each episode are covered pretty well in the individual season articles in any case. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:05, 5 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pornmaki

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

Devoid of reliable sources, as none likely exist. Prod removed. —Swpb^talk 13:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 13:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NWEB without non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. References in the article come from traffic ranking sites. RS coverage not found in search. Just another porn site. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 28 November 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 21:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NWEB. I couldn't find any sources discussing this site, aside from the rankings listed in the article which are not significant coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:52, 5 December 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 Bhimavaram. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sasi Merit School

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

as per WP:Notable and WP:Verify. The user was notified already on 8 February 2010. Vin09 (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article does not specify but this appears to be a primary school from what I can find in a search.[14] • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bhimavaram per standard procedure for non notable primary schools as dcumented in OUTCOMES. AfD nominators please familiarise yourselves with WP:DELETION. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 22 November 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 21:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bhimavaram per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the locality article Bhimavaram per the normal procedure for non-notable primary schools. The unsourced claim of a record for the largest Indian flag might be notable, but I can find no coverage of this in independent reliable sources in English (I can't read any of the Indian languages). Meters (talk) 20:14, 29 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. Secret ^account 22:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

André Hunger

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

Don't believe he meets WP:GNG. This promotional article has no references Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete someone has added references, but a large number of them are the same press release picked by sites in different languages and they all are cited on the same sentence. Much of the article is still un-cited. The article definitely needs editing; I have a hard time quite understanding the point of some of the statements. If there were viable citations, it might be possible to at least make the language in the article more readable. LaMona (talk) 22:32, 24 November 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 21:32, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JP (musician)

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

Subject has 1 ref as a songwriter that is not connected to him and nothing else. Claims made only supported by his website or not at all. EBY (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Songwriting credits can easily be supported by liner notes. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. ANd this is just his collaborations with Misia and not his solo effort which charted (Billboard too).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the sourcing in the current version of the article is weak, but this could be improved. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 21 November 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 21:26, 28 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. Secret ^account 22:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Schefren

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

SPA article on a 'business therapist' and hypnotist. Can't verify any of the sources cited exist or if they do exist, that they support claims. The USA Today article (which appears to be a mirror site) only mentions him as someone who applied, but was not accepted, the the reality show 'The Apprentice'. EBY (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add that this article was speedily deleted by NawlinWiki on 3 July 2014.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only two of the references have links and one of them is his own website. I added links to refs 2-5 from a ProQuest database search — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horndog96 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My problem with those is that the subscription is needed. I know that use of ProQuest subscription-only links is a debate going on elsewhere, so I will just say that without seeing these articles, my opinion is still that this article doesn't meet guidelines. EBY (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with using paywalled sources. Temporarily uploaded the four srcs here for you to review czar ♔ 22:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not meet notability criteria--Mevagiss (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Pancake

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

Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Pichpich (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is a recipe. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Keep Paul 012, Andrew Davidson, I did some cleanup and removed the recipe part. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Removing the Ingredients and Method to cook sections would solve the WP:NOTRECIPE issue. Why is deletion needed?--Paul_012 (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge There's currently no entry for Thailand in Pancake#Asia and so merger into that section would be a sensible alternative to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned on the talk page, most references to "Thai pancake" aren't about this (relatively rare) dish at all, so a merge wouldn't be appropriate. In any case, this article should be renamed and Thai pancake converted to a disambiguation page. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, probably to Kuih cucur. Article has been cleaned up somewhat. This dish seems to be more Malay than (Southern) Thai, so the Malay name would seem the most appropriate. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Paul 012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 05:26, 6 December 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. czar ⨹ 04:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Houghton

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

Barely meets WP:MUSICBIO Karlhard (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, article was substandard, but hopefully improved as per WP:HEYMANN, with references added which meet the WP:GNG tests of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. My guess is she's being promoted by pros, with high-production-value video, publicity photos, aiming at the country-pop crossover market; she's bubbly-cute, says the right things, paste-it-on-billboards pop cruft for a not-very-discerning market. As of November 6 2014, her video "High" has 1,400,000+ views, further sign that marketing clicking with market.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:46, 6 November 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, 13 November 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) 04:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as of October 2014, she was still "up and coming". Has she arrived yet? Bearian (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but a requirement that bio articles on artists must somehow pass beyond an up and coming threshold is not official policy; what matters is she meets the WP:GNG with multiple, independent, reliable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a new, young artist who is clearly making a name for herself. While she might be new to pop music, she has received quite a lot of media coverage and has been a part of a national tour. Not to mention her single is currently on satellite radio. The edited article now meets WP:GNG tests of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject CopyrightCollin (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC) CopyrightCollin — CopyrightCollin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ Tiffany is slowly becoming an established artist, as she has released several songs available worldwide on digital platforms, one currently on satellite radio as well as high budget music videos garnering well over a million views. The edited article meets WP:GNG tests of significant coverage via reliable sources through notable press and news platforms searchable online Chaotichristian (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Chaotichristian — Chaotichristian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Struck your bolded !vote above. Comments are unlimited, but you can only !vote once in an AfD czar ⨹ 04:26, 4 December 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, Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toms major improvements. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of the analysis and improvements by Tomwsulcer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A nice save by Tomwsulcer of a create-and-ignore. Meters (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY due to good work by Tomwsulcer Bearian (talk) 01:18, 2 December 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 Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the conversation at User_talk:RoySmith#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FBook_rebinding.E2.80.8E, I have been persuaded that No Consensus would be a better summary of the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book rebinding

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

Completing nomination for an IP; this was redlinked in the AfD logs. Obviously I don't know what their rationale would've been, but I can certainly provide one of my own. This seems to have been hanging around unsourced for over 3 years, and in my searches I could find nothing that would put the subject over the bar of notability set out at WP:GNG Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's nothing there (in the article or in the world), and it is a useless search term as well. Delete. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It sounds to me like a reinforcement kind of bookbinding, which IMO might suit Bookbinding#Conservation and restoration. My Google search just straigh-up equalizes "rebinding" with "repair". However some bookbinders does use the word "rebinding" [21] [22] (not RS, just show existence of use). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve ~~or redirect to Bookbinding~~. There are more than a hundred results for "book rebinding" in GBooks alone, quite a few of which appear relevant. It is at least an obvious redirect and is not, therefore, eligible for deletion. It seems to satisfy GNG, ~~though SPINOFF may be more important where there is an obvious target for merger. There isn't much in the article at the moment.~~ James500 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am now convinced this clearly should be kept due to the sources identified by Andrew. James500 (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've attended editathons at the British Library's conservation centre where they have interesting exhibits about such work. There's plenty of other documentation for this out there including:

Preservation and Conservation for Libraries and Archives
Bookbinding & Conservation by Hand
The Changing Role of Book Repair in ARL Libraries
Book Repair and Restoration
Basic Bookbinding

Andrew D. (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Rebinding isn't limited to "Conservation and repair". There are companies that will rebind modern books for vanity reasons. I know some gamers who will rebind rulebooks into larger tombs with custom leather covers. The only question then is notability and the article has no sources. Suggest tagging the article for sources (or finding some) and revisit AfD if needed later. -- GreenC 15:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:32, 25 November 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, Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to bookbinding. Judging from the titles listed by Andrew Davidson (which otherwise remain mysterious due to the absence of even the most basic bibliographic details), this could be mentioned there, if at all necessary. James500 claims to have found sources, but doesn't list any nor ~~are any given in~~ has he added any to the article. As it stands, does not meet WP:GNG and is an unlikely search term, so I would be fine with "delete", too. --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious? Do you really need more than the title in such cases? Anyway, a full citation of a scholarly work was provided when I expanded the article, as that's a more appropriate place for such detail. You don't seem to have read this version as you seem to be saying that there no sources in the article, which is incorrect. Perhaps you need to clear your cache or something. Andrew D. (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. What are these? Books? Book chapters? articles in magazines or academic journals? When/where published? If you have enough info to get the title, why not add more info so that people can actually have a look at these sources themselves, instead of forcing them to copy your work and waste valuable time? There's only a single source in the article. After a number of clicks and then searching in the book for "rebinding", I find 6 mentions, none of them substantial (such as describing what it is or why people would do it). It certainly never gets beyond a dictionary definition, nor does it look like something different enough from bookbinding to warrant a stand-alone article. I have clarified my above remark to remove the impression that I am saying there are no sources in the article: I was referring to the sources that James500 has found, but doesn't list. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read many pages of that source and found its descriptions of why and how collectors rebound their acquisitions to be quite detailed and interesting. Here are five more sources. I shall continue to provide just titles as they alone seem ample evidence of notability:

Limp vellum binding and its potential as a conservation type structure for the rebinding of early printed books. A break with 19th and 20th century rebinding attitudes and practices.
Rebinding Islamic Manuscripts: a new direction
Rebinding the Klencke Atlas
The restoration rebinding of Speculum Naturale by Vincent of Beauvais, and the subsequent development of several options for conservation rebinding structures based on details found during the restoration
Conservation Standard Rebinding of Single Books: a review of current practice at the Newberry Library

Andrew D. (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NRVE requires the existence of sources, not their citation. There is a link at the top of this page to GBooks. It produces more than a hundred results. Anyone who feels those sources are unsatisfactory should be capable of explaining why without needing me or anyone else to provide a list of them. James500 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with User:Andrew Davidson that there is no reason whatsoever to ask, at AfD, for further bibliographic details of a book that comes up immediately in GBooks on a search of its title such as this. NRVE does not require that the title, let alone such details, be provided at AfD, as long as the book verifiably exists. James500 (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NRVE is intended for articles. Here, we are at AfD and you are trying to convince the participants at the debate thatthe subject being discussed here is notable by providing evidence. Ghits (even GBookshits) do not establish notability. Listing some titles without indicating what they are and how they establish notability is not a particularly strong way of presenting evidence, either. Unless you provide clear evidence, all you are doing is hand waving and you should not be surprised if people then ignore your comments. The "evidence" produced by you and Andrew boil down to "it's notable, just search and you'll find sources". Sorry, not good enough. --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is manifest nonsense from start to finish. NRVE is very clear "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation" (my emphasis). And of course Andrew has cited numerous sources. Since you expressly refuse to even look at the sources that Andrew has clearly identified to you, and since you expressly refuse to make even a token effort to look for sources with a search engine (just looking at the article is not good enough), I expect that your !vote will be accorded exactly zero weight by the closing admin. And rightly so. James500 (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James, it's just like your refusal to bolden your "keep" !votes. That doesn't invalidate them, but it does make it harder to spot them. (And, yes, I know that admins are supposed to read the complete discussion before closing, but why make things harder for your fellow editors?) In any case, Andrew has, like you, contributed zero sources to this discussion, just given some titles (books? articles? reliable?) that may stand for anything from an in-passing mention to an in-depth discussion (unlikely, since "re-binding" is just the same as "binding again"). GHits don't count for notability, you know that as well as I do, so back up your claims or be ignored. --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite capable of putting the titles that Andrew has given you into Google's search engine. A search for Rebinding the Klencke Atlas in GBooks immediately produces, as the very first result, an article in the British Museum Quarterly. It is obvious what that expression refers to. Neither you, nor anyone else, needs to be told what it is, because it is obvious, and it would be obvious even to a very small child. Anyone who claims that they need assistance to determine what that title refers to cannot possibly be telling the truth. Anyone who demands further bibliographical details is simply being obstructive because that person must realise that such details are not needed to identify the source. And it is the same for the other nine books and articles contributed to this discussion by Andrew. There is no reason why I, Andrew or anyone else should provide you with any further information about those nine books and articles which you are quite capable of finding all by yourself, easily and in no time at all, but obviously, for some reason, just don't want to. James500 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Klencke Atlas was a particular challenge because of its great size and weight. Note that the search links above include JSTOR and that provides a preview of the article. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, as the petulant very small child that I am, and despite my difficulties with telling the truth, I don't see any reason to change my delete !vote. The reason for this is that I have not seen any evidence anywhere that "book rebinding" is not just the same as (repeated) bookbinding. --Randykitty (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Provided that the topic of this article is different from Bookbinding#Conservation and restoration. I think it can be. The approach in Bookbinding is the modern one, where old books are preserved or restored to their original state. This article could be about how books are transformed by rebinding. The Jensen Reshaping source was very good on that – how old books were rebound into something that would look good on the bookshelf of an 18th-century gentleman. I found another source (Bound to Read: Compilations, Collections, and the Making of Renaissance Literature.) that will appeal to English majors, about how the material organization of printed materials defines the way we think about them, so that rebinding changes how we view the texts. Anyway, I think the Bookbinding article is long enough already. If we want to explore these other ideas this article would be a good place to do it. Or just go into more detail about rebinding. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources and is distinct from Bookbinding#Conservation and restoration enough to at minimum have a separate section in the article on bookbinding. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:15, 6 December 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. Michig (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Atebe

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown (pop. 36K) mayor, who does not pass WP:NPOL on that basis and does not cite nearly enough reliable sourcing to get over WP:GNG instead — one of the two sources literally only reveals that he's a former roommate of Stephen Harper, but "former roommate of a Prime Minister" isn't a valid notability claim under any of our inclusion rules either. He might potentially qualify for a much better written and better sourced article than this, but as written and sourced it's not enough to get him over the bar. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft oppose I'm from that "small town" which is a major centre in the Lower Mainland (36k is very large in British Columbia though within the Lower Mainland Mission is relatively small); because it's just outside the GVRD its town politics don't figure in the big-city newspapers so much; would being the first (I think) black mayor in British Columbia partly suffice for notability. I agree the incidental-ness of being SH's roommate isn't noteworthy (other than in passing, so was Ralph Nenshi) by itself, but had you tried looking at regional papers (e.g. the Mission Record which was in my time the Fraser Valley Record and the Abbotsford papers) or are "smalltown papers" excluded as sources? Atebe was an important figure in Mission during his tenure...and I have to confess not-quite-COI as I've met him personally, he asked to speak at my mother's funeral in 2011 due to her long service to the community in a host of capacities. I'll look over NPOL, but it sounds like as with shopping malls that quantitative barriers based on urban biases has seen the bar set high (and the "logic" behind that bias saw PRIMARYTOPIC RMs for Atlin, Bella Coola and Bella Bella pushed aside because of their tiny populations (despite their being the principle centres in their regions). I'll see what I can find about Atebe; I'm rather surprised to see this AfD and think it's a bit premature....had you made any effort to look for more on his role as Mayor of Mission?Skookum1 (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I just had a cursory look around.... I admit that if someone has led a scandal-free government there won't be any "news" items on him....the "first black mayor" thing of course can just be in Mission, British Columbia#Politics or "firsts". A reeve of the former per-amalgamation District was the longest-serving (and I think) female reeve in BC, Ethel Ogle. I've known a few mayors of Mission, and I suppose none of them would pass WP:N on the city-size basis alone though; one of them was a failed MLA/MP nominee for the Tories but that's also not notable since he didn't win (John Agnew).Skookum1 (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community weeklies don't count for much in the reliable sourcing department, no. It's not that they're less trustworthy in principle, but they're not distributed widely enough to count as evidence that a person belongs in an encyclopedia with an international audience. The Mission City Record would be perfectly acceptable for additional confirmation of facts after you added enough sourcing of the Vancouver Sun/Province/Times-Colonist vintage to actually cover off his basic notability, but since its coverage focus is exclusively localized it cannot contribute to the process of making him notable enough for inclusion. And the article, as written, is not claiming that he was the first-ever black mayor in British Columbia, either — if you can properly source that fact as being true, I'd be happy to withdraw this, but just asserting it without a source doesn't make him keepable.

And all mayors are always important figures in their own municipalities — just go ahead and try to find me one mayor anywhere on the planet about whom you couldn't say that "they were an important figure in [the town they were mayor of] during their tenure". So just asserting that he was locally important doesn't count for much either — if the city isn't large enough to put its mayors on the "automatically notable" list, then the mayor's notability depends on piling on enough sourcing to get them over WP:GNG as an individual.

At any rate, I did do more than enough WP:BEFORE to know that there's not a particularly great volume of appropriate sourcing out there about him in the databases that are available to me — if you have access to source repositories that I don't have which cover him better, then by all means feel free to WP:HEY it up. But the article's got to be made better than this before he can become keepable. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a quick glance at who's in Category:Mayors of places in British Columbia and while I recognize some names as being notable in other regards, e.g. Randy Hawes or Frank Oberle, Sr. and Bill Hartley) as MLAs/MPs there's even some that are mayors-elect....again, I'll see what I can find out about, I'm nowhere near Mission right now as you know....Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a spin through the category earlier this evening myself. I left people alone if they were also MLAs or MPs, or if they were mayors of large enough cities to pass NPOL just for being mayors — but trust me that I didn't put Atebe up in isolation. In fact, I've initiated a good half dozen other AFDs out of the same category in the last two hours — and all of the new mayors-elect were already nominated for deletion by somebody else earlier (though some of them might survive with suitable improvement, others almost certainly won't). Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep James Atebe was an elected mayor of a Canadian municipality for 6 years. He passes WP:POLITICIAN. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree, I don't see anything in WP:POLITICIAN that spells that out, though in the AFD results summary linked there I see "Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD," and I submit that Mission IS of regional prominence, both within the Lower Mainland and also provincially; the 32,000 figure cited by Bearcat seems arbitrary, Mission is the 6th largest district municipality in British Columbia and was the long-time commercial centre of the Fraser Valley (other than New West) until the opening of the freeway through Abbotsford and still is not un-prominent. Maybe from an Eastern Canadian perspective 36k is small but that's not the case in BC; Mission is quite large, and also historically notable. I've written the Mission Record about the first-black-mayor thing; I recall there having been coverage in teh Vancouver Sun when he was elected, but that doesn't show up in googlenews or google at all - pointing to the problems of using googlesearch citations to prove anything around here; if teh media don't digitize their content it has the effect of "disappearing" it to google-obsessed eyes. Pretty sure he was the first African (born in Africa) to be elected to high office in BC...unless there were white South African-born MLAs in the past.Skookum1 (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is that any municipality at all, even a town of just 50 people, could claim "regional prominence" if you define the "region" narrowly enough — in reality, for Canada the lowest level of "region" that's deemed to satisfy the criterion is "province/territory-wide". Even though it's not explicitly spelled out in WP:NPOL itself, the test that's normally applied at AFD — and this is a longstanding consensus, not some number I made up myself — is that in nearly all cases a municipality's population has to be in the 50K-100K range before its mayoralty becomes a legitimate claim of notability in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Leoboudv, WP:NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on all mayors just for being mayors. A municipality normally has to have a population of at least 50,000 before its mayors can be considered notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia — below that, you have to make a strong and convincing case that the mayor or the municipality are special cases in some substantive way (for example, mayors of Charlottetown would qualify, because it's the capital of its entire province and thus has regional prominence extremely disproportionate to its population.) A mayor of a place the size of Mission could potentially still qualify for an article if you could powersource that article over WP:GNG — but it isn't large enough to render its mayors automatically keepable just for being mayors. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using google to argue for deleting an article of a local politician of Mission which is the 23rd largest municipality in BC does not pass logic in my view when he was elected as mayor both in 2005 and 2008 for two 3 year terms. Google would not archive each and every article on him and besides unless you are from Metro Vancouver, you may not even know that he was an elected black mayor in Metro Vancouver which is very rare for Canada. Isn't that wikipedia is for? I'm from Surrey, BC--the second largest municipality in Metro Vancouver--and have never been to Maple Ridge or Mission and yet I know James Atebe from the local news coverage. If he was just a local councillor at Mission then he clearly doesn't merit a Wikipedia article but he was a mayor there and he was elected two times by the people of Mission and the size of the municipality of Mission should not dictate whether wikipedia keeps this person's webpage. The question is whether was he prominent during his time and I would say yes--because he was one of the few black elected (and re-elected) mayors of BC, Canada. That is all I can say. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody who was ever a mayor of any place at all was elected by somebody, and everybody who was ever a mayor of any place at all was locally prominent during their mayoralty. Both of those things are built right into the definition of what being a mayor is. But those facts do not, in and of themselves, make a mayor automatically notable enough for inclusion in an international encyclopedia just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia has an urban bias, as noted in my comments above about shopping centres and places in BC which weren't deemed "notable enough to be PRIMARYTOPIC" by haughty know-nothing admins abroad.....Mission is notable on the regional scale (the Lower Mainland) but it's hard to explain that to someone who lives in Toronto. I dispute the national/provincial limitation as valid given the sheer physical size of the provinces and the relevance of regions within provinces as "notablity zones" in their own right. But Wikipedia is dominated by urbanites.....who count things in number/quantity, not meaning/quality.Skookum1 (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an international audience. What we need to demonstrate is not "local notability" — if that were the standard, then we would have to keep every article about every person who was ever the mayor of any place at all. Every mayor of every town on earth was locally notable during his or her time as mayor — Atebe's "local notability" is not unique to him, but is a condition that all mayors of all places would always pass without exception. But that's not the standard that governs whether a mayor gets into Wikipedia or not — what gets a mayor into Wikipedia is evidence that they can make a reasonable claim to being a topic of broader interest beyond the purely local. Which means either the city passes Wikipedia's standards for determining what counts as "regional prominence" — which are not up for debate here — or the individual is sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG — which this isn't.

And as I've pointed out before, BC does not get to make up its own special set of BC-specific standards which are different from the standards that apply anywhere else. Wikipedia is optimized for an international readership, not a BC-specific one, so the standards that apply to BC-specific topics (including determining "primary topic" in a naming debate, determining how large a city has to be to pass the "regional prominence" criterion for the notability of a mayor, and on and so forth) place the needs of that international readership over local preferences. BC doesn't get to pick its own BC-specific minimum population figure for passing NPOL; it has to follow the same population figure that applies to Alberta and Manitoba and Ontario and Newfoundland and California and Nebraska and Maine and France and South Africa and Uruguay and Indonesia. And for that same reason, the fact that I happen to be based in Toronto has no bearing on this discussion — my understanding of British Columbia is not nearly as poor as you keep asserting that it is. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 online sources from the Abbotsford Times and the Vancouver Sun. If Mission was a small unimportant place, why would the Vancouver Sun mention Atebe's loss in 2011? --Leoboudv (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because Mission is inside the Vancouver Sun's normal coverage area, which means they're obligated to cover the results of its municipal election regardless of who is or isn't running in it. That isn't substantive coverage of Atebe because he's Atebe; it's WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election results, which would still have existed regardless of who the defeated mayor was or wasn't. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bearcat, Mission and other valley towns are not in the Sun's "normal coverage area" and tends to get overlooked by the city papers; Abbotsford gets fairly regular coverage but not as much as communities in "Metro" (god I hate that term) get. Municipal election coverage is when Mission does get some coverage, but even when something is newsworthy it's not reported on by the big city papers unless it's a murder, car crash, or a profile of an individual or organization. Regional myopia/bias is a local journalistic curse; and it operates within the city of Vancouver itself, also. and within the GVRD communities...news from New West barely gets noticed, for example, likewise Port Coquitlam and Maple Ridge, while West and North Van generally do, Burnaby not quite so much, Richmond very much...Maple Ridge similarly to Mission is not in the "normal coverage area" of the Sun though now part of "Metro". Big difference between a paper's circulation/target market and its "normal coverage area". The Sun is infamous for being Vancouver-centric and "West Side-centric" (except for its often-deep coverage of the Downtown Eastside).Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet every round of BC municipal elections, without exception, always results in the Sun printing at least one "who got elected in Mission and Abbotsford" article. The claim I was responding to was that they singled Atebe out for special coverage because he was Atebe, which is clearly not the case — the same article would still have been written whether Atebe had won, lost or not been a candidate at all. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was pretty much my own point; that the Sun virtually only covers Mission re municipal outcome elections or when it's a "hinge" in the vote count in the two federal ridings now splitting it....they didn't even cover the Norrish Creek water controversy with Abbotsford which saw the latter withdraw from the FVRD, and though there's one item out there somewhere in their pages about the controversial Silverhill development (which Atebe supported, can't speak for the new mayor but he may be opposed to it), similar controversies within the Sun's "regular coverage area" e.g Coquitlam or Surrey would receive decent coverage. It's worth noting that in none of the items yet found it speaks to Canadian multiculturalism that not one of the reporters mentioned him being black, or first black mayor, or first African mayor or anything like that, rather they make a point of not mentioning it.Skookum1 (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet GNG now. PS: Mission isn't a small town. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a big enough city to grant its mayors a free WP:NPOL pass, either — unless it's a provincial, territorial or national capital, a city cannot grant its mayors notability under NPOL until its population is at least 50K (and even then, a mayor isn't necessarily guaranteed inclusion, but can still fall off the cliff if the sourcing is weak, until the city's a lot closer to 100K.) And five references doesn't satisfy GNG, either — that guideline isn't passed until the number of distinct sources is well into the double digits. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those two sources help establish his WP:GNG as does this source When Atebe is given the same award as Adrienne Clarkson or Deepa Mehta, he certainly meets GNG. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- that certainly adds to his GNG but only one award or distinguishment so far, there may be a couple more out there yet though. No replies yet from the Mission Community Archives or Mission Record but will report here once I have any that may come.Skookum1 (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited by simply happening to have been presented the same award as somebody else — that same award has also been presented to other people who don't have Wikipedia articles and aren't going to be eligible for them just because of that award itself, if they don't have other substantive claims of notability besides that. It certainly contributes to building his case for inclusion, I won't argue with that, but it doesn't slamdunk him all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article about the subject in the Kenyan Daily Nation would be "international press coverage." The wiki page for the Daily Nation states that the paper is the "most influential daily in Kenya" with a circulation of over 170,000. A keep is a common outcome for politicians who receive international press coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Information presented in this article is verifiable and the multiple sources listed above meet GNG. Altamel (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have received a reply from the Senior Archivist at the Mission Community Archives, they will see what they have and get back to me next week.Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saw his name and instantly know who he was (and I don't live in Mission) a very recognizable and sometimes controversial mayor of the second largest city in the Fraser Valley region. Legacypac (talk) 05:32, 29 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 nomination withdrawn. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Mummy, I'm a Zombie

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

unsourced, overly detailed promotion for a recently released movie. Doubt about notability. The Banner talk 15:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional, and doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Keep, thanks to whoever improved it so much! Looking much better and apparently does pass notability guidelines. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: What a mess. Work has begun with bringing this into line, and more is to be done. As this has been releasing all over Spain, I'll be looking beyond English sourcing and explore those in Catalan, Basque, and Spanish. Any help would be appreciated. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I'm pretty disappointed that the article is also so incredibly English centric, given that there is little to no coverage in English and the majority of the coverage has been in other languages. I can't find the cast listing for the other languages, but it's go to be out there. I also want to note that the article for the first film also put undue weight on the English language release as well, but I've since fixed this. Oh- and also, it looks like coverage for this is primarily under the title "Dixie y la rebelión zombi". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF, even with most of the coverage being non-English for this Spanish film. Original nominated version was terrible, but addressable issues are rarely a reason for deletion. With the assistance of Tokyogirl79 it's looking much better. What say, Nominator? AmaryllisGardener? Better? Issues addressed? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The original version really was terrible and initially I did have some issues finding sources, but some digging found some usable sources to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- It is hard to believe that this is the same article that I nominated last night. To say that it changed dramatically is an understatement. Request speedy close as Nomination withdrawn. As nominator The Banner talk 10:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC) And many thanks to Tokyogirl79 and MichaelQSchmidt[reply]

Keep. It still needs tiding up, but I see it's looking better, and it's salvageable. And also WP:NF. — Abderrahman (talk) 12:16, 29 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. Secret ^account 22:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 U.S. and allies versus Islamic State hostilities and conflicts

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

1. duplicates existing articles 2. non-consensus use of "Islamic State" 3. Article concept previously rejected in a RfC 4. Title is awful - no one calls the conflict this/ See this RfC and the move moriturum at ISIL Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is utterly depressing! Yes delete! This just looks like a bit of manipulative propaganda and I have difficulty in assuming good faith here. The Syrian conflict is a religious conflict in which, for the most part, involves the intolerable persecution and killing of one religious/ethnic group by another religious/ethnic group. There are already articles related to coalition, international interventions in Iraq and Syria which have been unnecessarily entitled American-led. Now there is this. The author clearly has no regard for consensus as related to the naming of the subject as clearly indicated at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Moratorium on Requested Moves. Something should be done about the creator/s of this article. This is a topic that I had only just raised at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Propaganda and perspective. Please consider views expressed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, boy. The title is absolutely horrendous, and I'd like to see anyone other than the article creator defend it. Content in the article reads very much like a soapbox piece, or at the very least, is utterly unencyclopedic; "Islamic State is possibly at discord with the United States and their allies since the 2003 Iraq War, when I.S. (named as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn) fought a U.S. coalition (see also section 4, Message of I.S. to the American people); the United States possibly have a spite against Al-Qaeda type organisations like I.S. whom they’ve fought against in 2001 Afghanistan, in 2003 in Iraq, and in 2011 in Pakistan." - are you being serious? Everything in the article is a duplication of other articles, and whilst that isn't necessarily a bad thing on its own, when you combine it with everything else, it's another nail in the coffin. About the only thing this article has going for it is the large amount of reliable sources in there; but that doesn't redeem what is, to be blunt, a clusterfuck. The author didn't bother to put it in any categories, either, and they created it 15 days ago. And if there's an RfC that decided against this, then there really is no course but to Delete and TNT it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the RfC comment because I distinctly remember an RFC proposing an article that covered the US-led intervention in Iraq and Syria together (each has its own article for good reason now) but I think it's been archived recently and I can't recall which of the various related articles it was in. We already have an overarching (and somewhat useless-maybe worth deleting) 2014 military intervention against ISIL. If anyone cares I'll spend more time looking for the RfC but this attempt fails on its own merits, regardless of any previous RfC.

I just deleted new paragraphs linking to this page like "In 2014, the United Kingdom got directly involved in a new escalation of violent exchanges between war opponents of 2003: U.S. and allies versus Islamic State." inserted in History of the United Kingdom, History of Belgium and History of the Netherlands (1900–present) Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicates existing articles Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This is nothing more than a wall of text surrounding a content fork. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 2 December 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. Secret ^account 22:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meerim Erkinbaeva

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

Despite what the infobox and succession box claim, she was not Miss Kyrgyzstan, but the 1st runner up. She is also not listed at the Miss Universe contestants list. At the moment, she doesn't appear to be notable. Fram (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. First runners up don't generally get articles, especially from smaller countries, unless they have other accomplishments or titles. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only a runner-up. National title-holder or nothing. Mabalu (talk) 01:23, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Jonas (album)

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

Per NMG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

–Chase (talk / contribs) 01:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three, with redirects to the kid's article. Not notable. If that changes in the future, we can easily recreate. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the song articles, but the album has been reviewed by Allmusic, that makes it more than a frivolous promo thing, even if it didn't chart. Hekerui (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: I've closed the songs as delete, but there's room for a bit more discussion on the album. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could only find brief passing mentions of the album; nothing like the sort of in-depth coverage required to meet the standards at WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Nicholas Jonas is already a redirect to the artiste, so not much value in having Nicholas Jonas (album) do the same, may as well just get rid. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The artist (now known as Nick Jonas) is clearly notable, and Google News/Books searches show coverage of the initial release by sources like AllMusic. As WP:OSE declare, "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items"; such selective deletion undermines "the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference." This would become the only entry in Jonas' discography without an independent article, and as his debut album the gap would be conspicuous. MaranoFan (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while this first solo effort appears to have been a dud, the artist is now one of the top singers in the world. Our readers will likely look for this article. Should we perhaps stubbify or find a good merger target? Bearian (talk) 17:52, 21 November 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, Michig (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly redirect until someone wants to write the article). So far as I can tell the only argument for keeping it is that it's by Nick Jonas - in other words people are claiming wp:INHERITED. Which is not only on the list of arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion, it's explicitly called out in wp:NALBUM. Notability hasn't clearly been established so this is indicative of a delete vote. On the other hand there is the allmusic review. And I'm going to suggest it is highly unlikely there won't be a page on it in one of his biographies (although have no intention of actually reading one of them). Neonchameleon (talk) 11:57, 28 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. Secret ^account 22:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finerribbon

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

No independent sources cited, nor could I find any coverage of this company beyond press releases and coupon and shopping websites. Fails WP:CORP due to a lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. Everymorning talk to me 03:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:09, 21 November 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, Michig (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by a wp:SPA account seven years ago and barely changed since. FinerRibbon was speedy deleted under wp:G11 as promotional and I see no reason Finerribbon is other than a candidate for speedy deletion as advertising. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, everything in "What links here" is related to proposals to delete it. It seems to get 3 or 4 views a day, but readers are probably disappointed. They are better off going to the company's own website. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:54, 28 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idhasoft

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

Subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, therefore not meeting the standard of inclusion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 22 November 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, Michig (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wp:G11 as well as failing wp:N. Indeed the initial draft was nominated under G11 as one of the worst promotional pieces I've seen on Wikipedia, with the tag being removed (along with most of the article) by an IP user possibly under wp:NUKEANDPAVE. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'd like to know more about this company and Indian IT in general. They have an impressive website. If they can do everything they claimed in the first version that is impressive. But there seems to be very little evidence on the net. Employer review forums have former part-time employees complaining about low salaries and project management. The dead link says "The content you are looking for has been removed on legal advise." If the current content is all that's left, I don't see much value in keeping it. Better to go back to a red link in the one article that links to it. So, fail per WP:NCORP. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:10, 29 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. Secret ^account 22:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis Jay Masters

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

As a criminal, fails WP:PERP; as an author, fails WP:AUTHOR; and the crime fails WP:EVENT. I've tried to make this one work for a few years now (contesting a speedy deletion in 2011), but the only reliable source I can find is the LA Times article. Location (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep its not much but the source proves notability. one source is better than none.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the LA Times article is a three sentence blurb stating that three San Quentin inmates had been charged in the death of a guard.[23] This would typically fail WP:EVENT. - Location (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close to meeting GNG or BIO in my opinion. The article provides several references, some under References, some under External Links; however, only two are from Independent Reliable Sources. The item from the LA Times is what we call a "news brief" - a bare-bones paragraph about the conviction of this guy and several other people. One item from the San Francisco Chronicle is actually about him, written skeptically by a regular Chronicle writer. That's it. The other item from the San Francisco Chronicle is a book review "special to the Chronicle", meaning not by a regular staff writer, and is basically a POV piece from someone who is convinced and states as fact that the subject is innocent. The rest of the references are not from Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above --Mevagiss (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no harm in keeping this. Opportunities to achieve notability while in prison are few, and having written two books is in itself an accomplishment. He can't exactly do book signings or go on talk shows, so it shouldn't be a surprise that there aren't many third-party resources about him. I find it listed in local public library catalogs (I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, so the book may be locally relevant). LaMona (talk) 03:39, 24 November 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, Michig (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If the best the keep proponents can manage is "There's ONE source anyway" and "I see no harm in keeping this," this is a slam dunk delete. Fails the GNG, that's all she wrote. The answer to a prison inmate not being able get SIGCOV isn't "Aw, he ought to get an article anyway." It's "He's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article." Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:59, 5 December 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. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Robert Smith

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

Non-notable individual Khendon (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He owns a small web design business and has been written up by a few local newspapers. This is run of the mill coverage that does not make him notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why the founder of yet another website developer service should be considered notable in lieu of sources. I agree with Cullen328 that the sources offered constitute little more than local human interest and local business coverage. Googling turned up nothing. I also checked both Highbeam and newspapers.com for coverage of either the subject or his company and found nothing. Msnicki (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Cullen. Nowhere near notable as a business person. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 28 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 Procedural close. These are all redirects, as far as I can tell; AfD is not the appropriate venue. Please take it to WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abellio Essex Thameside

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

This article is about a dormant legal entity (company) that was established to bid for a train operating company contract in the United Kingdom. It is one of many similar articles that were created when a shortlist for a tender was announced, but has never traded, and is not likely to. All of the relevant details are covered on the c2c and Essex Thameside articles. When the successful tenderer is announced, ii is usually under a different trading name with an article established under that name. D47817 (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same principal applies to these articles. All are dormant companies, and just redirects to the successful bidder or the previous franchise holder,

Note:This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. D47817 (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. D47817 (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:29, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stress Field Detector

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

Have tried to improve but not enough verifiable non-related party links to meet standards. Previous versions of page included references to homemade youtube videos as references. Assertions what technology can and cannot do need to be verified. NPOV problems discussed on talk page. Popayan (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the page set up here so apologies If I've messed something up or missed something off, –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as (a) original research, or (b) as being badly sourced: several links are dead. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a couple of the dead links, but they were about commercial applications. No information about how it works except that it is a "unique quantum method". The article itself says there is no published info. It's probably proprietary. Might find more if someone checked for patents, but that would be WP:OR. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:27, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denys Karlov

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

Unsourced BLP, repeatedly recreated after been deleted per WP:G3 and WP:A7. After been created this last time by a diferent user I tagged it as unsourced and gave a chance for references to be added to establish notability. As of today, the BLP remains unsourced. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm totally confused. What does a Ukrainian conductor have to do with an orchestra in Moscow? Is this guy now unemployed? Has he ever done anything notable? Bearian (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:11, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of Discounts on Consumers’ Behavior

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

WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH essay. LS1979 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as WP:NOTESSAY. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 05:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It does read like an essay. Much too wordy. However, it also has cites to reputable journals. The contributor is a new editor and maybe not familiar with policies like WP:SYNTH. If we delete it, I would suggest moving it to a subpage of the contributor's user page and suggest that he use this material to improve existing articles in Category:Consumer behaviour. For example, we have an existing article on Impulse buying. And there are articles on Buyer decision process and Buying decision process. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:07, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syncmag

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

Article about a magazine which just asserts the publication's existence and fails to actually make any claim of notability that would get it past WP:NMEDIA — and there's no evidence of passing WP:GNG here, either, as two of the four sources are primary ones and the other two are non-notable blogs reposting the same blurby press release (i.e. cursory, non-substantive coverage) about a personality who made it onto the cover. The magazine certainly might be a legitimate topic for a substantive and properly sourced article, but that's not what this article is. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has several references, but none of them are substantial, as pointed out by the nom. --Randykitty (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The relevant Wikipedia:WikiProject_Magazines#Notability criterion would be "5. are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets", but it doesn't establish that, and even if it did I don't know if one ethnic community in one area of Canada would be enough. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:45, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Castro's World

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

More paid promotions on Wikipedia. Almost a speedy delete candidate, but not quite. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - The 3 cites are utterly useless - No evidence of notability whatsoever. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see any way this would meet our inclusion criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly CSD A7: No evidence of attained notability (working with someone who once worked with someone else does not do it). The Prod rationale that was removed by an IP looks apt: "Non-notable artist and an attempt at promotion". Fails WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability beyond working with notable acts. Fails all criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable source coverage cited in the article or found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment. The article's author is indeed a paid advertiser which features Castro and his group on its website.[24] • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability; promotional. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:07, 28 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. Theer is no policy basis for the claim that "platying in the Pan-Am games" confers notability. Ans I agree with RoySmith that starting a brawl is very minor and at most worth a footnote in Baseball at the 1991 Pan American Games (and probably not even that). Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Andreopoulos

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

Consensus is that bullpen catchers must pass WP:GNG and, from what I could find, Andreopoulos doesn't. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable minor leaguer and MLB bullpen catcher. Fails the specific notability guideline for baseball players per WP:NBASEBALL (never played in MLB regular season game), and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He played in the Pan-American Games, which satisfies WP:BASE/N. [25] Alex (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any specific mention of the Pan–American Games in WP:BASE/N. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it need to be specifically mentioned? From WP:BASE/N: "participated in a major international competition (such as, the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team". From the Pan-American Games' very own article: "The Pan-American or Pan American Games ... constitute a major event." I urge the closing editor to use common sense, considering his passing the guideline is more than apparent. Alex (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both GNG and BASE/N. As far as I'm concerned, the only major baseball tournaments that should count under BASE/N are the Olympics and the World Baseball Classic (but not counting the qualifiers for either). - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Those above me have already said it better than I could, so I'll just leave this here. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playing in the Pan-American games makes him notable.--Yankees10 03:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was actually a lot of coverage of him in that particular Pan American Games due to his starting a huge fight that sent people to the hospital and the game to being suspended. In addition, there is this profile of him that I found. Spanneraol (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasoning. Playing in the Pan-American games makes him notable. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 04:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing editor There's no consensus that the Pan Am Games count as a "major international baseball tournament" for purposes of BASE/N, which is probably why the Pan Am Games aren't listed at BASE/N as an example of such. The Pan Am Games are usually played in mid-summer with low-level players from all of the participating countries except the U.S. (which traditionally sent a college all-star team) and Cuba. Further evidence of the low-level nature of the competition is that Cuba won gold at every Pan Am baseball event from 1967 to 2007, with the U.S. winning silver at six of those events. Common sense tells us that any baseball player who needs to rely on "played in the Pan Am Games" as an exemption from GNG isn't notable. Otherwise, the player's baseball career would have generated enough coverage to pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playing at the Pan Am games has been used as keep rationale on several previous afds. Spanneraol (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things are used, incorrectly, as a keep rationale in these baseball AfDs. This guy played in the Pan Am Games as a 19-yr-old 26th-round draft pick. Does that caliber of player really sound like a major international event? Not to me. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Pan-Am play alone would not suffice for me. However, his feature story on the article is what kept me from originally AfD'ing him, and that combined with the Pan-Am sources tell me that he slips by GNG. Wizardman 22:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One feature story is now enough to pass the "significant coverage" hurdle of GNG? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the trend of how these baseball AfDs have been going lately, unfortunately that looks like the case. But there's more than the one feature story in this guy's case, as shown above. Or maybe I'm just getting soft from fighting non-notable stuff for years. Wizardman 00:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per platying in the Pan-Am games and having significant coverage in multiple sources, thus meeting WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IAR. I was in the process of closing this, but just couldn't bring myself to hit the Keep button. There's obviously consensus here that 1) playing in the Pan-American Games is enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and 2) even if it's not, the coverage he got in national, general-audience, media is sufficient to push him over the top. I'm not saying I agree with those things, just that it does appear to be the consensus here. But, feh, he's a nobody player who never got out of the minors and who's only claim to fame is that he said something unsportsmanlike and started a brawl. This is not what encyclopedias are for. I could see the incident being mentioned as a footnote to Baseball at the 1991 Pan American Games, but that's about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the delete, but you don't need to IAR to get there. Three or four people claiming the Pan Am Games confers automatic notability hardly constitutes a consensus (as noted above, BASE/N says no such thing), and the media coverage of this subject is almost entirely of the BLP1E nature. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:02, 7 December 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, Aerospeed (Talk) 00:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -This argument could continue and wheel war itself to death. The bottom line is that you have a player who does not seem to meet the notability guidelines enough to make everyone agree. Therefore, I agree it needs to be deleted.Canyouhearmenow 12:58, 8 December 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. Anyone wanting to create a redirect to Tokelau#Sport can do so, but there is literally no content here that is useful. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Tokelau

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

There are no football clubs in Tokelau, as shown by this article: http://patmcguinness.blogspot.de/2012/11/footballs-twilight-zones-tokelau.html. It appears that this article was created as a hoax, and then someone realised the mistake and wrote a sentence detailing this. This topic is not WP:Notable. Orthogonal1 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there should really be a speedy category for item-less lists. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about making one? Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect - I wonder at times why people even bother with writing stuff like this .... Hoax or not it isn't beneficial to the project at all, The only purpose it serves is to waste my time !voting on it, That aside no evidence of notability –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~ - isn't this one of those automatic titles associated with {{Oceania topic}}? Who knows - no entries means this should be deleted though. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's find too. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I forgot to mention that List of association football clubs in Tokelau is a redirect to the page mentioned above, and should probably be deleted too. Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Surprised this wasn't deleted earlier. Most likely a hoax article, and useless since the August edit. --The one that forgot (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am extremely sorry. It seems that there might be some truth to this after all: http://www.rsssf.com/tablest/tokelau.html The two articles conflict. I'm not sure which we should trust. Orthogonal1 (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Orthogonal1: RSSSF is highly reliable and very well-respected, so we should trust that priamrily, especially over a blog! Giant Snowman 09:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, thanks. I wasn't sure about the reliability of a Usenet newsgroup, but it seems that they have reliable sources themselves. Orthogonal1 (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable, the brief list of clubs could and should be covered elsewhere. Giant Snowman 09:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Most lists for topics relating to Oceanic countries are not very long, due to the relative lack of people, for example the "Lists of newspapers in xxx" articles, and this does not seem to present a problem. In any case, if it could be covered elsewhere, it would probably best to do a merger, leaving a redirect instead of deleting the article outright. Orthogonal1 (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tokelau#Sport - even if a couple of clubs do exist (and this seems to be debatable), I don't think a standalone article is justified -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per ChrisTheDude. Now the article has been corrected there is obviously some level of football. Probably worth a sentence in that article but am not convinced there is any notability to any club from this country. Fenix down (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as Fenix down said, because the article's been corrected a bit, it shows that there is a bit of football in Tokelau. Because the subject of this article is related to Tokelau#Sport, I think that a redirect would be most suitable. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it isn't a hoax, then it's just a useless list. Don't redirect, because the "sport" section of Tokelau has no mention of these clubs, or football for that matter. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Redirect to Tokelau#Sport, now that the football clubs are mentioned in the section. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added mention of the clubs to the sport section. Orthogonal1 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete - Apparent hoax article that utterly fails notability, even if it isn't a hoax. No prejudice against a redirect being created, but delete the hoaxy rubbish first, please. I would trust RSSSF over a blog any time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument seems slightly confused - the current content of the article, which you refer to as "hoaxy rubbish", comes from RSSSF. Also, you can't have a "snow delete" when several of the !voters haven't !voted to delete............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a snow delete, because you could just delete it and create a fresh redirect. Also, I don't refer to the current content of the article as that - more the history of it being filled with hoaxy rubbish. I can see how that comment can be misunderstood, though; my wording was pretty poor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:35, 29 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.